I'm a selftaught (web) developer. On sunny days, you can find me hiking through the Teutoburg Forest, on rainy days coding or with a good fiction novel in hand.
The statement "Working software over comprehensive documentation" for me means:
There's no need to write documentation if the software doesn't work
This does not set the developer team free of writing docs. And I find tests to be complementing parts of the documentation.
To answer your question: I don't really disagree with anything about the agile manifesto. I disagree with how it's being used by people who try to adopt an agile style without at least trying to adopt agile culture.
Currently, I am holding the position of Senior Software Engineer, but I prefer to consider myself a full-stack engineer.
My passions are quality and efficiency. Agile fan and XP practitioner.
That maybe what has to be addessed - I think in average with the current wording of the manifesto there're very good chances it will be misinterpreted. Should we change the wording to decrease the chance of it happening?
I'm a selftaught (web) developer. On sunny days, you can find me hiking through the Teutoburg Forest, on rainy days coding or with a good fiction novel in hand.
I'm not sure if a change in wording will be the ultimate solution.
What really is necessary is to emphasize that agile PM is fundamentally different from waterfall PM. Where the former emphasizes the final product and its stakeholders, including the dev team, the latter puts the process(es) over pretty much everything else.
What I figured happens in companies is the following:
They get a well-paid agile coach to install 'an agile process'
Coach holds 3 months worth of workshops, leaves.
People who worked their whole life in waterfall are happy, but confused.
They're "empowered" to work as they like, but still receive unidirectional orders from their superior.
Enthusiastic manager starts holding 'sprint meetings'. Which are basically the same meetings as before.
The result: An agile(?) waterfall. In fact, more waterfall than agile.
I'm being overdramatic, but you'll catch the core message.
Anyway, if you'd like to change anything about the agile manifesto, I'd say is make the following its headline:
Build projects around motivated individuals.
Give them the environment and support they need,
and trust them to get the job done.
Currently, I am holding the position of Senior Software Engineer, but I prefer to consider myself a full-stack engineer.
My passions are quality and efficiency. Agile fan and XP practitioner.
I'm a selftaught (web) developer. On sunny days, you can find me hiking through the Teutoburg Forest, on rainy days coding or with a good fiction novel in hand.
Then you regularly play your national anthem and make your co workers goose step through their working day.
There are some companies that aren't (and shouldn't be) agile. Do you think your plumber takes part in sprint artefacts? They arrive, do their job and leave.
With development, that's a different story. Until it isn't. As a motivated individual, it's up to you to know the difference. And when it's time to leave for a company that's capable of implementing an agile culture.
Which - again - after some time will sort itself out.
Talented people pool at 'good' companies
These care enough to trust and value their employees
The individuals then build the environment they wish to have
Which in turn attracts more talented people, and so forth
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
The statement "Working software over comprehensive documentation" for me means:
This does not set the developer team free of writing docs. And I find tests to be complementing parts of the documentation.
To answer your question: I don't really disagree with anything about the agile manifesto. I disagree with how it's being used by people who try to adopt an agile style without at least trying to adopt agile culture.
That maybe what has to be addessed - I think in average with the current wording of the manifesto there're very good chances it will be misinterpreted. Should we change the wording to decrease the chance of it happening?
I'm not sure if a change in wording will be the ultimate solution.
What really is necessary is to emphasize that agile PM is fundamentally different from waterfall PM. Where the former emphasizes the final product and its stakeholders, including the dev team, the latter puts the process(es) over pretty much everything else.
What I figured happens in companies is the following:
I'm being overdramatic, but you'll catch the core message.
Anyway, if you'd like to change anything about the agile manifesto, I'd say is make the following its headline:
The rest will sort itself out somehow.
OK, but what if we don't have access to motivated individuals and there's no time to build the environment?
Then you regularly play your national anthem and make your co workers goose step through their working day.
There are some companies that aren't (and shouldn't be) agile. Do you think your plumber takes part in sprint artefacts? They arrive, do their job and leave.
With development, that's a different story. Until it isn't. As a motivated individual, it's up to you to know the difference. And when it's time to leave for a company that's capable of implementing an agile culture.
Which - again - after some time will sort itself out.