tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1497114473107445033.post6968139283954212203..comments2023-09-24T11:34:20.383-07:00Comments on Kurt Guntheroth's Old Hands Blog: What I Hate About AgileKurt Guntherothhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17676474940081443428noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1497114473107445033.post-58346837890389337412014-08-26T03:33:52.611-07:002014-08-26T03:33:52.611-07:00There always some differences that get to cause an...There always some differences that get to cause and that should be thing according to me, When its about discussing <a href="http://www.innovativeagile.com/innovative-agile-home/agile-scrum-services/agile-scrum-consulting/" rel="nofollow">agile consulting</a> is more like the basic need which surely helps a big time. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1497114473107445033.post-87976390155833695882014-03-28T16:01:59.931-07:002014-03-28T16:01:59.931-07:00*Any* repetitive activity becomes a religion if ad...*Any* repetitive activity becomes a religion if adherents accept its truth on faith alone, expect obedience without understanding, if the heathen must be converted, and heretics cast out.<br /><br />Evangelism happens to people who believe they have actually witnessed a miracle (good outcome of the methodology), but cannot articulate a proof.<br /><br />People are lazy when they can be. Magical thinking about a good methodology is just one example. It's hard to do careful experiments and collect data, and easy to say, "Well everyone knows that..."Kurt Guntherothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07744389319659204320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1497114473107445033.post-70794542353583032082014-03-28T11:17:42.346-07:002014-03-28T11:17:42.346-07:00I think we mostly agree--except in my opinion, it ...I think we mostly agree--except in my opinion, it is not inevitable that a methodology will become a religion. That's why I brought up systems engineering (although in the hands of programmers it would likely end up, as you say, a religion).<br /><br />Another example of this problem is TDD. I have yet to find anything written about this which is not wildly evangelical: "We will now do it this way; we will not even consider any other way; it is the way, the truth and the light."<br /><br />I might be open to TDD in certain, perhaps limited, cases. However, would it be too much to ask for, say, five reasons why TDD is a good idea, how it helps, what it adds, what errors or other difficulties it avoids? And five reasons it is not a good fit, causes problems, makes the design worse, etc.? This is the kind of reasoned, cautious discussion I like to see rather than religion and activism.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1497114473107445033.post-7474186790444204812014-03-23T09:24:42.875-07:002014-03-23T09:24:42.875-07:00You can get a PhD in religion or philosophy too. N...You can get a PhD in religion or philosophy too. Nothing about a PhD makes a discipline into a science. <br /><br />I think programming *can* be pursued as a science. I don't meet all that many programmers doing so.<br /><br />When a person embraces a prescriptive methodology uncritically, accepting a single named idea like XP as the savior of their team or company, they won't accept any derviation or contemplate any change in practice. Anyone suggesting any other idea (code review instead of pair programming, scheduling, sprints spent on design, production of an architecture document) is, to such a person, a heretic who must be cast out. This is exactly the kind of magical thinking that you find in religion. It is the basis of my charge that methodology is religion.<br /><br />Even a successful method must be embraced by the members of a team. A team member who doesn't buy in creates disharmony that is desctructive to the team. The heretic must be cast out.Kurt Guntherothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07744389319659204320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1497114473107445033.post-66858511970040431542014-03-22T23:25:19.585-07:002014-03-22T23:25:19.585-07:00@Kurt: I hope you're kidding about "relig...@Kurt: I hope you're kidding about "religion" there. Systems engineering, bits and pieces of which made into Agile, is a real, engineering field: you can get a Ph.D in systems engineering.<br /><br />Of course, we're not real engineers, we're programmers; some programmers (and even managers) like to call themselves engineers, but that's laughable. Ask an electrical engineer, or a mechanical engineer about their "methodology," not how they get things done, but how they get to the point where they're doing anything important at all. Unlike programmers, they can't just drop out of college and start Microsoft or Facebook, or start writing code for Google.<br /><br />I think that programming has somehow just got stuck in its infancy--for decades now. And I agree that it's a good team--not a "methodology"--that does good work, to the extent that's possible with software.<br /><br />Anyway, I think the rest of the world will eventually catch on to what we programmers are foisting on them, and we'll end up having to behave more like real engineers: you know, 4-5 years of very intense academic study; then you get to be a junior engineer for a few years where everything you do is under the direct supervision of a senior engineer who doesn't want to take a chance on losing his license, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1497114473107445033.post-73516759974398519232014-03-04T14:36:31.195-08:002014-03-04T14:36:31.195-08:00All methodology is religion. You must believe or b...All methodology is religion. You must believe or be cast out. The difference is that a good methodology works actual miracles, that every participant can observe first-hand.Kurt Guntherothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17676474940081443428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1497114473107445033.post-20103030936841977312014-03-04T14:25:28.373-08:002014-03-04T14:25:28.373-08:00Agile has all the characteristics of a cult. The p...Agile has all the characteristics of a cult. The picture at http://agilemanifesto.org/ resembles old paintings of the founding of some new religion. Notice especially the "divine light" dominating the upper center of the picture.<br /><br />I worked on an Agile team just once. I didn't mind the stand ups (but who wants to be called a "pig"), but paired programming drives me nuts. When actually writing code (which is after all, the gist of what we do), I need to be by myself (most of the time; and a cube is fine). I try to get into "the flow" and I have been writing very good software for decades that way. It just doesn't work sitting shoulder to shoulder with somebody else--at least it doesn't work for me.<br /><br />The key to Agile in my opinion, is that it forces the mediocre programmers, the ones who would otherwise be sitting in a cube finding every excuse in the book not to work, to actually *do something*. Maybe that's good for them, but is it good for the better members of a team?<br /><br />And "modified Fibonacci sequence" for assigning story points? Give me a break. Go read up on this Fibonacci sequence pseudo-science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1497114473107445033.post-52089016818792340152014-03-02T20:37:51.948-08:002014-03-02T20:37:51.948-08:00I disagree, at least partially. Good methodology c...I disagree, at least partially. Good methodology can make a decent team great. Bad methodology can block a good team from achieving at their highest potential.<br /><br />In my experience dysfunctional teams usually mean dysfunctional leadership. A good manager can figure out who's spoiling the team dynamic, and deal with them. Often this means nothing more than making it clear what behavior is expected. Most workers want to please their boss, because they want to be regarded as valuable (and stay employed). Only in extreme cases does it mean cutting out a cancerous team member. A good manager will take this hard action for the good of the team.Kurt Guntherothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17676474940081443428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1497114473107445033.post-66504076060202662892014-03-02T20:36:59.153-08:002014-03-02T20:36:59.153-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Kurt Guntherothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17676474940081443428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1497114473107445033.post-32190351555329196622014-03-02T12:22:21.647-08:002014-03-02T12:22:21.647-08:00I've come to the conclusion that there is some...I've come to the conclusion that there is some indefinable something that a successful team has that is missing from unsuccessful teams.<br /><br />And when they're successful (because of course, they are successful teams), then *whatever* methodology they happen to be using is the "right one". They could invent a new one, "Foosball Programming" (we need to kick this project out the door!), and make money with books and consultancy fees.<br /><br />But in the long run it won't matter. Unsuccessful teams will fail (because they are unsuccessful teams) no matter the methodology they purport to use, and no matter how many books they buy or consultants they hire.<br /><br />You have to have that certain something. If we could figure out what that is, and bottle it, we could make millions.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16877912205118320895noreply@blogger.com