Call for participation: What types of organisations adopt agile methods?

Discussion in 'C++' started by Ant Grinyer, Jul 10, 2008.

  1. Ant Grinyer

    Ant Grinyer Guest

    Having worked in software development for over 15 years in many
    organisations using different development methodologies such as
    waterfall, RUP, Scrum and XP, I'm still not sure if there is a
    specific 'type' of organisation that is more likely to adopt agile
    approaches than others?

    I guess it could be argued that those organisations that are more
    innovative or open to change are more likely to adopt agile methods?

    To try and gain more understanding, and because I have a passion for
    software development methodologies, I started a PhD five years ago
    (part-time) to look at this issue. I'm now at the point where I'm
    conducting a short survey to determine what factors might or might not
    influence the adoption of agile methods, in the hope to provide some
    enlightenment. If we get enough participation, I then hope to report
    this back to the group to see if there are indeed any trends.

    The survey is short and should take around 5 - 10 minutes to complete,
    so please bare with the scaled questions whereby you are asked to rate
    your agreement against a list of statements. To participate, could I
    kindly ask you to fill in the survey using the link below -

    http://ou1211237011.agile-adoption.sgizmo.com

    I believe if we can determine the characteristics of organisations
    that adopt and do not adopt agile methods, we can get a better
    understanding whether certain organisations are more conducive to
    adopting agile methods?

    Note this is NOT a marketing survey and is used for doctoral and
    practitioner research purposes. All findings and results will be
    published to the group and responses treated in strict confidence.
    Evidence of my research can be found here:

    http://www.computing.open.ac.uk/Pub...439004E6A1F?OpenDocument&subsection=computing


    Your participation is greatly appreciated.
    Kindest Regards
    Ant Grinyer
    ----------
    Business Analyst | Cegedim Pharmaceutical Solutions, UK
    PhD Candidate | The Open University | Milton Keynes, UK
     
    Ant Grinyer, Jul 10, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ant Grinyer

    James Kanze Guest

    Re: Call for participation: What types of organisations adopt agilemethods?

    On Jul 10, 11:33 pm, (Ant Grinyer) wrote:
    > Having worked in software development for over 15 years in
    > many organisations using different development methodologies
    > such as waterfall, RUP, Scrum and XP, I'm still not sure if
    > there is a specific 'type' of organisation that is more likely
    > to adopt agile approaches than others?


    > I guess it could be argued that those organisations that are
    > more innovative or open to change are more likely to adopt
    > agile methods?


    It could just as easily be argued that those organisations care
    less about quality and robustness. Or don't have to worry about
    a budget. Or are easily taken in by fancy advertising words,
    rather than substance.

    "Agile programming", as such, doesn't mean anything. It's just
    a positive sounding buzz word, which anyone developing a new
    methodology applies to make it sound good.

    Note that the expression "waterfall methodology" doesn't apply
    to any definite methodology either. It's just the opposite of
    agile programming, a negative sounding buzz word to apply to
    those who don't buy into your new methodology.

    Neither correspond to any single, well defined methodology.
    Roughly speaking: if I do it, it's agile programming, but if
    someone else does it, it's waterfall.

    --
    James Kanze (GABI Software) email:
    Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
    Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
    9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
     
    James Kanze, Jul 11, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ant Grinyer

    Tom Anderson Guest

    Re: Call for participation: What types of organisations adopt agilemethods?

    On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, James Kanze wrote:

    > On Jul 10, 11:33 pm, (Ant Grinyer) wrote:
    >
    >> Having worked in software development for over 15 years in
    >> many organisations using different development methodologies
    >> such as waterfall, RUP, Scrum and XP, I'm still not sure if
    >> there is a specific 'type' of organisation that is more likely
    >> to adopt agile approaches than others?

    >
    >> I guess it could be argued that those organisations that are
    >> more innovative or open to change are more likely to adopt
    >> agile methods?

    >
    > It could just as easily be argued that those organisations care
    > less about quality and robustness. Or don't have to worry about
    > a budget. Or are easily taken in by fancy advertising words,
    > rather than substance.
    >
    > "Agile programming", as such, doesn't mean anything. It's just a
    > positive sounding buzz word, which anyone developing a new methodology
    > applies to make it sound good.


    No, agile has a very well-defined meaning. It's what used to be called
    Extreme Programming, which is based on a set of commandments recorded by
    St Kent of Beck. They had to change the name because it was putting people
    off.

