> 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?

▲

strangegecko 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

The problem is a disconnect between management and those who build.

My thoughts when PE forced Agile on my employer were dismissed as "you're the technical expert, we're the process experts".

As someone without decision power, you read words of empowerment but your reality is a different one, and you're left resolving that dissonance on your own (quietly, otherwise you get pushed aside).

▲

madeofpalk 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

This is the problem with 'Agile', and why people refer to it as "Capital-A Agile".

As always, the problem isn't the process, the problem is the people. There's whole industries out there set up to sell A Process, so they come in and try to force something like this on you. They want to stay in business, so they need to make sure they have something to sell.

That's the dysfunction - a company that is forcing this laborious process on you, rather than giving teams the autonomy to figure out how they best work.

Agile works best as a toolbox of practices you can adopt, mix, and match to solve whatever problems you have. Do you need to work to a fixed schedule, or provide delivery estimates? You should probably have a way to regularly estimate your work. Are you struggling to actually ship and do things? Maybe it would be useful to plan things on a smaller, more frequent cadence.

	▲	locknitpicker 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> As always, the problem isn't the process, the problem is the people. There's whole industries out there set up to sell A Process, so they come in and try to force something like this on you. I would go as far as to claim the problem is middle management types, who feel pressured to adopt buzzwords and want to micromanage things to cultivate an image of control and progress to justify their role. It's the same type that brags about scrum but don't even bother to show in standup meetings.

▲

locknitpicker 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> The problem is a disconnect between management and those who build.

That would clearly be a problem that falls well inside the domain "you are not doing enough Agile".

A key principle of Agile is literally "Business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project."

If a team suffers from that disconnect, it's failing Agile.

More to the point, whatever they are doing is not working, and Agile would fix it.

▲

pydry 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It isnt but the fact it ultra vague and hand wavey means anybody can claim anything they do is agile including things that the exact opposite.

I actually think OP's criticisms apply mostly to Scrum. Scrum is well defined but its adherents' wont hear a critical word said about it. "You just werent doing it right" even when you were doing it precisely as described.

	▲	locknitpicker 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> It isnt but the fact it ultra vague and hand wavey means anybody can claim anything they do is agile including things that the exact opposite. I don't really agree. The set of principles are quite straight forward. It's things like delivering software frequently, accommodating new requirements, continuously looking into improving processes, business types and developers working together, etc. Then you have concrete executions like scrum vs kanban. Agile doesn't specify one or the other. Retrospective meetings are popular, but aren't specified by Agile per se.

▲

beAbU 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The fact that you spell agile with a capital "A" says all I need to know.