Agile and Pliant Software – The Emperor’s New Agile
A colleague writes:
Over the past few weeks, I’ve been digging into links, blogs, forums using this term (Post-Agile)… Have you seen this term? Followed it’s discussions? Any comments?
…Pliant Software is another term that seems to be associating itself with Post-Agile…
I think the software world is sort of like a customer who has an idea of what they want or need, but can’t put it into words. But, and after several iterations of “Requirements Gathering”, has come out of the room with more terms and an RD that is better than it was at the start — but not perfect, yet!
Yes, I have comments!
- I agree that the newness of agile has worn off, and the immediate benefits from it have been tapped dry by many.
- I’m annoyed at the PliantAlliance site’s claim for “a new way of thinking about developing software” — pliant sounds like adaptive to me, and Scrum has been saying this for a while.
- While the immediate benefits of agile have been tapped, the deeper benefits that can be realized by changing the way we collaboratively build product — not just the way developers write code — have a long way to go. Before we decide that “agile didn’t work,” I’d like to see more organizations actually practicing basic agile behaviour, and I’d like to see actual practices in use catch up to the huge body of literature describing deeper agile practices.
Good Software is a craft, like smithing or theatre. There was never a school that turned out expert blacksmiths; novices had to progress from apprentice to journeyman to master. The “Fame” school doesn’t promise its graduates fame, they have to go out and earn it through experience.
Good Software is the result of human thought — not just human labor — and is highly resistant to being made into a detailed process/algorithm, or body of knowledge[contextly_sidebar id=”QeaBpB4LHdEtxrTZHCdNkOBJCuwqk5tC”]Good Software is the result of collaboration. Social Science and more enlightened ways of interacting can help, but trying to describe them is missing the point.
I understand that post-Agilists see themselves as giving a name to an existing movement, rather than trying to create a new movement. But it smacks of picking a new name for your club because one member of your club is acting silly, and people are now making fun of you: you fragment the group, you tacitly approve of the bad behavior by distancing yourself from it rather than correcting it, and you spend too much time and energy on labels rather than action.
My friend’s point is right on: the SD world is like a user with a poor Requirements Doc, who “knows what they want, they just can’t describe it yet.” Trying to describe it, trying to codify it, is ulitimately a losing game and a waste of time — just like writing big RDs is a waste of time.
Build successful, adaptive teams who can make good, useful software, point to them and say “THAT is what Agile is.”