The Incongruous Origins

The Agile Manifesto threw the software world into disarray when introduced in 2001. With its emphasis on individuals over processes, it promoted radical values like customer collaboration, embracing change, and empowering motivated teams.

However, over 20 years on, there is a glaring disconnect between the values espoused and how some of the founders themselves behave, according to the thought-provoking critique by @davenicolette. It’s a harsh charge – that the very people birthing the Agile revolution violate its core tenets through arrogant, domineering attitudes antithetical to the spirit of empathy and humility they advocated.

A Cultural Blind Spot

This paradox may stem from the homogeneity of the Manifesto authors as middle-class white males from individualistic Western cultures. @davenicolette posits that the teamwork and self-organisation urged by Agile were unnatural in such environments, hence the need for a “grand statement of the obvious.”

In more collectivist societies, these human-centric principles were ingrained, making much of the “Agile industry” of training and certifications more or less irrelevant. The coaching, tools and jargon were unnecessary “grabs for attention” in individualistic contexts.

Heroes to Humans

A core Agile principle was rejecting the old “hero-god” mentality of software development, instead fostering self-organising teams of empowered peers. Tragically though, @davenicolette finds some founders exhibiting that very domineering behaviour they aimed to dismantle.

In a striking role reversal, these “hero-gods of Agile” reportedly collaborate poorly, fixating on their own perceived wisdom over cultivating curiosity about others’ perspectives. A far cry from the humble facilitation prescribed by their own teachings.

The Agile Evolution: Organisational Psychotherapy

As Agile principles continue being applied beyond software, the future increasingly points toward an organisation-wide psychotherapeutic approach to workplace development and improvement.

Organisational Psychotherapy (OP) seamlessly blends the human-centric principles at Agile’s core with a holistic focus on group dynamics, emotional intelligence and cultivating synergistic team cultures. It’s a natural progression from the Manifesto’s original emphasis on prioritising individuals and interactions over processes.

In this sense, organisational psychotherapy represents the next evolutionary wave – taking the ideals of empathetic, self-aware collaboration and expanding them into a comprehensive intentional approach for nurturing the human elements that allow organisations to truly flourish.

As @davenicolette expresses, the fundamental “agile thing” boils down to simply allowing and enabling people to work in a manner innate to our species. Organisational psychotherapy provides a framework for manifesting that ideal across all kinds of organisations, while helping address cultural hang-ups and institutional obstacles.

By fusing the original humanist values with a strategic organisational focus, this approach can help transcend the personal contradictions of the founders and realise their full transformative potential across all industries. It’s the embodiment of “individuals and interactions” writ large.

The Multicultural Counter-Example

Contrasting this, @davenicolette shares an uplifting tale of coaching a diverse, multicultural team comprising six nationalities. Despite no native culture in common, they smoothly embodied teamwork and continually improved their approach – all with minimal resistance or guidance required.

This team’s seamless discovery and embracing of the ideas the Manifesto fought so hard to establish perhaps reveals the broader cross-cultural resonance when people transcend societal biases around individualism.

Simple Wisdom Lost

As Agile pervaded the corporate sphere, the original straightforward vision of “working naturally as humans” became increasingly obscured. Corporatisation, commodification of training, and standardisation into rigid processes corrupted and diluted the elegant simplicity at its core.

Organisational Therapy: The Next Level

Organisational Psychotherapy takes the Manifesto’s people-first philosophy to the next level. It blends prioritising individuals with cultivating healthy group dynamics, emotional intelligence, and vibrant team environments. It further evolves the idea of valuing interactions over processes.

The holistic approach helps us grow as individuals while optimising how we work collectively to achieve more together than we could alone. By applying psychological insights through an organisational lens, it charts an expansive path for making the Manifesto’s ideals a reality across organisations.

The Fruitful Future

From this perspective, the future feels absolutely brimming with creative potential. We can combine our skills, remove limits holding us back, and build supportive environments that increase what we’re able to do while appreciating our human nature.

It’s a wide-open opportunity awaiting trailblazers willing to forge an inclusive, self-aware path like Agile’s founders did. We stand poised to discover new ways to collaborate and unleash our collective genius to everyone’s benefit.

The Human Revolution Continues

With OP illuminating the way, we can realise more of our ambitions. This human-honouring revolution can now reshape the very core of how organisations operate – tapping into our need for continual growth and flourishing teams to build a perpetually evolving, thriving future together.

Ultimately, @davenicolette posits, the Manifesto’s powerful ideas may be best appreciated by disassociating them from the personal shortcomings of their originators. While honouring their revolutionary contribution, separating the philosophy from its founders’ “peculiar incongruities” allows its value to shine through – untarnished by human contradictions.

In its essence, Organisational Psychotherapy is a call to harness our truest, most collaborative selves through self-awareness, teamwork, continual introspection, and shunning of dogmas. A clarion call to humanise the workplace that likely resonates most purely when its ideas transcend the limitations of the Manifesto’s origins. How about we use the Manifesto as a stepping stone to better things?

The Future of Coding: Embracing AI Readability

In the domain of software development, the concept of writing code primarily for artificial intelligence (AI) readability and maintainability is an intriguing prospect that will influence the future of coding practices. While human-readable code remains the standard approach as of August 2023, the rapid advances in AI technology suggest that a paradigm shift may be on the horizon.

The Rise of AI-Centric Coding Styles

As AI systems become increasingly sophisticated and integrated into software development workflows, the need for code that caters to the strengths of these systems may become more pressing. This could lead to the emergence of coding styles specifically tailored for AI readability and maintainability over (sic) human readability and maintainability, encompassing the following characteristics:

Increased Abstraction and Modularisation

AI systems may thrive on highly modularised and abstracted code, where individual components are clearly separated and encapsulated. This could result in a coding style that emphasises smaller, more self-contained units of code with well-defined interfaces, promoting better organisation and encapsulation.

Formalised and Explicit Syntax

While human programmers often rely on conventions and implicit understandings, AI systems may benefit from a more formalised and explicit syntax. This could involve additional annotations or metadata that make the semantics of the code more explicit, catering to the needs of AI systems for unambiguous interpretation.

