alt Hacker NewsMy favorite Agile-ism is when Agile is defined as “the process that works for the team”.
If a team adopts agile (in any variation) and doesn’t like it, the Agile defenders will appear and argue that the team wasn’t actually doing agile. Agile is defined as the process that works, so if it didn’t work it couldn’t have been agile. If only you read The Agile Manifesto you would understand!
Replies
My definition of agile is that process is a knob that you can turn. You don't like how the process is working out for your team? Adjust the process. Find the sweet spot for your team. As your team changes size and/or members, keep adjusting.
"We're going to do agile by following this rigid process" is an oxymoron.
> Agile is defined as the process that works
Can you show a reference of where it is defined like this?
> My favorite Agile-ism is when Agile is defined as “the process that works for the team”.
What compels you to believe it isn't?
I mean, read the Agile Manifesto. All it does is basically define a set of values and principles. Things like "customer comes first" or "we welcome changes in requirements" or "software must be delivered frequently".
What leads you to believe Agile implies a fixed set of precise, rigid rules?
Another way of phrasing this though, is that it's in the team's power to determine process (or the lack thereof).
Regardless of success or failure you can say to what degree this is true, and to me this is really that only part of "agile" that is worth locking in.