Not Ready To Hear

I was participating in a webinar / online conference session a week or two ago, hosted by the Essence For Agility folks (Essence is Ivar Jacobsen’s newish “method”). The title for the session was “The Future of Methods – not just Tomorrow but also the Day after Tomorrow”. The session was recorded. Take a look and see if you’re as frustrated / galled as I was.

Some “big names” were present, including Ivar himself, Tom Gilb, Robert Martin, Bertrand Mayer, and some 200 participants overall.

I say I was participating, but, apart from a few lines posted in the chat window (all ignored) I was much more of a spectator. And not a happy one.

At various points in the presentations and conversations I so wanted to contribute. But it was clear to me that the folks gathered were not at all ready to hear any contributions I might have made, and my message would most likely have fallen on deaf ears.

This is one of the things Thomas Kuhn talks about in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” (Kuhn, 1962). Aside: Kuhn basically observes that advances in any scientific fields are contingent on the incumbents retiring or dying. Don’t expect them to change their perspectives.

The prevailing frame of the conversation was “Software development methods are good, or if not exactly good, then either inevitable or a given. What will future methods look like?”

As you know, I have long suggested eschewing the whole idea of methods in favour of other paths and means to effectively attending to folks’ needs.

My Message

For the record, here’s my countervailing message:

“While a common way of working brings benefits, that’s only true when the folks doing the work have interpersonal relationships sufficiently well-developed that they can create and own the way their works works. The idea of methods is oppositional to this.”

– Bob

Further Reading

Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.