Pattern Recognition Optimisation

AI systems excel at recognising patterns, so the coding style could be optimised for this strength. Consistent naming conventions, structural similarities, and other patterns that can be easily recognised by AI systems may become more prevalent.

Reduced Redundancy (DRY)

AI systems may be better equipped to handle and maintain code with minimal redundancy, leading to a coding style that emphasises code reuse, shared libraries, and other techniques to reduce duplication.Such techniques will likely make the code more or less illegible to humans, at least to unaided humans.

Documentation Tailored for AI Comprehension

In an AI-centric coding paradigm, the traditional concept of human-readable documentation and comments may become obsolete. Instead, the emphasis would shift towards creating self-documenting code that can be seamlessly interpreted and maintained by AI systems. This could involve incorporating structured annotations, metadata, and other machine-readable elements directly into the codebase.

The documentation process itself could be automated, with AI algorithms capable of parsing the code structure, analyzing the annotations, and generating comprehensive documentation tailored specifically for AI comprehension. This documentation would be optimized for pattern recognition, logical inference, and other capabilities that AI systems excel at, rather than catering to human readability.

Moreover, the maintenance of this documentation could be handled by AI systems, ensuring that it remains up-to-date and consistent with the evolving codebase. As changes are made to the code, the AI-driven documentation would automatically reflect these modifications, eliminating the need for manual updates and reducing the risk of documentation becoming outdated or inconsistent with the actual implementation.

This approach could potentially revolutionize the way documentation is created, maintained, and consumed, shifting the focus from human readability to machine interpretability, and leveraging the strengths of AI systems to streamline the documentation process.

The Hybrid Approach

While the prospect of AI-centric coding styles is intriguing, it’s important to note that a hybrid approach may emerge as a stop-gap or transitionary approach, where code is written to be readable and maintainable by both humans and AI systems. This approach could leverage the strengths of both parties, ensuring that the code remains accessible to human developers while also catering to the needs of AI systems. I suggest this duplication of effert will soon rankle.

Conclusion

As AI technology continues to evolve, the way we approach coding will undergo significant transformations. While the shift towards AI readability and maintainability is still a hypothetical scenario, it is an exciting prospect that could revolutionise the software development industry. Regardless of the direction this trend takes, one thing is certain: the future of coding will be shaped by the interplay between human ingenuity and the capabilities of AI systems. And we can finally discard the shackles of so-called agility, too – in favour of doing what humans do best: attending to folks’ needs.

Here’s a postscript illuminating the use of AI to write code in a style where readability and maintainability by humans is not the main focus:

Postscript: AI-Generated Code for Machine Consumption

In addition to the prospect of writing code specifically tailored for AI readability and maintainability, the advancement of AI technology also raises the intriguing possibility of AI systems themselves generating code in a style optimised for machine consumption, rather than human readability.

As AI systems become more sophisticated in their ability to understand and translate natural language into code, they could potentially generate programs that prioritise efficiency, conciseness, and optimisations over human-friendly constructs. This AI-generated code might forgo traditional conventions and practices aimed at enhancing readability for human developers, instead favoring structures and patterns that are more readily interpretable and maintainable by themselves and/or other AI systems.

Such AI-generated code could be highly compact, with minimal redundancy and a heavy reliance on abstraction and modularisation. It might incorporate complex mathematical models, advanced algorithms, and unconventional coding techniques that leverage the strengths of AI systems while potentially sacrificing human comprehensibility.

While this concept may seem counterintuitive to traditional software development practices, it could open up new avenues for highly optimised and efficient code generation, particularly in domains where performance and scalability are paramount, such as high-performance computing, big data processing, or cutting-edge scientific simulations.

Moreover, as AI systems become increasingly integrated into the software development lifecycle, they could potentially maintain and evolve this AI-generated code autonomously(?), with minimal human intervention. This could lead to a paradigm shift where the primary consumers and maintainers of code are AI systems themselves, rather than human developers.

However, it’s important to note that this scenario is still largely hypothetical and dependent on further advancements in AI technology and its practical applications in software development. Nonetheless, it highlights the potential for AI to reshape not only how we write and maintain code but also how code itself is generated and optimised for machine consumption.

Following on from my previous post concerning surfacing and reflecting on shared assumptions and beliefs about work, here are ten reflective questions for an executive considering flexible software development approaches:

1. What are our priorities – speed, adaptability, innovation, quality, predictability? How should our processes align*?
2. Do our teams thrive with more autonomy, or require structure from leadership?
3. Are staff skills best leveraged through specialisation or multi-skilling and cross-functional collaboration?
4. How much do we value rapid delivery versus long-term planning and building of long-term capabilities?
5. Can our culture accept constant change versus needing firm commitments to e.g. delivery dates, feature sets, etc?
6. Is our leadership comfortable ceding some control over how work gets done?
7. Do our metrics reflect outcomes, outputs, value delivered, or needs met? Should we measure differently?
8. Is transparency into work progress more valuable than formal milestones?
9. Do we believe in Minimal Viable Products over Big Design Up Front?
10. Are we open to new ideas or convinced our current ways of working work best? How much research have we done?

*I.E. What approach will best ensure our organisation’s processes, systems and structures are optimally configured to support our priorities and goals, around both software development and our wider business?

Note: Many more than these ten questions could be relevant to the headline topic. I encourage and invite you to try asking your favourite chatbot for more questions to consider.

Also note: Given the preponderance of proselytisation for the Agile approach currently found on the Internet, I would not recommend asking your chatbot “Should we adopt Agile?” directly. Unbiased and considered advice will NOT be forthcoming.

Over 160 years ago, Karl Marx famously declared religion to be the “opiate of the masses.” He believed faith’s promise of future redemption pacified oppressed workers to accept current suffering. Today, it is software methodology, not theology, dulling pain amidst dysfunction. Agile has become the new opiate of the masses.

New Religion

Like a new religion, Agile enchants followers with visions of empowerment, progress, and salvation. Its rituals claim to surface hidden dysfunction while promising to heal broken processes. Yet its addiction may be the deepest dysfunction of all.

