Agile 2
NEXT ITERATION OF AGILE
The Case for Agile 2
Agile is deeply broken.
In the early days of the Agile movement, the movement could claim to be
undergoing growing pains. Over time, it was expected to mature, and progress
from being a disruptive juvenile to a mature and efficacious adult.
Instead, the community split into numerous factions which grew in influence.
Some of those were cooperative with the others, while some were (and still are)
competitive and exclusionary.
Large organizations that tried to use Agile — the word quickly became a noun —
often failed. This was no surprise because early Agile was about individual
teams, but a large organization is far more complex than a single team.
Everyone expected that over time, consensus would emerge for how to use Agile
methods at scale, but instead, the community continued to splinter. Today,
organizations that want to use Agile methods at scale are stuck choosing one of
several competing and divergent approaches.
Meanwhile, while there has continued to be a widespread feeling that there are
some important ideas in Agile, there started to be grumblings that Agile was
failing. In the early days, these grumbles came from those who wanted to
preserve the status quo; but today the grumbles increasingly come from people
who have experienced Agile — the reality of how Agile is applied today in real
settings — and are disappointed.
Interestingly, if one polls Agile coaches about the state of Agile, one usually
receives celebratory remarks: “It is great! It is improving all the time!” But if
one polls programmers - the very constituents whom Agile was designed to
help - their remarks are far less sanguine. In fact, programmers’
complaints about Agile, as they have experienced it, are long.
Agile evangelists will be quick to respond, “The Agile that those people
experienced was not real Agile — they did not do it right.” But if the community
has been unable to define what “real” Agile is, after all this time, then isn’t
something wrong with the community? Or maybe they have defined it, but ithas not been sold or communicated well; or — just maybe — there is
something wrong with Agile, or with the Agile community.
tually
We believe there is: there are things wrong with the Agile community and with
Agile itself. Let us say it loud and clear: Agile is broken. The Agile community is
broken; many Agile practices are broken; and some foundational Agile ideas are
broken, or at least overly simplistic and incomplete — and therefore misleading
and even damaging.
1. The Big Gap
We feel that the largest defect in Agile thinking regards the role of leadership.
Leadership is a very complex topic: there are many thousands of books about
leadership. It is a topic that has preoccupied thinkers and doers since the early
days of human civilization. The Epic of Gilgamesh — humanity's first “book” —
s at least partly about leadership, containing lessons about perseverance and
the dangers of falling under the influence of those who might distract one from
one’s que:
Leadership has dominated human writing throughout history. The invention of
representative government in Greece created a new model for human society,
and that innovation was fundamentally about leadership and how to manage it.
‘Today we have a crisis of leadership throughout society, at many levels, and that
is having a huge impact on us all. Leadership is central for human endeavors.
Despite this, the Agile Manifesto says little pertaining to leadership. One
statement is, “Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the
environment and support they need, and trust them to get the job done.” The
other is, “The best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-
organizing teams.”
While these statements have merit, they appear to dismiss the need for any
formal leadership, and they also are drastic simplifications and have led to
widespread misinterpretation and extreme implementations.
2. A Culture of Extremes
‘The Agile movement arguably began with the release of the book Extreme
Programming Explained: Embrace Change, in 1999. Extreme Programming
(XP) sent shock waves through the IT industry. At the time, extremes were
popular: we had extreme skiing, extreme volcano surfing, and the “X
Games.” At that moment in history, for anything new to get attention, it had tobe “extreme”; thus, XP was trendy, and as its name implies, it was a collection
of very extreme methods.
‘The Agile movement crystallized when the Agile Manifesto was written two
years later. Unlike XP, the Manifesto was not about extremes; in fact, it was
about balance. Thus, it was diametrically opposed to XP, which advocated all-in
adoption of extreme methods instead of using judgment about choosing the
right method. Few noticed that XP and the Manifesto were at odds. As a result,
the Agile movement began with built-in cognitive dissonance.
The prevalent ethos of extremes was then applied to the Manifesto, and so the
Manifesto’s carefully balanced statements were interpreted as extremes. The
statement “[We value] Working software over comprehensive documentation”
was interpreted by many as, “We value working software, and documentation is
not needed.” The statement, “The best architectures, requirements, and designs
emerge from self-organizing teams” was interpreted as “All teams should self-
organize,” or even, “We don't need anyone with explicit authority — managers
are bad.”
