|
|
|
|
|
by theworld572
2482 days ago
|
|
Its true the examples I gave are probably a bit exaggerated but I think the general point still stands. I think you have even demonstrated that contradiction yourself although in a much more eloquent way? If Agile lets you inspect and adapt freely, then at what point does Agile does stop being Agile? |
|
Agile is built around the simple value proposition that shipping products earlier, more often, and with more direct feedback from customers creates better products. We might even call this "The Golden Rule" of Agile. (This certainly verges on being a philosophy.)
If you believe that, and always act in accordance with that idea, and your team and stakeholders and users do so as well, there's no need for dogma. You will deliver great products and life will be good.
But the sad truth is a significant fraction of people are skeptics and cynics and doggerels and hairsplitters and technocrats and incompetents and martinets and apathetics and fusspots; in simple terms, they're only human.
So instead of one Golden Rule we have law after law after law and with law comes lawyers on both sides (or pharisees if you like.)
But if you inspect and adapt according to the Golden Rule, you'll always be doing Agile because you focus on the outcome and not the process.
Either you ship or you don't. Either you add value or you don't. Either you talk to users or you dont.