Comments on: Agilism: Out, Googlism: In http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/09/29/agilism-out-googlism-in/ Lidor Wyssocky's Blog on Optimizing Software Development Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:00:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.2 Comment on Agilism: Out, Googlism: In by: margaret http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/09/29/agilism-out-googlism-in/#comment-6124 Mon, 01 Jan 2007 16:12:32 +0000 http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/09/29/agilism-out-googlism-in/#comment-6124 hi hi

]]> Comment on Agilism: Out, Googlism: In by: nothing happens http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/09/29/agilism-out-googlism-in/#comment-3358 Sun, 29 Oct 2006 04:13:41 +0000 http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/09/29/agilism-out-googlism-in/#comment-3358 [...] Anyway, the recent online kerfuffle hit its climax with Steve Yegge’s “Good Agile, Bad Agile.” However, I don’t think just any software outfit can operate the way he describes Google operating, which he holds up as the alternative to “Bad Agile”. For one thing, not just any software outfit is Google. It seems like a lot of people got worried about an impending “Googlism craze” replacing the Agile craze. But the lesson I took from Yegge was, be more concerned with being agile than with being Agile (note capitalization). [...] […] Anyway, the recent online kerfuffle hit its climax with Steve Yegge’s “Good Agile, Bad Agile.” However, I don’t think just any software outfit can operate the way he describes Google operating, which he holds up as the alternative to “Bad Agile”. For one thing, not just any software outfit is Google. It seems like a lot of people got worried about an impending “Googlism craze” replacing the Agile craze. But the lesson I took from Yegge was, be more concerned with being agile than with being Agile (note capitalization). […]

]]> Comment on Agilism: Out, Googlism: In by: Blog de AlejoLp » ¡¡No podía faltar!! http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/09/29/agilism-out-googlism-in/#comment-2097 Wed, 04 Oct 2006 03:13:06 +0000 http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/09/29/agilism-out-googlism-in/#comment-2097 [...] Agilism: Out, Googlism: In [...] […] Agilism: Out, Googlism: In […]

]]> Comment on Agilism: Out, Googlism: In by: pliantalliance.org » Get Out Of My Brain http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/09/29/agilism-out-googlism-in/#comment-2085 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:08:59 +0000 http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/09/29/agilism-out-googlism-in/#comment-2085 [...] Oh well - check this post out. [...] […] Oh well - check this post out. […]

]]> Comment on Agilism: Out, Googlism: In by: Tim http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/09/29/agilism-out-googlism-in/#comment-2084 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:05:26 +0000 http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/09/29/agilism-out-googlism-in/#comment-2084 Once again, Lidor, you've expressed what I'm thinking over at pliantalliance.org better than I ever could. That last paragraph in your post is pretty much the definition of pliant software development I've come up with to counter Agilism, and any other -ism that purports to have all the medicine we need for our software development ailments. Thanks for promoting the novel idea of thinking for ourselves and working within the constraints and context we find ourselves in. Once again, Lidor, you’ve expressed what I’m thinking over at pliantalliance.org better than I ever could. That last paragraph in your post is pretty much the definition of pliant software development I’ve come up with to counter Agilism, and any other -ism that purports to have all the medicine we need for our software development ailments. Thanks for promoting the novel idea of thinking for ourselves and working within the constraints and context we find ourselves in.

]]> Comment on Agilism: Out, Googlism: In by: Jim Bob http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/09/29/agilism-out-googlism-in/#comment-2036 Mon, 02 Oct 2006 02:06:47 +0000 http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/09/29/agilism-out-googlism-in/#comment-2036 Google doesn't have customers (they have advertisers and users, but not customers with chequebooks asking for software), so there's noone they need to force into signing a contract without a deadline. That probably works great for some companies, but some products are built for a specific customer for a specific reason, and thus need a different management style. Praise Google! Google doesn’t have customers (they have advertisers and users, but not customers with chequebooks asking for software), so there’s noone they need to force into signing a contract without a deadline.

That probably works great for some companies, but some products are built for a specific customer for a specific reason, and thus need a different management style.

Praise Google!

