- Why Agile Is Controversial: Agilists vs. Hubricists
- How to Make Agile 'Methodology Non Grata'
- The Insipid Results of Scrummerfall
- Summary
Like this article? We recommend
Like this article? We recommend
Like this article? We recommend
The Insipid Results of Scrummerfall
Agile isn't just one of many options for how you get a project done. The evidence coming in has demonstrated that Agile development is an advance over "big design up front" techniques. Software developed using Agile techniques costs less to develop and less to maintain, is easier to use, and adds more economic value than software developed using waterfall techniques.
When an organization makes a policy that opposes using Agile, it's stating that it has consciously decided to use an obsolete methodology that appeals to its inner Hubricist. Scrummerfall is effective in destroying economic value because it does something worse than allowing inertia to carry the day: It actively limits the ability of an organization to learn how to apply advances in the state of project management. It legitimizes the forces of corporate inertia, starving the organization of any capability it may have for learning.
Stopping the March of Progress
Agile is only the latest of advances that the Hubricist attempts to stop. Being a learning organization is a competitive advantage. In other words, organizations with sufficient adaptability to adjust to their environmental realities do better than those that don't have such flexibility. In a world where credit terms can flip suddenly, where suppliers can change at a moment's notice, where the price of materials may be adjusted based on the commodity in which a hedge fund invests—in such a world, it's a mystery why being able to learn and adapt should be controversial.