Scaling Agile Has Never Worked... and Never Will
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 05. 2024
- As part of the celebrations around the 20-year anniversary of the agile manifesto, I was invited to give a lightning talk on the theme of “An Agile Futurespective”.
This talk was part of the Agile20Reflect festival and followed a panel discussion which you can watch here • Agile20 Reflect Event ...
Loved it. I think it's one of the most sobering presentations about agile and methodology adoption in general that I've heard in the past 10 years. Everyone is histerical about "being agile" at an organization level, in all teams, even where it just doesn't make sense to have agile to begin with. And the Culture part of the equation is so easily and so often forgotten (or pretended that it doesn't matter, 'cause it's easier that way), and I also believe that it's at the core of any transformation or evolution. Culture fosters the right change from within, instead of it being pushed and shoved down people's throats without any thought. The copy-paste model of scrum or even the spotify model is the way I've seen fail again and again, but the consultants keep getting hired and churning pass organizations with the same powerpoint slides.
Thank you so much for putting it all together.
Thanks Sanaz! Culture is key
Same for all religion, sadly. Replace the word "agile" with "religion" and everything is still true. Especially for top-down control religions like the Abrahamic ones.
Great presentation, I couldn't agree more. Buying into one particular framework is not agile. Agile is a mindset, not a framework. The organization must have the mindset to always change, and adapt as necessary... even if this includes moving to a waterfall approach. Not all problems are the same, and not all teams are the same. Do what is best for the team, environment and organization as a whole. Find your way and always reflect on what is working and what is not. Be ready to pivot if necessary.
Thank you for taking the time to comment and I agree with what you say there.
The root problem seems to be that "we have to respond to inputs much faster now". Where did this rationale come from? Did the big companies grow terrified of small startups taking all their market share? Did the small startups grow terrified of each other? When did we trade our confidence in knowing our problem domains to fear that anyone could just waltz in with less knowledge and dethrone us? I remember companies built great stuff in good time by just focusing on their core competencies. But now everyone seems determined to keep competitors at bay using superficial "we're more agile" means. Is no one confident in their abilities anymore?
Thank you for this. You've managed to deliver something that both shakes some of the things I'd like to be true as well as articulate some of the things I'd like to be true. Will have to re-listen and reflect :)
Thank you for the thoughtful consideration. I’m glad it provoked some reflection
As I see waterfall will never die, there is a waterfall in every iteration, just the scale is getting smaller and smaller. Scaled Agile doesn't work because it operates on a bigger scale so it converges toward the classical waterfall. I recently got into continues delivery and the main things are iterative development, small steps, fast feedback. I believe this is agile and this could work for project management as well.
I agree. I don’t think it’s about waterfall dying. There will always be a place for that type of approach
It's ironic that Agile preachers always blame waterfall for things that go wrong (_"Agile never fails, YOU who did it wrong"_) but LOTS of products in the past (not just software) were created by that method and they were great, those companies managed to grow from garage startups to largest market cap corporations in the world using Waterfall approach.
On th Agile side, not so much 🤔
Lovely talk, thanks Geoff. I especially liked the pyramid of results.
Glad you enjoyed it
An interesting and thoughtful presentation.
Many thanks!
Very nice, this articulates thoughts i had, but could not quite put my finger on.
A random thought: Maybe it is not necessary to really scale agile. Maybe just coach teams to be agile (if they are willing) and then don't stand in their way.
I think that’s a very good way to look at it
Agile: "We are uncovering better ways of developing software"
Scaling framework: "... so you don't have to."
Agile was never about scaling, it was always about producing software.
It definitely started around software but its application is so much more now that software is such a huge part of most products and complexity has grown
@@InspectAdaptLtd right, agile has lost its meaning amidst the mad dash for the enterprise to get in on the game. Agile is still about producing software, all the rest of the scrum/agile enterprise stuff is just a distraction from producing software.
Good one on motivational debt. Agile demotivates.
I’m sorry you had that experience. For many I have seen and worked with, agile has been one of the biggest positive experiences in their working career. But some have also had bad experiences
If a triple-A game like Sea of Thieves can do it, it can be done for any project. The problem is in one of your first statements, Agile is not a 'solution' to anything. It's a way of thinking/working that can't be implemented by one person (or even a couple) onto a company. It is a team and company effort. The mere idea of imposing it on people proves that whoever tries it doesn't understand Agile.
No process is 'Agile' by default and Agile looks different for different projects/teams, it's even in the word. You can try Agile suggestions, yes, but there is no 1 size fits all scheme to get there. A good start for a lot of projects is to not expect people to just: 'do it like this, shut up and go fast'. And then work out your teams own way from there. You'd be surprised if you actually gave good devs the chance to speak their mind and think about the process.
Just wondering. Did you watch the video?
@@InspectAdaptLtd I did, I'm not attacking your video. I agree with the general message. Not so much with the title, but I guess it helps reach the right people. I just wanted to reinforce that it can be done with an example. Anyone who thinks a project is too complex or big for Agile should think twice if a triple-A can do it.