New Blinders

Behind the rhetoric of transparency and adaptation lies a new set of blinders. Insisting myopically on timeboxed cycles cements local efficiencies while inhibiting long-term and system-wide change. Making work visible addresses symptoms not root causes. Embracing uncertainty masks risk and reactive thinking.

Velocity Displaces Validity

Like any local optimum, Agile optimisation constraints flexibility – “You can only make changes within the software development silo”.

Guided by output metrics not outcome objectives, velocity displaces validity and busyness disguises futility. By valorising action over purpose, standups and retros distract from the void at Agile’s core: why and to what end?

Dogmatic

The deepest irony is that a method premised on adaptation insists dogmatically upon iteration models, work crystallisation, and prescribed mindsets. In promising liberation, it imposes yet another rigid straighjacket. No prescribed framework fully grasps software’s complexities.

Summary

Might we better choose to dispense with the trappings, and orient to attending to needs, rather than process perfection? Might we choose to see method as a compass, not a map? Iterative delivery and feedback cycles can certainly guide teams. But when blindly systematised and followed slavishly, Agile risks making the “perfect” the enemy of the good enough. Behind grand sounding transformation lies mere pacification and opioid stupour. Before seeking reform through new methods, might we first get clear on folks’ needs?

SAFe (Scaled Agile Framework) has become one of the most widespread scaling agile frameworks adopted by large companies and organisations. Despite numerous criticisms and many documented failures, its appeal continues to grow, with enterprises willing to invest massive sums in training and disruption to implement SAFe. This seems surprising given the minimal tangible benefits realised by most SAFe adherents.

So why does SAFe remain so appealing to large, complex bureaucracies? In a word: comfort. While marketed as a way to enable agility and leanness, SAFe appeals precisely because it does not challenge the status quo nor the entrenched beliefs held in many slow-moving, hierarchical organisations.

Criticisms of SAFe

To understand this dynamic, let’s first review common critiques levelled at SAFe:

• Overly complex and prescriptive – SAFe has endless prescribed roles, processes, artefacts etc. This bureaucratic overhead hinders agility.
• Hard to tailor – The intricate nature of SAFe makes customisation impractical. Organisations must reshape themselves to fit the framework.
• Promotes “waterfall” thinking – The emphasis on upfront planning and budgets feeds an outdated sequential mindset rather than adaptiveness.
• Reduces team autonomy – The multitude of coordination points, cadences and preset workflows leave little room for teams to self-organise.
• Lots of overhead – The multi-layered structure requires innumerable meetings, planning sessions and documentation with little obvious value.
• Focused on software – Challenging to integrate with hardware-based development.
• Failure to change mindsets – By not focusing enough on culture and psychology, old ways of thinking persist.
• Poor results for small teams – The coordination needs overwhelm lighter-weight groups.

And the big one:

• Fails to deliver promised benefits – Despite claims around quality, speed, alignment etc., SAFe often delivers no measurable improvements.

Why So Appealing Then?

On the surface, we might be forgiven for thinking that these weaknesses would temper interest in what looks like an over-engineered, bureaucratic and exploitative approach. Yet SAFe resonates precisely because it neatly aligns with the innate orientation of lumbering enterprises.

Importantly, the traditional command-and-control assumptions underpinning these organisations are fundamentally incompatible with the collaborative dynamism essential for collaborative knowledge work (CKW) like software development. Still, decision-makers inevitably cling to what they know.

Organisational psychotherapy techniques can help transition teams to more adaptive behaviours, but this level of innovation is unknown to most executives.

Social Psychology

Instead, SAFe taps into the underlying psychology of social systems both enamoured by and resistant to change simultaneously. It allows decision-makers to signal adherence to “agile” thinking for PR purposes while actually fortifying traditional beliefs around command-and-control. It fosters the myth that adding scaffolding and rituals atop dysfunctional structures and ineffective ways of working can enable high-performance.

By wrapping waterfall-era assumptions in trendy Agile terminology yet never challenging obsolete ideas, SAFe holds tremendous appeal as it lets organisations feel as though they are evolving without actual introspection or change. For entrenched companies desperate for innovation yet terrified of losing control or certainty, SAFe’s contradictory promise proves irresistible. The disappointments come later. When admission thereto have become way to embarrasing to air.

ABC

Approaches like Agile for Big Companies (ABC – open sourced and in the public domain) aim to bridge this gap by enabling greater agility without upending incumbent structures and assumptions. Yet true transformation requires a willingness to surface and reflect upon long-held organisational axioms. For those unable or unwilling to fundamentally remake themselves, SAFe offers a tempting façade of progress.

Does Taking Sides Help?

Supporting Agile is like supporting Hamas, or Israel, or the Palestinians, or Ukraine, or Russia, or the USA, or China, or…

This opening might shock you, but it’s an intentional jolt to invite reflection on how we often automatically pick sides. I’ve spent years criticising Agile, but recent world events have helped my see the folly of this. In the Middle East and elsewhere, any sane person would support PEACE. (Of course, sanity seems in direly short supply, presently). Similarly we might choose to aim for better meeting folks’ NEEDS in organisational practices. Instead of partisan stances, why not focus on what really matters: achieving results that speak to the needs of everyone involved?

Why Do We Rush to Choose Sides?

Choosing a side can feel satisfying. It simplifies complex issues and gives us a team to root for. However, partisanship often blinds us to the nuances that exist in any conflict or approach. Whether it’s in international relations or ways of working, like Agile, blind allegiance and partisanship never results in beneficial outcomes.

What’s the Cost of Partisanship?

The cost is steep. Partisan views stifle creativity and close us off from alternative solutions. We become invested in the success of our chosen side or approach, disregarding other approaches that offer better results. Specifically, pro-agile or anti-agile now seems to me to be highly partisan, and a similar folly. I propose we get off the taking sides bandwagon and move towards attending to folks’ fundamental needs.

What Outcomes Do Folks Need?

