[dragonwriter]

> Anyone else notice Agile creeping in where it has no place being?

I rarely even see Agile creeping in where it does belong and is being advertised as being practiced.

> I’m suffering on an infrastructure transformation project — migrating complex apps to Azure — which insists on being Agile. It’s preposterous. I just started and already I’ve counted up 40 person-hours of time in ‘planning’ sessions.

If you’ve just started and you’ve counted up 40-hours of person-time in planning sessions on one team and not also 600+ person-hours of substantive working time, whatever it is, its not “Agile”.

> They’re shoe-horning infrastructure transformation in to ‘epics’ and ‘features’ and ‘sprints’ and who knows what the fuck they’re doing and next week I think I’m going to actually lose my shit and tell them they’re maniacs.

“Epics”, “Features”, and “Sprints” do not appear in the Agile Manifesto or Principles; a team which is Agile might use them, but using them isn’t a sign of being Agile.

[blowski]

There are 2 methodologies with very similar names.

“Agile” is recommended by big consultancies. It aims to improve managers’ control of processes and costs by removing autonomy from those doing the implementation. It does this using templates, hierarchies and policies.

“agile” (small a) as practised by Kent Beck. It aims to improve outcomes by handing more control to the implementers through collaboration. It does this through good communication and focus.

The insight of this submission is that when those implementers are capable and motivated to deliver a good outcome, this will deliver the best possible outcome. But if they’re not, then nobody is in control, and you just have chaos.

Big A Agile still has crappy outcomes but the lines of accountability are at least clearer.