,
7 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
What if #agile has nothing to do w/product, design, projects, & value?
Rather it is a a set of muscles, a set of enabling constraints...a philosophy
it was meant to be both 1) in service to those with an understanding of value and 2) safe/healthy for makers (1/n)
Rather it is a a set of muscles, a set of enabling constraints...a philosophy
it was meant to be both 1) in service to those with an understanding of value and 2) safe/healthy for makers (1/n)
this is not to diminish that set of muscles/capabilities. Instead, I think it elevates it/lifts it from the murkiness. It perhaps clarifies...when ppl say "Agile sucks!" they are either saying 1) we don't have the muscle, and/or 2) we suck at understanding value. (2/n)
this gets tough for designers...because they are both 1) makers, and 2) understanders/explorers of value. Which probably explains the tenuous relationship #agile has with design over the years (3/n)
This also explains a big problem ... companies are being sold #agile (or Scrum, or SAFe) and imagining that it solves both problems. It doesn't. You can be extremely "agile", but delivering crap extremely fast (4/n)
When I hear about #agile transformation w/o concurrently hearing about product and design (and data) transformation I wince. Not because building the muscle isn't important. But it assumes that the business had it all figured out, and just needed to deliver faster (5/n)
In a sense, it is overburdening #agile ... and in so doing, obscuring just how important the muscle is, and why that muscle is important. To me, the #scrum PO role is the epitome of this (cc @lissijean ) and it attempts to replicate/reinvent an existing tradition (6/n)
When I saw this tweet by @tottinge...
My first response was "but how about value!!!???"
And then I realized...that is the point (7/end)
My first response was "but how about value!!!???"
And then I realized...that is the point (7/end)