Instead of wallowing in partisan mire, let’s focus on folks’ needs. These can vary, but generally include:

• Products and services that best* meet folks’ needs.
• A workplace environment, ways of working, and organisational culture that best* meet folks’ needs.
• [Further suggestions invited]

Each approach, including Agile, has its merits and drawbacks when it comes to these outcomes. By taking a needs-based stance, we can adopt a blend of approaches tailored to specific needs, rather than attempting to shoehorn everything into a one-size-fits-all approach.

How Do We Move Forward?

To move away from partisanship, we might choose to:

1. Identify whose needs matter, and what those needs might be.
2. Surface and reflect on shared assumptions and beliefs.
3. Acknowledge our biases.
4. Educate ourselves on different approaches.
5. Align on desired outcomes.

This isn’t just applicable to Agile; it’s a principle we can apply universally. Whether it’s picking a side in a conflict or choosing principles and practices for organisational improvement, we might choose to free ourselves from the limitations of partisanship.

Final Thoughts

Partisanship is a tempting trap, offering the illusion of simplicity in a complex world. But it’s a trap that often leads us away from the outcomes folks need. By acknowledging this, we can pave a more effective, less divisive path forward, whether we’re discussing international relations, social change, or the best* approaches for organisational success.

*Here, may I suggest that “best” means “meets all the needs of all the folks that matter”.

What’s the Agile Promise? A Closer Look

Agile frameworks have become somewhat of a buzzword, promising solutions to a variety of organisational challenges like cost overruns, time delays, and poor-quality products. But is there any real substance behind these promises? It’s high time we cut through the hype.

Cost Savings: A Mirage?

One of the most frequently touted benefits of Agile is the potential for cost savings. The idea is that by breaking projects down into smaller tasks and focusing on an MVP, costs can be better controlled. However, evidence suggests that Agile doesn’t actually provide any guaranteed cost advantages. In fact, poorly managed Agile can result in escalating costs.

Does Agile Fix Time Management Issues?

Agile methods like Scrum advocate for time-boxed sprints and quick iterations, ostensibly to help teams manage time better. But let’s be clear: Agile does nothing to inherently solve time overruns. Teams can still fail to deliver on time, despite using Agile practices.

Is Quality Really Assured?

Though Agile methods involve constant testing and feedback loops, these practices don’t guarantee improved quality. The responsibility for quality lies in the hands of those implementing the practices, and there are plenty of cases where Agile projects have resulted in subpar products.

Does Agile Alleviate Managerial Stress?

Contrary to popular belief, Agile doesn’t make life easier for managers. The need for continuous oversight, frequent meetings, and quick decision-making often adds to managerial stress rather than alleviating it.

Where’s the Critical Evaluation?

Many organisations jump onto the Agile bandwagon without giving it adequate thought. What’s missing is a critical evaluation of whether Agile practices actually offer any benefits, be they operational or financial.

Any Real Business Benefits?

Now for the most provocative yet necessary point: Agile offers no tangible business benefits. Despite its focus on iterative processes and development, Agile practices don’t translate into increased revenue, market share, or customer satisfaction. If anything, they add layers of complexity that often have no direct business value.

Might We Deprogram Ourselves of Our Blind Faith?

The pervasive but misguided belief in Agile as a universal solution for organisational issues invites reconsideration. Contrary to its zealous promotion, Agile has no intrinsic merits that guarantee better business outcomes. Organisations might choose to drop the rose-coloured glasses and critically evaluate whether Agile brings anything to the table at all.

What Does “Right” Mean?

When we talk about being “right” in this context, we’re referring to a blend of factual accuracy and logical correctness. It means that your stance aligns with evidence and adheres to principles of logical reasoning. This isn’t about being morally right or wrong; rather, it’s about your position being defensible based on facts and rational arguments.

Why Aren’t Right and Popular Synonymous?

In an ideal scenario, what’s right should naturally be what’s popular. But we don’t live in such a simple reality. Public opinion often sways due to factors such as social influence, emotional appeal, or pre-existing biases. Popularity doesn’t put a premium on factual accuracy or logical validity. Often, a popular opinion gains traction not because it’s correct, but because it resonates with a significant number of people on a different level, be it emotional, ideological or commercial.

Can You Be Both?

Occasionally, yes, you can find yourself in the sweet spot where right meets popular. But increasingly, especially in polarised discussions—be they political, social, or even scientific—the two are mutually exclusive. The more divisive the topic, the more likely that standing on the side of logic and evidence will place you outside the mainstream. Increasingly, rigorous facts and deep insights have been overshadowed by sensationalism, crowd psychology and the might of Mammon.

What’s at Stake?

When right and popular part ways, there are consequences for both individuals and society. For individuals, it might mean less social acceptance or professional opportunities. On a societal level, the erosion of fact-based discourse can have serious implications, from the spread of misinformation to poorly-informed public policies.

How Do You Choose?

It’s a personal decision. If being correct is a core part of your identity and purpose, then there’s no question about which path to choose. However, if your role involves public influence or if your objective is to bring about change, the answer may not be so straightforward. Sometimes, a tactical compromise can serve a larger strategy, even if it means momentarily sidelining what’s right for what’s popular.

Conclusion

Being right and being popular are increasingly becoming mutually exclusive options. While it’s a dilemma that poses challenges both personally and socially, the choice ultimately lies in your hands. What you choose will depend on your needs, your values, and the context in which you find yourself.

What’s Wrong with Agile Coaches and Scrum Masters?

Agile coaching and Scrum Master roles have proliferated like mushrooms after the rain. These positions seem alluring, sprinkled with buzzwords and the promise of transforming the workplace. But strip away the jargon, and we’re left with a troubling question: Do these coaches and Scrum Masters genuinely know what’s going on, and what they’re doing? The sad answer, often enough, is no.

Are Senior Managers Supporting Them?

Senior management’s support can make or break the efficacy of an Agile Coach or Scrum Master. Unfortunately, a lot of the time, the upper echelons of an organisation fail to back these roles, turning them into totally bullshit jobs. Without this crucial buy-in, coaches and Scrum Masters operate in an organisational vacuum, making their jobs impossible.

Why Are Teams Skeptical?