The Agile community continued to amplify the extremes in a kind of race to be
the most extreme, coming out with “mob programming” as a more extreme
version of XP's “pair programming.” The idea of self-organization turned into a
call for totally flat organizations. The agendaless Lean Coffee became a popular
format for events. The minimally planned “open space” format became popular
for many corporate conferences.
Many organizations tried these things. Google tried a flatter organization
in 2002, but the experiment failed. The lesson that these practices contained
good ideas but that the extreme version tended not to work was lost on the Agile
community, which doggedly pursued the extremes, shutting out news of
failures. The “Agile team room” — an open room with everyone on a team sitting
in close proximity — continued despite widespread criticism: all one has to do is
Google “open plan office” to see how the arrangement is disliked. Yet, Agilists
still advocate it, ignoring the push-back. It is as if these practices have
momentum, and cannot easily be updated in response to feedback, or there is
an unwillingness to update them once people have invested social capital in
advocating for them.
‘This dogma and linear intransigence is actually toxic. It locked the Agile
community into a rigid set of ideas, and prevented the community from doing
what it itself recommends: trying something and then pivoting if necessary.
Instead, the Agile community progressed in the same direction, no matter the
outcome.It was this rigidity that led to the independent evolution of DevOps — a set of
methods for rapidly deploying large-scale computing applications. DevOps
methods were presented at Agile conferences but those methods went largely
ignored by the Agile community at large, and so DevOps became its own
movement, and today most DevOps experts do not know much about Agile, and
vice versa.
The Agile community stifled its own evolution — a profound irony.
3. We Want to Fix This
‘We want Agile to evolve — to pivot to what works better.
The original Agile Manifesto was created by a collection of middle-aged
Western culture guys (like this author) and all from similar cultural
backgrounds. For Agile 2, we assembled a global team of 15 people, with skills
and experience in program management, leadership, human resources, product
design, engineering, data science, and of course Agile and DevOps. Our aim: fix
Agile.
First we conducted a retrospective: we each spoke to what we felt was wrong
with Agile. We then debated those issues. Because of our globe-spanning
locations, and because of our number, we could not collaborate easily in real
time, so we used a combination of Google documents, email, and one-on-one
web calls, Despite the logistical challenges, we were able to thoroughly discuss
our retrospective issues and came up with a large number of “insights,” and
then a set of “principles.” We then stepped back from that and defined a set of
“values.” Thus, it was a bottom-up effort: a process of defining problems,
possible solutions, and then rolling those up into general principles and finally
values.
The core of our guidance is about leadership. We realized that:
* Leadership is a complex issue - it cannot be addressed by a short maxim or
phrase like “self organization”
There are different forms of leadership, appropriate for different situations,
and every individual can be a leader in some ways.
Leadership is essential, and it sometimes (not always) requires authority.
Eliminating authority or leadership does not solve the problem of bad
leadership ~ it exchanges one problem for another.
Leadership can become stifling and self-serving: we must focus on forms of
leadership that are empowering yet that provide the needed direction.* The best leaders use their authority sparingly.
* Leadership is the most important thing of all in an organization: with good
leadership, the initial methodology will not matter in the long run because it
will be adjusted as needed; conversely, with bad leadership, the best
methodology in the world will fail.
Because of these conclusions, we knew that we had to address the issue of
leadership head on. Our goal was not to compete with the wealth of writing
about leadership that exists. Rather, we attempted to address the leadership
issues that arise in organizations, and the varying contexts, and the different
approaches and their tradeoffs.
One might ask, what about the old Agile Manifesto?
Well, itis just that — the Old Agile Manifesto. It helped to disrupt some bad
trends and push thinking in a new direction. It had good ideas in it. Its
emphasis on balance and judgment was insightful, even though that was lost on
those in the Agile community who kept pushing things in more extreme
directions. But the Manifesto was an experiment: and it is time to pivot.
Read the Agile 2 Values and Principles here.
Agile 2