    And if you think that agile produces software of lower quality and
    robustness than traditional methods, i think you need to lay off the
    mushrooms for a bit.

    > Neither correspond to any single, well defined methodology. Roughly
    > speaking: if I do it, it's agile programming, but if someone else does
    > it, it's waterfall.


    You may be quite right about people using 'agile' as a buzzword to mean
    anything and nothing, but that's a misuse of the term.

    tom

    --
    20 Minutes into the Future
     
    Tom Anderson, Jul 11, 2008
    #3
  4. Ant Grinyer

    James Kanze Guest

    Re: Call for participation: What types of organisations adopt agilemethods?

    On Jul 11, 1:26 pm, Lew <> wrote:
    > (Ant Grinyer) wrote:
    > >> I guess it could be argued that those organisations that are
    > >> more innovative or open to change are more likely to adopt
    > >> agile methods?

    > James Kanze wrote:
    > > It could just as easily be argued that those organisations care
    > > less about quality and robustness. Or don't have to worry about
    > > a budget. Or are easily taken in by fancy advertising words,
    > > rather than substance.


    > This shows a lack of research into or understanding of what
    > the proponents of agile programming are promoting.


    Or too much research. Every one I've read is promoting
    something different.

    > > "Agile programming", as such, doesn't mean anything. It's just
    > > a positive sounding buzz word, which anyone developing a new
    > > methodology applies to make it sound good.


    > Again, you have failed to understand what people are saying.
    > "Agile programming" is a rubric for a particular approach to
    > software project management.


    Yes, the one the particular person using the phrase is
    promoting. It's become a Humpty-Dumpty word, like OO (or to a
    much less degree, generic programming).

    > > Note that the expression "waterfall methodology" doesn't apply
    > > to any definite methodology either. It's just the opposite of


    > Waterfall has been around for almost fifty years, long enough
    > for people to understand that it refers also to a specific set
    > of development principles. The term is broad, yes, but not
    > just


    > > a negative sounding buzz word to apply to
    > > those who don't buy into your new methodology.


    > In fact, the term "waterfall" for software development
    > predates "your new methodology" by decades, so it is more than
    > a little disingenuous to blame the agile programming world for
    > that term.


    Sorry, you're just plain wrong there. Bad development processes
    have been around for ages (and are still around), but the only
    uses of the term "waterfall methodology" that I've been able to
    find have been as strawmen.

    I'm not saying that no organization has used what looks like
    what the advocates of other methodologies present as
    "waterfall". But it's never been described and presented as a
    good development methodology. No one has ever "adopted"
    waterfall methodology. And of course, some of the techniques
    I've seen used by people claiming to be using "agile" methods
    have been just as bad.

    > > Neither correspond to any single, well defined methodology.
    > > Roughly speaking: if I do it, it's agile programming, but if
    > > someone else does it, it's waterfall.


    > That is inaccurate. For those who want to know, googling will
    > reveal the truth.


    Yup. It will reveal an incredible number of different
    definitions of "agile programming".

    As far as the name of a methodology goes, of course, it's pure
    advertising. It doesn't really say anything about the
    methodology. It's just a positive sounding phrase to suggest
    that the methodology has some particular positive
    characteristic, and to imply by intuendo that other
    methodologies don't. (Program methodologies have been "agile"
    since programming began, and arguably, the most agile method
    around is that of the "real programmer", the isolated genius who
    has everything in his head, and can rewrite all of the code in
    no time.)

    --
    James Kanze (GABI Software) email:
    Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
    Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
    9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
     
    James Kanze, Jul 11, 2008
    #4
  5. Ant Grinyer

    James Kanze Guest

    Re: Call for participation: What types of organisations adopt agilemethods?

    On Jul 11, 3:00 pm, Tom Anderson <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, James Kanze wrote:
    > > On Jul 10, 11:33 pm, (Ant Grinyer) wrote:


    [...]
    > > "Agile programming", as such, doesn't mean anything. It's
    > > just a positive sounding buzz word, which anyone developing
    > > a new methodology applies to make it sound good.


    > No, agile has a very well-defined meaning. It's what used to
    > be called Extreme Programming, which is based on a set of
    > commandments recorded by St Kent of Beck. They had to change
    > the name because it was putting people off.


    That's one definition. (Not that extreme programming is any
    more exact---what it means depend on who you are reading.)

    > And if you think that agile produces software of lower quality
    > and robustness than traditional methods, i think you need to
    > lay off the mushrooms for a bit.