I'm in agreement that no product or project is too complex for agile. The more complex, the more suitable it is, in my opinion. However, trying to become an "agile organisation" by scaling an agile approach just doesn't make sense or work. I think we are in agreement there.@@stevendhondt771
Thanks for this video. It was interesting and obviously based on your experience. But, we are always only bound up in our own experience and with respect, this presentation presents a rather siloed, traditionalist, and narrow-minded worldview. I think you may have misunderstood the meaning of 'agile' and 'scaling' and how words and concepts connect; how a mindset 'needs' to make words and concepts connect differently day by day in a changing environment, both at a micro- and macro-level. It isn't about effectiveness OR efficiency. In business, it's about being like water, as Bruce Lee might have put it. Move away from old text-book concepts and approaches to the world of business and recognize that while we are confined by our five senses, we are indeed able to imagine and know there are more than five senses. Quantum change methodologies are far more powerful than the use of the limiting concepts of waterfall, agile, etc. this video discusses. Scaling agile DOES work when you learn that you are scaling the individuals, as well as the collective with quantum mindsets, behaviours and practical tools.
You are correct that we can only see the world through our own lens. I am lucky to have experienced many different contexts, industries and domains across hundreds and hundreds of teams which I attempt to weave into my perspective as best I can.
@@InspectAdaptLtd You are doing very well indeed. I have every confidence that you will be able to break out of your old ways of thinking and doing, and start to approach challenges with a more modern outlook.
Thanks for the very interesting video.
@@OnceTheyNamedMeiWasnt Bless you! You too...
Agile never was meant to scale. The Agile Software manifesto was meant for small teams at startups for very specific situations: when you have a product you don't know how it will be received by the client. After that, is gone. You already know what you doing and you are a grown up company, not a startup any more.
BTW, the Agile Manifesto was redacted and signed by geniuses of the industry, very selected people. Brilliant people that tell you they will work only 1 hr today and get away with it.
Not everyone are like them, and no company will allow a contributor to work 1 hr only. So that's the first mistake to begin
@@rmworkemail6507 that’s an interesting perspective. Despite speaking to a few of them over the years I never got the impression they would only work 1hr per day. My experience is the opposite, they seem to be workaholics. But that’s just my experience.
I also have different experiences about agile being useful in more than just startups but I only have my experience.
SAFe is not safe. At least that's what my therapist says.
I agree if you implement SAFe as you describe it it will not work, however I would be cautious about saying the anti- pattern is the rule and applies to all implementation of all methods of agile.
I know this probably doesn’t come across as cautious but SAFe is awful. For me, if you don’t want to do things in an agile way, that’s ok...sometimes that’s the right thing...but in those cases don’t do something that pretends to be agile.
It's awfull, its not even Agile to begin with. Period.
@@rmworkemail6507 Interesting I thought Agile was about being open, being willing to try new things, clear not the case for you, all judgy and all as you are.
@@InspectAdaptLtd Sadly many people in the world have managed to scale it, sadly you are not one, lucky for me I have.
@@shaneharrison581 That's not Agile. Agile means self-managing and self-organizing teams, which means that middle management is redundant and unneccessary. SAFe mandates a heavy middle management presence and even buy-in from the very top of the company, and is thusly the antithesis to Agile. Several large e-commerce-heavy companies in my country are failing hard at delivering anything of value right now, and they all hopped on the SAFe bandwagon a few years back.
Google? Amazon?
I don’t have first hand knowledge but I very much doubt they have scaled agile. These organisations will be much more organic and contextual I would think.
Scaling a fish, yes. Scaling a shark, hell no. Same for agile ™️
"self-organize... like this:" brilliant! The confirmation bias is strong with this one.
Thanks Jamie. Or baby Yoda as going to think of you now I am
Ok, agile @ scale does not work, and motivation would? Well, actually agile does work. But, first of all. Agile for organization is chimera. Never existed, never will. Agile in SW development does work. Even at scale. Yet, there are principles which need to be followed. Just, please, don't exchange incompetence with impossibility.
Hi there. Thanks for watching and commenting although I'm not sure I understand your message. I agree that agile works and I agree that agile in SW Dev works. I have seen organisations adopt principles very much aligned with the agile manifesto at the macro level although I think we also agree that scaling agile to the organisation has not and will not work.
The five principles of ORGANIC agility seem to be remarkably effective at helping organisations become more resilient and coherent which is much more valuable than becoming "agile".
Agile is outdated, 22 years have passed and many things have changed since then
A lot has indeed changed in 22 years...and I think that's the point. The rate of change requires greater agility. There's a strong argument for poor application of agile approaches but the principles of fast feedback, collaborative, cross-disciplinary learning, iterative-incremental value delivery are more relevant than ever. We just need better application IMHO
Agile is very good at prototyping software, and horrifically bad at making maintainable, scalable software. You can't go from an ambiguous set of requirements and no code, to a database, server, and UI in a week or two without making a lot of bad decisions.
It's a technical challenge alright and certainly not easy. Many organisations don't have the feedback loops, empowered and supported teams and willingness to enhance the infrastructure to make this easy. I personally think in most situations companies find themselves in today, however, that this is the necessary path despite its difficulties.
@@InspectAdaptLtd, it's the opposite. Agile is a business challenge,, not a technical one. In companies that are technically oriented, agile works perfectly fine. In companies that are business oriented, agile is just another buzzword.