Forty Years of Crisis, Ten Years of Agile, Now What?

352 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
352
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • \n \n
  • Forty Years of Crisis, Ten Years of Agile, Now What?

    1. 1. 40 years of crisis, 10 years of agile... now what? Laurent BossavitTwitter:@Morendil http://institut-agile.fr/
    2. 2. 1. Where we came from, and why it matters2. Popular but not successful?3. Disruption4. A matter of values5. Challenges, and a call to action
    3. 3. Progress??
    4. 4. “Those who do notremember history are doomed to repeat it” -- Santayana
    5. 5. Three phrasescontemporary with the “tire swing” cartoon:
    6. 6. “Software crisis”
    7. 7. “Software factory”
    8. 8. “Software engineering”
    9. 9. Logical necessity...or attack of the “software X” snowclones?
    10. 10. NATO conference, 1968
    11. 11. http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/brian.randell/NATO/
    12. 12. “It therefore seems natural that we should turn to [architects] for ideas about how to attack the design problem. As one single example [...] I would like tomention: Christopher Alexander...” -- Peter Naur
    13. 13. 1. Where we came from, and why it matters2. Popular but not successful?3. Disruption4. A matter of values5. Challenges, and a call to action
    14. 14. “An idea whose time hascome... and gone” -- Tom DeMarco, 2009
    15. 15. What results?
    16. 16. Two settled questions:
    17. 17. • Are high-level languages preferable to low- level languages, such as assembly? (Though assembly still has its fans today...)• Is programming under “online” conditions, i.e. interactively, more effective than “offline”, i.e. giving someone your code to compile? (“Cleanroom” proponents disagree, though.)
    18. 18. As to the “crisis”...
    19. 19. “The realization of the fullmagnitude of the software crisis was the main outcome of the meeting at Garmisch” -- Brian Randell, 1969
    20. 20. “The general admission of the existence of the software failure [...] is the most refreshingexperience I have had in a numberof years, because the admission of shortcomings is the primary condition for improvement.” -- E.W. Dijkstra, 1968
    21. 21. What actualhistorians say...
    22. 22. “...a triumph of misapplied quotation.”-- Doug McIllroy on the 1968NATO conference proceedings
    23. 23. “One of the brighter students (by thename of L. da Vinci) was instantly promoted to manager of the project, putting him in charge of procuring paints, canvases and brushes for the rest of the organisation” -- T.H.Simpson, “Masterpiece Engineering”,
    24. 24. “Any new idea eventually eithergoes ignored, or gets distorted.” -- Alistair Cockburn, 2011
    25. 25. Dijkstra’s vision - “mathematical engineers”of software - was distorted
    26. 26. “The programming manager hasfound the euphemism with which to lend an air of respectability to what he does: ‘software engineering’.” -- E.W. Dijkstra,
    27. 27. “Software Engineering as it is today is just humbug; from an academic — i.e. scientific andeducational — point of view it is a sham, a fraud..” -- E.W. Dijkstra, 1993
    28. 28. As to the “crisis”...
    29. 29. 1. Where we came from, and why it matters2. Popular but not successful?3. Disruption4. A matter of values5. Challenges, and a call to action
    30. 30. Disruptive innovation model (Christensen, “The Innovator’s Dilemma”, 1997)
    31. 31. • Sustaining innovation: incremental gains; same market leaders; performance criteria identical• Disruptive innovation: create new markets or target low end; threaten or replace market leaders; performance criteria displaced
    32. 32. 1990s “This can’t possibly work”
    33. 33. 2000s “OK for vacation pictures”
    34. 34. 2010s R.I.P.
    35. 35. 1. Where we came from, and why it matters2. Popular but not successful?3. Disruption4. A matter of values5. Challenges, and a call to action
    36. 36. Software Engineering still leading the market: onwhat performance criteria?
    37. 37. • Agile in contrast values “letting go” - • while strongly supportive of technique, deemphasizes formal methods • embraces “soft” sciences and “people stuff” - but cognitive science, social psychology are quite respectable • rejects mechanistic or “industrial” worldview
    38. 38. 2001 “This can’t possibly work”
    39. 39. 2001 “This can’t possibly work”
    40. 40. 2010 “Maybe...”
    41. 41. Expansion of Agile60+ practices Lean, Governance, DevOps production Maintenance, Kanban, UX Personas XP, teams of 5-10 Scrum collocated greenfield 12+6 practices
    42. 42. • Agile as disruptive innovation in a control- obsessed approach: • Inadequate initially • Targets “low end” market • Gradually makes up for inadequacies
    43. 43. 1. Where we came from, and why it matters2. Popular but not successful?3. Disruption4. A matter of values5. Challenges, and a call to action
    44. 44. Agile is not “mainstream” (yet)
    45. 45. Largely oral tradition
    46. 46. Confusing jargon
    47. 47. Distorted history• Post-2001 practices: • Retrospectives • Definition of Done • Release planning • Release burndown • Planning poker • Task board
    48. 48. Distorted history60+ practices Lean, DevOps Kanban, Personas XP, Scrum12+6 (acknowledged) practices
    49. 49. Little empirical proof• Research findings on e.g. TDD or refactoring are mixed• Many practices are unexamined altogether (planning poker...)• Several subjective surveys, but few efforts to collect project/practice/outcome data
    50. 50. Still little consensus on “agile contracts”
    51. 51. Agile education?• Overemphasis on “certification” schemes which are fundamentally misguided - competing with S.E. on its home ground of control• Occasional attempts at university programs• Suffer from loose contact with research community
    52. 52. Recap1. To understand Agile, know its history2. SW Engineering is entrenched, not successful3. Agile follows pattern of disruptive innovation4. Has different focus: brains, people, groups5. Must still meet many challenges
    53. 53. Discuss :)
    54. 54. Photo creditshttp://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Vampire_or_Werewolf.jpghttp://www.flickr.com/photos/furlined/4725120050/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Polaroid_667_IMGP1864_WP.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bullet_ballistic_tip_varmint.jpg

    ×