    Most of the techniques I've seen associated with it do produce
    software with measurably lower quality and robustness than the
    best current practice. (But of course, if you're "agile", you
    don't take the time to measure, so you don't know this.)

    > > Neither correspond to any single, well defined methodology.
    > > Roughly speaking: if I do it, it's agile programming, but if
    > > someone else does it, it's waterfall.


    > You may be quite right about people using 'agile' as a
    > buzzword to mean anything and nothing, but that's a misuse of
    > the term.


    The problem then is that it has been misused so often that it's
    lost any real meaning. Or perhaps the real problem is that
    people like Kent Beck didn't choose a more descriptive name.
    Although I'm not sure that's a fundamental reason. Something
    like "software maturity model" also has a very positive buzz,
    without really saying anything, but at least at present, I've
    only seen it really applied to one particular methodology.

    --
    James Kanze (GABI Software) email:
    Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
    Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
    9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
     
    James Kanze, Jul 11, 2008
    #5
  6. Ant Grinyer

    James Kanze Guest

    Re: Call for participation: What types of organisations adopt agilemethods?

    On Jul 11, 2:36 pm, Patricia Shanahan <> wrote:
    > Ant Grinyer wrote:
    > > Having worked in software development for over 15 years in
    > > many organisations using different development methodologies
    > > such as waterfall, RUP, Scrum and XP, I'm still not sure if
    > > there is a specific 'type' of organisation that is more
    > > likely to adopt agile approaches than others?


    > > I guess it could be argued that those organisations that are
    > > more innovative or open to change are more likely to adopt
    > > agile methods?


    > Surely the methodology should be chosen to fit the project,
    > not fixed for the organization. I know that I use different
    > methodologies depending on what I am doing.


    > Maybe an organization that does not adopt agile methods is
    > just doing a lot of projects they do not suit.


    In other words, they're being agile:).

    --
    James Kanze (GABI Software) email:
    Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
    Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
    9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
     
    James Kanze, Jul 11, 2008
    #6
  7. Ant Grinyer

    Guest

    Re: Call for participation: What types of organisations adopt agilemethods?

    James Kanze <> wrote:
    > On Jul 11, 3:00 pm, Tom Anderson <> wrote:
    >
    > > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, James Kanze wrote:
    > > > On Jul 10, 11:33 pm, (Ant Grinyer) wrote:


    > Most of the techniques I've seen associated with it do produce
    > software with measurably lower quality and robustness than the
    > best current practice.  (But of course, if you're "agile", you
    > don't take the time to measure, so you don't know this.)


    This again shows that you really have not taken the time to understand
    what the "agile" folks espouse. Measurement and testing are the heart
    of the technique. That you say otherwise betrays your ignorance.

    As for not seeing the term "waterfall" prior to the promulgation of
    the "agile" buzzword, you again show ignorance. I was taught the
    "waterfall" method by that name in the late 1970s and early 80s by
    people who believe in its efficacy.

    >>> Neither correspond to any single, well defined methodology.


    Again, for folks who want the truth, don't buy into the nonsense and
    straw-man arguments James Kanze presents. Do the research yourself.
    GIYF. James Kanze is just trolling.

    --
    Lew
     
    , Jul 11, 2008
    #7
  8. Ant Grinyer

    James Kanze Guest

    Re: Call for participation: What types of organisations adopt agilemethods?

    On Jul 11, 6:43 pm, wrote:
    > James Kanze <> wrote:
    > > On Jul 11, 3:00 pm, Tom Anderson <> wrote:


    > > > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, James Kanze wrote:
    > > > > On Jul 10, 11:33 pm, (Ant Grinyer) wrote:

    > > Most of the techniques I've seen associated with it do produce
    > > software with measurably lower quality and robustness than the
    > > best current practice. (But of course, if you're "agile", you
    > > don't take the time to measure, so you don't know this.)


    > This again shows that you really have not taken the time to
    > understand what the "agile" folks espouse. Measurement and
    > testing are the heart of the technique. That you say
    > otherwise betrays your ignorance.


    Or maybe that I've read more about it than you have, and thus
    have seen the numerous contrasting (and contradictory) claims.
    And measurement is certainly NOT part of what Kent Beck
    describes.

    > As for not seeing the term "waterfall" prior to the promulgation of
    > the "agile" buzzword, you again show ignorance. I was taught the
    > "waterfall" method by that name in the late 1970s and early 80s by
    > people who believe in its efficacy.


    Could you cite some references. Because I've talked to a lot of
    people, and no one else seems to have ever seen it described,
    except to compare their "better" method against.