It’s not just senior management. Development teams themselves are often less than thrilled to interact with Agile Coaches or Scrum Masters. The reason is straightforward: They don’t see the value. When the so-called Agile experts cannot coherently explain their methods or bring palpable improvements, why should teams give them the time of day?

Confusion: Methods vs. Methodologies

Another concern arises when Agile Coaches and Scrum Masters confuse methods with methodologies. A method is a specific procedure for accomplishing something. In contrast, a methodology is a system of methods used in a particular area of study or activity. Knowing a few Agile methods doesn’t mean one understands Agile methodology. This lack of deep understanding reveals itself quickly, leading to flawed advice and a loss of credibility.

What’s the Way Forward?

The situation is hopeless. Even in the extremely rare case that developers and senior management both lend their wholehearted support, adopting Agile delivers precious few benefits.

Summary

In conclusion, it’s easy to assign titles and make grand statements about transforming work culture. What’s challenging is actually understanding the philosophy, methods, and methodologies that make such transformations possible. Until Agile Coaches and Scrum Masters abandon their game—and get redeployed into more productive roles—the empty promises of Agile will continue to seduce the ignorant and unwary..

Is Agile Just For Show?

The first question you might ask is, “Is adopting Agile simply a performance art?” Agile methodologies have often been marketed as a golden ticket for management of software development. Yet, many critics argue that Agile’s real-world benefits are nebulous at best, and the widespread adoption is just for the optics.

What Do The Critics Say?

Some assert that Agile is more about appearing progressive and innovative than delivering practical benefits. They argue that the ceremonies, rituals, and jargon associated with Agile—like stand-ups, sprints, and “being Agile”—are geared towards creating an illusion of productivity and efficiency.

Are There Any Real Benefits?

Now, it wouldn’t  be unfair to completely write off Agile. Adopting Agile does bring some tangible benefits, such as adaptability to change and team collaboration. However, whether these benefits translate into meaningful outcomes like faster time-to-market or increased productivity is a point of contention. Many organisations adopt Agile and continue to miss deadlines and overrun budgets.

Is Optics a Bad Thing?

If adopting Agile is more about optics than real-world efficiency, does that make it inherently bad? Not necessarily. In some cases, the appearance of being modern and progressive can attract talent, secure funding, and build client trust. So, even if the practical benefits are scant, the optics themselves might offer some indirect advantages.

So, Is Agile Worth It?

The answer is straightforward. If you’re after genuine predictability and productivity gains, you’ll need somethig other than an Agile framework. However, if building a particular image of your organisation or yourself is essential for your goals, then the ‘Agile optics’ may just be worth the effort.

Why is Agile Aggravating?

The aggravation in Agile, cheekily coined as “Ag-ile,” isn’t solely a byproduct of poor implementation or misunderstanding the philosophy. Even when executed effectively, Agile can bring about its own set of aggravations. One significant reason? Local optimisation.

What is Local Optimisation?

In Agile, teams work in silos—small, focused units aimed at achieving specific tasks. These teams, however, often optimise their performance without considering the bigger picture. They excel in their micro-universe, but that doesn’t necessarily translate to overall organisational efficiency. It’s a classic case of not seeing the forest for the trees, but it’s not the teams’ fault. The structure and guidelines of Agile itself nudge teams toward this myopic view.

Does Local Optimisation Undermine Overall Goals?

Absolutely. The isolated victories of individual Agile teams can create an illusion of progress and success. This mirage not only masks the inefficiencies at the organisational level but also, paradoxically, can worsen them.

Is the Problem Fixable?

Yes, but it’s not easy. Addressing the challenge requires an organisation-wide shift in mindset. Your teams need to align their goals not just with their immediate objectives but also with the organisation’s broader aims. Unfortunately, this is easier said than done, especially when the frameworks you’re using are predisposed to local optimisation.

So, What’s the Solution?

One approach is to adopt systems thinking. This mindset focuses on the relationships between various parts of an organisation. When applied, it can help identify how local optimisation impacts the bigger picture and pinpoint areas that need reevaluation. Additionally, transparency between teams and management can help recalibrate goals and expectations.

Is Agile at All Compatible with Systems Thinking?

No, not at all. Agile and systems thinking operate on fundamentally different paradigms. While Agile focuses on quick iterations and local optimisation, systems thinking aims for a holistic view of the organisation. These approaches aren’t just disparate; they’re almost antithetical. Systems thinking demands a focus on how individual parts interact with and affect the whole, something Agile isn’t designed to address.

When you apply Agile, you’re encouraged to break down complex problems into manageable parts, which individual teams can tackle. On the surface, this seems like a logical way to address challenges. However, this approach inherently limits the scope to localised areas without considering the larger organisational ecosystem. Systems thinking would look at these issues quite differently, asking how solving one part of the problem might create challenges elsewhere.

Given this inherent misalignment, if your organisation is committed to systems thinking, forcing an Agile framework onto it can create a clash of methodologies that’s not just unproductive, but potentially damaging.

Summary

Agile methodologies, even when implemented well, come with their share of aggravations, the most prominent being local optimisation. This focus on localised success can distort the perception of overall organisational performance. Systems thinking offers a solution, but it’s not an easy fix. Importantly, the core principles of Agile are fundamentally at odds with systems thinking, making the two largely incompatible. So, while Agile might promise quick wins, it’s worth questioning whether those wins contribute to or detract from your organisation’s broader objectives.

Agile for Agile’s Sake: A Joke or Reality?

So, we’ve got Agile practices sprouting up in companies like mushrooms after a rainstorm. But let’s get real, is “Agile for Agile’s sake” the business equivalent of a dad joke—seems funny but doesn’t quite hit the mark?

What Drives the Agile FOMO?

Ah, the Fear Of Missing Out—a condition as contagious as yawning in a meeting. Is FOMO the reason companies are jumping onto the Agile bandwagon like it’s the last train out of 1999? Are we just afraid that not doing Agile is like missing the season finale of a hit show?

Are We Just “Playing House”?

You know, pretending to be grown-ups who’ve got it all together. Standing in a circle every morning, talking about “what’s on the agenda”, but forgetting the bigger picture. Are we just mimicking Agile practices without grasping their essence, like kids who think doing taxes is as easy as playing Monopoly?

