Is "passive" the opposite of "aggressive"? In software development, is "disciplined" the opposite of "agile"? I don't think so.
A passive person may be inactive, but still denies or resists others and context, just like an aggressive person. (Virginia Satir "self, other, context" concepts.) A healthier alternative to passive is "accepting" -- not active, but not in denial. A healthier alternative to aggressive is "assertive" - actively protecting one's self, but not denying the rights of others nor denying the reality of the context.
Dr. Barry Boehm (with Richard Turner) has a book coming out titled Balancing Agility and Discipline: A Guide for the Perplexed. The title does not reassure me that Boehm really understands agile development (in spite of the fact that he invented the "Spiral Development" model - an incremental/iterative process). We know that XP is the one of most disciplined of the agile methods, and that no process will work well with undisciplined people. The blurb from the back cover sounds better than what the title suggests:
Agile and disciplined: These apparently opposite attributes are, in fact, complementary values in software development. Plan-driven developers must also be agile; nimble developers must also be disciplined. The key to success is finding the right balance between the two, which will vary from project to project according to the circumstances and risks involved.
Fine, but then it goes back to saying these are opposites:
Developers, pulled toward opposite ends by impassioned arguments, ultimately must learn how to give each value its due.... The authors describe a day in the life of developers who live on one side or the other. They expose the bureaucracy and stagnation that mark discipline without agility, and they liken agility without discipline to unbridled and fruitless enthusiasm.
Alistair Cockburn, on the XP Mailing list, says this about "agile":
"Agile" is a value-set, a prioritization of whatever you think it means over
other things.
Therefore, it is not so meaningful to ask, "Can agile be used in this
situation?" Rather, the question is, "How agile can we be in this situation --- How can we be agile in this situation?" ... and then you get various interesting answers.
Picking up the theme of the value sets from my previous append, one might
look at a missile guidance system and say, "time to market not crucial.
people-centric not crucial. cost not crucial. correctness is crucial." In that situation, one could look to blend correctness-prioritized development with agile-prioritized development to get an appropriate mixture of the two.
Cockburn also wrote:
Consider "agile" development as a particular specie of development, e.g., a
Bengal tiger. Then asking "what is the opposite of agile development?" is like
asking "What is the opposite of a Bengal tiger?" Is it an elephant, a mosquito, or perhaps a non-Bengal tiger, or a Bengalese non-tiger?
Brad Appleton came up with a nice definition of agile (notice the first letter of each point):
- Adaptive - plans, designs, and processes are regularly tuned and adjusted to adapt to changing needs and requirements (as opposed to predictive methods that attempt to develop comprehensive and detailed plans/designs/requirements "up front").
- Goal-driven - focus on producing end-results (working functionality) in order of highest business value/priority (as opposed to being task-driven, document-driven, process-driven, or risk-driven).
- Iterative - not just iterative, but *highly* iterative, with very short development cycles, very frequent releases, and exremely frequent+regular feedback.
- Lean - simple design, streamlined processes, elimination of redundant information, and "barely sufficient" documentation and methodology.
- Emergent behavior - quality systems (requirements, architecture, and design) all "emerge" from highly collaborative, self-organizing teams following an initially minimal set of simple, generative rules, and working in very close interaction with stakeholders.
No comments:
Post a Comment