    > >>> Neither correspond to any single, well defined methodology.


    > Again, for folks who want the truth, don't buy into the nonsense and
    > straw-man arguments James Kanze presents. Do the research yourself.
    > GIYF. James Kanze is just trolling.


    Well, anyone who looks it up on Google, with an open mind, is
    bound to come to the same conclusion I did.

    --
    James Kanze (GABI Software) email:
    Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
    Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
    9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
     
    James Kanze, Jul 11, 2008
    #8
  9. Ant Grinyer

    Timo Geusch Guest

    Re: Call for participation: What types of organisations adopt agile methods?

    James Kanze <> writes:

    > On Jul 11, 6:43 pm, wrote:
    >> As for not seeing the term "waterfall" prior to the promulgation of
    >> the "agile" buzzword, you again show ignorance. I was taught the
    >> "waterfall" method by that name in the late 1970s and early 80s by
    >> people who believe in its efficacy.

    >
    > Could you cite some references. Because I've talked to a lot of
    > people, and no one else seems to have ever seen it described,
    > except to compare their "better" method against.


    I'm pretty sure Steve McConnell mentioned it in the first edition of
    Code Complete back in the early/mid nineties. Unfortunately I've since
    replaced it with the second edition so I can't verify this.
     
    Timo Geusch, Jul 11, 2008
    #9
  10. Ant Grinyer

    Guest

    Re: Call for participation: What types of organisations adopt agilemethods?

    wrote:
    > >> As for not seeing the term "waterfall" prior to the promulgation of
    > >> the "agile" buzzword, you again show ignorance.  I was taught the
    > >> "waterfall" method by that name in the late 1970s and early 80s by
    > >> people who believe in its efficacy.


    James Kanze writes:
    > > Could you cite some references.  Because I've talked to a lot of
    > > people, and no one else seems to have ever seen it described,
    > > except to compare their "better" method against.


    Have you considered googling for it?

    /Wicked Problems, Righteous Solutions/ gives a good overview of all
    the software-development methodologies extant in the mid-nineties,
    with a thorough analysis of their strengths and weaknesses. It
    predates "XP" and "agile".

    <http://www.google.com/search?q="Wicked+Problems%2C+Righteous
    +Solutions">

    Other references: GIYF.

    I am a reference, because my comments were based on my own personal
    work experience. Shops where I worked in 1980-1981 practiced
    waterfall development, ostensibly, and called it by that name.

    Timo Geusch wrote:
    > I'm pretty sure Steve McConnell mentioned it in the first edition of
    > Code Complete back in the early/mid nineties. Unfortunately I've since
    > replaced it with the second edition so I can't verify this.


    GIYF, James Kanze,

    --
    Lew
     
    , Jul 11, 2008
    #10
  11. Ant Grinyer

    Ian Collins Guest

    Re: Call for participation: What types of organisations adopt agilemethods?

    James Kanze wrote:
    >
    > Most of the techniques I've seen associated with it do produce
    > software with measurably lower quality and robustness than the
    > best current practice. (But of course, if you're "agile", you
    > don't take the time to measure, so you don't know this.)
    >

    Oh come on James, that's just not true. I have a number of XP developed
    embedded products in the wild and by any measure the company uses, they
    are the most robust products the company has ever shipped. Our main
    measure was the only one that matters to our customers, defect reports.
    The number has been vanishingly small, a small fraction of the number
    for the previous generation controllers.

    If you are an XP team supporting a buggy product, your most important
    and visible measure - velocity will suffer.

    > The problem then is that it has been misused so often that it's
    > lost any real meaning. Or perhaps the real problem is that
    > people like Kent Beck didn't choose a more descriptive name.


    Now here we agree!

    --
    Ian Collins.
     
    Ian Collins, Jul 11, 2008
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Vincent RICHOMME

    architecture to adopt

    Vincent RICHOMME, Dec 22, 2005, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    349
    Vincent RICHOMME
    Dec 22, 2005
  2. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    598
    Tonny Madsen
    May 15, 2007
  3. Erik Hollensbe

    X12::Parser - intent to adopt

    Erik Hollensbe, Dec 31, 2007, in forum: Perl
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,463
    brian d foy
    Jan 1, 2008
  4. Ant Grinyer
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    468
    Tom Anderson
    Jul 14, 2008
  5. Chris Dew
    Replies:
    103
    Views:
    818
    Frasier Mruby
    Oct 11, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page