Time for a Reality Check?

So, you’ve realised you’re stuck in this Agile comedy sketch. What now? Do you laugh it off, or do you call for a script rewrite? Is there a way to steer the Agile ship back on course without feeling like you’ve flunked your driving test?

What’s the Punchline?

Alright, let’s assume you’ve managed to salvage the Agile situation. Do you pat yourselves on the back and call it a wrap, or is this the start of a sequel? How do you keep your Agile practices from turning into a running gag that’s lost its charm?

Is Agile a Box Office Flop?

If we’re honest with ourselves, the Agile experiment is more akin to a box office flop than a blockbuster. Despite all the bells and whistles, it often doesn’t deliver what it promises. Yes, some projects excel, but far too many end up in a muddle, creating more confusion and less productivity.

There ARE Alternatives

If Agile’s not the hero it’s been hyped up to be, what’s the Plan B? Have we considered options like Lean, Design Thinking, or Organisational Psychotherapy? How about bespoke methods tailored to a company’s unique challenges, or no method at all—just an alignment on core values and principles?

Perhaps it’s time to shelve Agile as the latest in a long line of failed management fads. Just like Betamax, laser discs, and 3D TVs, Agile has had its moment in the sun. But is it time to find another star to guide us?

So there you have it—questions, chuckles, and a splash of cold water on the Agile fervour. It might be worth pondering whether Agile is the punchline we’ve been waiting for, or just a dad joke that’s overstayed its welcome.

Unveiling the Emperor: Agile’s Non-Existent Clothes

If Agile were a bottle of snake oil peddled by a slick, moustachioed charlatan, would you still buy it? This provocative question necessitates confronting the uncomfortable fact that Agile, the beloved darling of software development, has no merits to speak of. In this exposé, we’ll look at the concept of “mendacious gullibility” through the lens of William Kingdon Clifford’s “The Ethics of Belief,” to probe why Agile has garnered such uncritical and unworthy adoration.

Note: Here, we’re talking about Agile as it commonly manifests in software development. Pursuit of agility across a whole organisation is a different kettle of fish. Cf. ABC and agility at scale.

Unpacking Mendacious Gullibility

Mendacious gullibility is a state of wilful self-deception, where the desire to believe is so strong that it eclipses the moral obligation to scrutinise. According to Clifford, beliefs without a sturdy foundation of evidence are not merely misguided, but ethically unsound. When applied to Agile, this means that adopting the concept, and practices, without critical analysis is not only ineffective but morally dubious.

Agile’s Hollow Promises: A Critical Dissection

Agile promises adaptability, collaboration, and speed. Yet, if we’re honest, these promises often fall flat. Efforts don’t necessarily become more efficient, nor do teams always feel more empowered. So, why does the belief persist that Agile is beneficial? The answer likely lies in mendacious gullibility—a collective suspension of critical thinking encouraged by self-interest, catchy jargon and snake oil testimonials.

The Real-World Consequences: Beyond Failed Efforts

The impact of this self-serving self-deception is not restricted to resources and timelines; it penetrates the ethical core of an organisation. Team morale can suffer, trust in leadership may erode, and the overall health of the business could be jeopardised. The price of mendacious gullibility is not just operational but deeply ethical.

Debunking the Agile Myth: An Ethical Imperative

For those who care about ethical governance and responsible leadership, the requirement is clear: Agile must be critically evaluated and, when found wanting, discarded.

• Demand hard evidence rather than relying on industry buzz.
• Challenge the proponents of Agile to provide substantive proof of its applicability.
• Be willing to consider alternatives that may not have Agile’s glamour but offer evidence-based effectiveness.

In Closing: The Moral Duty to Question

If Clifford’s “The Ethics of Belief” serves as any guide, we must confront the disturbing idea that Agile’s universal adoption might be a manifestation of mendacious gullibility. It’s not simply that Agile is inappropriate for certain efforts; it is that Agile is fundamentally flawed, with no redeeming merits beyond its ability to lever open the wallets of the naively gullible.

Moral integrity demands more than self-deluding acceptance. As we navigate the labyrinth of methods and best practices, how about we commit to an ethical approach that values evidence over hype. And when it comes to Agile, it’s time we stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

Addressing the needs of various stakeholders is at the heart of any business operation. The term “Needsscape” encapsulates this complex and ever-changing matrix of needs within an organisation. Crucially, it refers to the evolving set of stakeholders, known as “Folks That Matter“, and their ever-evolving sets of needs. Understanding this needsscape isn’t just beneficial; it’s essential for making informed decisions and prioritising actions.

What Makes Up the Needsscape?

The needsscape comprises a range of needs, from financial obligations to emotional requirements:

• Financial needs of owners, shareholders, and employees
• Customer needs addressed by products and services
• Supplier revenue needs
• Societal needs like commerce, social cohesion, and wealth distribution
• Emotional needs such as self-worth, accomplishment, and compassion among staff and executives

The Imperative for a Dynamic Approach

Being tied to this ever-changing landscape of needs means that businesses can’t afford to have static assumptions, beliefs, or solution strategies:

1. Assumptions: The basic tenets that guide the organisation’s actions must be regularly checked and updated.
2. Beliefs: The core values that form the organisational culture might need to shift to align with changing needs.
3. Solution Strategies: The methods used for problem-solving should adapt to meet the current and future needs of stakeholders.

The Power of Visualisation

Visualising the Needsscape can serve as a powerful tool for understanding and adapting to this dynamic environment. Real-time or near-real-time visualisations can provide immediate insights into the current status of various needs and how well they are being addressed. This allows for quick, data-driven decisions, sets the stage for proactive rather than reactive strategies, and minimises the amount of wasted (non-value adding) effort. Useful Needsscape visualisations will also present historical trends and accomplishments in attenting to needs – and even future projections of needs, too.

Practical Steps for Adaptability

1. Monitoring: Implement metrics tracking to constantly evaluate the needs of stakeholders and the organisation’s effectiveness in attending to and meeting them.
2. Open Dialogue: Create an environment where discussing the changing needsscape and its implications is not just acceptable but encouraged, even required.
3. Regular Reviews: Incorporate frequent check-ins to assess and adjust the organisation’s assumptions, beliefs, and strategies.

