Comments on: Why I Define Agile in Terms of Results

By: Aaron Frost

Aaron Frost — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:04:33 +0000

Elizabeth – I am glad that you have worded your concept as you have. Even after thinking thoughts that are in line with what you are saying, I have had a hard time turning those thoughts into words, as you have eloquently done. Thanks!

By: Jeff Fry

Jeff Fry — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 01:17:27 +0000

Hey Elisabeth — Very nicely put! This is a great explanation for why I like your definition of Agile so much.

By: Kristoffer Nordström

Kristoffer Nordström — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:14:48 +0000

Very good post.
For too long people have failed to see that there are no silver bullets and that you have to be context aware when you define how you and your organisation work.
How otherwise could we possibly believe we are bringing maximum value to the table if we only go by a boilerplate recipe?

By: Simon Morley

Simon Morley — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 21:23:33 +0000

Good post! Sometimes the most profound words are so simple!

Yes, at the end of the day it’s what you’re delivering to the customer that matters. It’s true that this is in the manifesto – but sometimes it needs a reminder to come back on track when anyone is getting bogged-down in dogma.

It’s a sign of Agile’s popularity that there are so many evangelists of all flavours preaching about it – of course with their own spin on what’s important…

By: Robert Dempsey

Robert Dempsey — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:59:45 +0000

Great post Elisabeth. I agree fully that we need to focus on Agile producing business value, rather than simply looking at it from a process standpoint. Why implement anything new or different if you aren’t going to get more value. Gaining value must always be the goal. If someone is adopting Agile to forgo good engineering practices, then they are adopting Agile for the wrong reasons.

By: Olga Kouzina

Olga Kouzina — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:59:54 +0000

The religious debates. That’s exactly the plague of the community. Look at the buzz – this is similar to medieval scholastic/dogmatic disputes if the Earth is round or flat (from the point of view of how simple and obvious the disputed issues are). If it works, it is agile = it is good. Period. Let’s not fluff it out to the soap bubble of scholastic disputes.

By: Jean-Noël Rouvignac

Jean-Noël Rouvignac — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:20:03 +0000

While summarizing this post Iwrote this:
“Focus on results, not an 100% compliant agile process (That’s an oxymoron BTW).”

Scary!

By: Glen Ivey

Glen Ivey — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:53:34 +0000

Agree with everything. If you’re concerned exclusively with process and not at all with results (1) how did you pick the process in the first place?, and (2) you might be doing meditation, but you’re not doing engineering. Oh, and two points for the cargo-cult reference–not many opportunities for those…..

By: Laurent

Laurent — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:03:21 +0000

Why would defining Agile in terms of results not match the Agile Manifesto’s definition? Don’t the 1st principle of Agile, “Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software”, directly relate to achieving the results the customer wants?

By: Daniel Longmore

Daniel Longmore — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:02:06 +0000

I would agree wholeheartedly. Who cares if you can repeat the Agile Manifesto from memory but do not see a benefit from it. Who cares if you have infrastructure that appears to support the what is in the manifesto but the results are not there. It is very important to understand why there is an Agile.