Summary

To sum up, organisations might choose to understand the benefits of recognising that the dynamic nature of the needsscape is a key element for their success. This understanding influences all aspects of operations, from foundational assumptions to day-to-day strategies. Using visualisations can further refine this adaptability, offering immediate, actionable insights into how well the organisation is addressing the constantly evolving Needsscape.

Agile development has promised to be the panacea for a host of problems that software development teams face. Yet it has devolved into approaches characterised by rigidity, misinformation, and top-down control. As we navigate the murky waters of agile adoptions, and Scrum, Kanban, etc. implementations, two Orwellian statements echo and reverberate:

1. “The further society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.” (Widely attributed to George Orwell, although its direct origin is debated)
2. “The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth.” (From Orwell’s “1984”)

These quotes invite us to pause and reflect on some of the deeply rooted issues within the agile community.

Drifting from Truth

As agile approached take the corporate world by storm, we’ve seen the predominance of ‘agile theatre’. This is where the word ‘agile’ is on everyone’s lips, but its principles aren’t in their actions. Teams may host daily stand-ups or retrospective meetings, yet fail to embrace a culture of openness and adaptability.

So, what happens when someone calls out these inconsistencies? Often, they’re sidelined or labelled as ‘not a team player’. This mirrors the sentiment of the first Orwell quote: the further the agile community drifts from the core agile tenets of transparency, inspection, and adaptation, the less it appreciates individuals who remind it of its original values and goals.

Note: While this quote is widely attributed to Orwell, its direct origins are a subject of debate.

Erasing the Past, Embracing the Lie

Agile practices have also seen shifts that compromise their foundational principles. For instance, “being agile” now often means “doing Scrum” or “implementing Kanban”, with little regard for the contextual needs of an organisation. Past failures are conveniently forgotten, and the cycle of ‘new agile initiatives’ is continuously rebooted, with no one daring to question the perpetual loop of erasure and overwriting.

This phenomenon resonates with the second Orwellian statement. We erase our past failures and adapt convenient narratives. The lie—that we’re fully agile—becomes our truth.

Will There Ever be an Agile Reckoning?

Is it time we revisit the principles that make agile a truly transformative approach? Rather than ostracising those who call out our flaws, might we choose to view them as allies in refining our approach? And instead of erasing our failures, might we choose to inspect and adapt, using them as valuable lessons?

In a world where the ‘Agile Industrial Complex’ has all but erased the ideals of the original Agile Manifesto, taking a leaf out of Orwell’s books might be our best hope to navigate through the fog. And remember, just like in Orwell’s world, the pursuit of truth starts with critical thinking and the courage to challenge prevailing narratives

The quest for success in today’s complex business environment often leads companies down paths that promise agility but fall short in delivering tangible results. Approaches like SAFe, LeSS, and DAD have left organisations yearning for something more substantial, more aligned with the pursuit of genuine success.

Introducing ABC (Agility for Big Companies): A New Pathway

Today, I am proud to unveil the open sourcing of ABC (Agility for Big Companies), a growing compilation of documents and guidance designed to foster success at scale. What sets ABC apart is not just its innovative approach but its open source, evolving nature. It’s a living community effort that will continue to grow and adapt to the ever-changing needs of big companies.

Success, Leadership, and an Evolving Repository

ABC’s approach focuses on aligning agility with the real-world needs of large companies. It subtly enhances leadership influence and fosters an environment where success is achievable and sustainable. It’s not just about a static set of guidelines; it’s about a community effort in making an ongoing journey towards excellence.

Read Through the ABC Document Repository

The ABC Google Docs Document Respository is now open to everyone to read. You’ll find insights, strategies, and tools to help drive success, all within a repository that is intentionally unfinished and ever-evolving.

You might find the Working Drafts document ABC – A Reading Path one handy place to start.

If you’re interested in just reading, great! But if you want to contribute to this growing movement, I invite you to request commenting or editing access. Your active participation (subject to review) will help shape the ABC approach, adding to its richness and relevance.Most of the current content is unfinished, and will benefit from many eyes, comments and edits.

24x7x365 Support and Collaboration

I’m here for you 24x7x365, ready to support, listen, and collaborate. Together, we can build an approach that not only resonates with the demands of big companies but also reflects our collective wisdom and desire to improve the world.

Join the Movement

The open sourcing of ABC is an invitation to join a movement that celebrates success and provides real agility at scale (not just hollow promises). With your insights, your participation, and your commitment, we can create an approach that’s not only about agility but also about a fulfilling pathway to success that continues to evolve.

Your success, our success. An unfinished journey, a shared vision. Let’s make it happen. Together.

And please share with your friends!

I’m Here for Everyone

Contact me through the WordPress comments section (below), or email, for support, insights, and to request active membership of this dynamic and evolving community.

Google Meet, etc. chats are also possible, by arrangement.

Remember the ancient African proverb:

“If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.”

In the business world, the allure of bright new methodologies often carries with it promises of efficiency, productivity, and overall progress. Yet, there is a widespread belief that Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) adoptions are nothing more than the latest instance of putting lipstick on a pig, rather than a force for meaningful change in achieving enterprise agility.

SAFe and the Mirage of Progress

SAFe has become an industry buzzword. It’s touted by many suppliers as a pathway to improved agility and responsiveness within large organisations. Consultants and suppliers have latched onto this, peddling SAFe transformations and training as a panacea for bureaucratic inefficiencies.

Yet, many observe a very different reality: that the optics of adopting SAFe always overshadow any actual productivity gains. In fact, the reality is that SAFe is never a force for positive change or progress towards enterprise agility. But why is this the case?

1. Focus on Appearances Over Substance

The implementation of SAFe centers around appearances rather than genuine improvements in agility. The transformation “process” becomes all about following the defined structure and rules of SAFe rather than tailoring them to the unique needs and challenges of the client organisation. This makes the whole process an outstanding example of quick and easy money for suppliers who offer one-size-fits-all solutions.

2. A Bloated Bureaucracy

Rather than streamlining processes, SAFe just adds additional layers of bureaucracy. By attempting to scale Agile across the enterprise without proper contextual understanding, organisations end up with an unwieldy system that hampers innovation, productivity and engagement instead of boosting it.

3. A Bandwagon Effect Without Due Consideration

The pressure to keep up with competitors and current trends has led many organisations to jump onto the SAFe bandwagon without a proper assessment of its validity, and its applicability to their unique circumstances. This leads to a misalignment between the adopted framework and the real needs of the business, resulting in wasted resources, frustration, embarrassment, loss of credibility, and disillusionment.

4. Ignoring the Human Element

Implementing SAFe without taking into account the cultural and human aspects of the client organisation – a.k.a. suckers – leads to resistance, confusion, and lack of buy-in from employees. This undermines the very agility that the framework is supposed to foster.

Conclusion

The world of SAFe adoptions within business organisations is a complex one, filled with both hollow promises and pitfalls. While no companies will find practical value in implementing SAFe, this may not matter when the optics are the thing. There is a growing consensus that the focus on optics and easy money for suppliers trumps genuine productivity improvements.

It’s not enough to simply adopt a new framework and expect transformative results. Real change requires a thoughtful, nuanced approach – and hard choices – that takes into account the specific context, needs, and culture of the organisation. This is not about what should be, but rather what is, and what can be realistically achieved.

In the end, the voices highlighting SAFe’s empty promises present a sobering reminder to approach such transformations with caution, skepticism, and a keen eye towards the real needs of the business, rather than falling for the tempting promise of quick solutions and glossy new methods.

In the realm of agile approaches to software development, and more broadly, enterprise agility, practitioners – agilists – often favor innovating and crafting new solutions rather than understanding and learning from historical precedents. While the spirit of continuous improvement and adaptability is commendable, we might choose to avoid the pitfall of rewriting history instead of learning from it. A vivid example of this can be seen in the historical implementation of the Prussian military command method known as Auftragstaktik.

Lessons from Prussian Auftragstaktik

Auftragstaktik, or “mission command,” signifies a departure from hierarchical, top-down command systems to a more decentralised decision-making process. In many ways, this approach parallels the Agile philosophy, empowering teams with the intent and resources and entrusting them to make execution-related decisions. However, the Prussian implementation of Auftragstaktik faced significant challenges, ones that Agile teams can learn from today.

1. Cultural Shift: The Prussians had to move away from the traditional command-and-control structures to empower their lower-level officers, much like Agile teams today. This process is not merely a structural change; it’s a significant cultural shift requiring patience, dedication, and a consistent organisational vision.
2. Education and Training: The Prussians addressed the challenge of skills and competency by investing heavily in officer training at the War Academy. Similarly, Agile teams might choose to invest in continuous learning and professional development to equip their members with both the necessary skills and context to make informed decisions.
3. Trust and Discipline: For Auftragstaktik to work, there had to be high levels of trust and discipline within the ranks. Effective Agile teams also need to build trust, along with a culture that rewards initiative while expecting responsibility for outcomes.
4. Communication: Clear and concise communication was critical in implementing Auftragstaktik. Likewise, Agile teams might choose to foster transparent communication channels to ensure that all members are aligned and informed about the team’s strategic objectives.
5. Risk Management: The Prussian system accepted the risks involved with decentralised decision-making by devising contingency plans and extensive training. Agile teams might choose to also have solid risk management strategies in place to handle unexpected or undesirable outcomes.

Long Lineage

By studying historical examples like Auftragstaktik, companies seeking agility can gain valuable insights and avoid the unnecessary rewriting of history. We might choose to appreciate that Agile is not a novelty, but rather part of a long lineage of systems that leverage decentralisation , self-organisation, and empowerment to achieve objectives. Rather than disregard history, those seeking agility could do well to learn from it, using the lessons of the past to inform their practices and navigate their future.

Attempting to pinpoint the definitive core or heart of successful agility at scale is a pursuit destined for frustration, primarily because agility at scale doesn’t have a fixed, rigid core like traditional business models. It is not defined by a set of steadfast principles, processes, or practices, but rather by the philosophy of adaptability, innovation, and continuous learning. This is a dynamic, ever-evolving core, that flexes and transforms in response to the unique challenges, context, and objectives of each company.

Fluidity

Successful agility at scale resists being confined to a static definition or description, thriving instead on its ability to morph and flow to suit changing circumstances. Consequently, if you’re trying to find a single, immutable core that defines successful agility at scale, you’ll invariably come up short. Instead, embrace the fluidity and ambiguity at its heart; it’s this flexibility that sets successful agility at scale apart, and allows it to drive true innovation and agility in big companies. Indeed, it’s this very fluidity that’s necessary for it to succeed.

Business agility, often merely referred to as ‘agility,’ is the ability of an organisation to adapt quickly, efficiently, and effectively to change. Successful enterprise-wide agility at scale presents a particular challenge due to the inherent complexity of scaling agility to fit big companies. Any successful approach may alarm traditional practitioners, managers and executives due to its relative lack of prescribed practices, principles, and processes. In this model, “we don’t have to know everything – or anything – from day one,” might be its core mantra, which can be unsettling, even intimidating, but also liberating and empowering.

Summary

In conclusion, those seeking a fixed, universally applicable core or a rigid roadmap to successful agility at scale will not find one (SAFe is a great example of this failure). Rather, the journey to successful agility at scale, is unique to each organisation, shaped by its distinct challenges, culture, context, and goals. If you approach agility at scale with the expectation of a linear, predictable progression, you might find yourself disoriented. The pathway to successful agility is marked by unexpected twists and turns, trial-and-error, and a need for continuous learning and adaptation. The essence of agility at scale lies not in rigid structures or principles, but in the flexibility to adapt and innovate. It is about giving up the quest for assuredness and authority, and instead welcoming self-organisation and subsidiarity as catalysts for innovation and growth. This paradigm shift can be challenging but liberating, and it is the essence of successfully adoptiong agility at scale. Embrace the fluidity at its core, and unlock the true potential of agility in your company.