]]> Comment on Agilism: Out, Googlism: In by: BradM http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/09/29/agilism-out-googlism-in/#comment-2024 Sun, 01 Oct 2006 12:37:05 +0000 http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/09/29/agilism-out-googlism-in/#comment-2024 Right after I read the above I re-read my post. In fact there's another point I missed - bad projects (just like poor performers) don't have to go away, but they do have to at least change into good projects. Again, the key is realizing when what you're doing isn't working and then doing something about it. It sound really obvious, but I've encountered so many organizations that don't face and instead just beat their head against the wall. Right after I read the above I re-read my post. In fact there’s another point I missed - bad projects (just like poor performers) don’t have to go away, but they do have to at least change into good projects. Again, the key is realizing when what you’re doing isn’t working and then doing something about it.

It sound really obvious, but I’ve encountered so many organizations that don’t face and instead just beat their head against the wall.

]]> Comment on Agilism: Out, Googlism: In by: BradM http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/09/29/agilism-out-googlism-in/#comment-2023 Sun, 01 Oct 2006 12:32:01 +0000 http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/09/29/agilism-out-googlism-in/#comment-2023 I agree completely with Lidor, and didn't mean to imply the only way to have excellent developers is to hire them. In fact its part of the point - too many companies are completely clueless about peformance management. I've been places where it means you just axe the botton X% and I've also been places where it means you do nothing and just "work around" the bottom X%. Neither approach works as well as actually thinking about performance and both hiring carefully to fill gaps, but also mentoring and guiding... I agree completely with Lidor, and didn’t mean to imply the only way to have excellent developers is to hire them. In fact its part of the point - too many companies are completely clueless about peformance management. I’ve been places where it means you just axe the botton X% and I’ve also been places where it means you do nothing and just “work around” the bottom X%. Neither approach works as well as actually thinking about performance and both hiring carefully to fill gaps, but also mentoring and guiding…

]]> Comment on Agilism: Out, Googlism: In by: Steven Devijver http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/09/29/agilism-out-googlism-in/#comment-2022 Sun, 01 Oct 2006 11:27:31 +0000 http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/09/29/agilism-out-googlism-in/#comment-2022 If you read "no deadlines" and you think about it's fundamental meaning you come to this: "no pressure, no obligations, only fun" And so it becomes apparent that there are things untold about the "no deadlines" approach. PROJECTS have no deadlines but they have DELIVERABLES and REQUIREMENTS. There are "no deadlines" on projects but does this mean developers can do whatever they want? Ofcourse not, developers are evaluated, their performance is screened. So although they do not work towards deadlines they do have to deliver enough stuff so that their managers are happy about them. So "no deadlines" mean "we're going to put this strange kind of pressure on you that you've not experienced before" which could very well be comparable to the feeling you get from joining a new religion. At first it feels strange but everyone around you is having fun. But at that time you can't understand the depths of what you're involved in. If you read “no deadlines” and you think about it’s fundamental meaning you come to this:

“no pressure, no obligations, only fun”

And so it becomes apparent that there are things untold about the “no deadlines” approach. PROJECTS have no deadlines but they have DELIVERABLES and REQUIREMENTS.

There are “no deadlines” on projects but does this mean developers can do whatever they want? Ofcourse not, developers are evaluated, their performance is screened. So although they do not work towards deadlines they do have to deliver enough stuff so that their managers are happy about them.

So “no deadlines” mean “we’re going to put this strange kind of pressure on you that you’ve not experienced before” which could very well be comparable to the feeling you get from joining a new religion. At first it feels strange but everyone around you is having fun. But at that time you can’t understand the depths of what you’re involved in.

]]> Comment on Agilism: Out, Googlism: In by: Lidor Wyssocky http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/09/29/agilism-out-googlism-in/#comment-2019 Sun, 01 Oct 2006 06:54:18 +0000 http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/09/29/agilism-out-googlism-in/#comment-2019 Thanks for both comments. Generally, I agree with what you say. But there is one point, however, that must be clarified. Well, actually two: 1. Hiring excelent people is not a guarentee for good products (as BradM wrote). But more important : 2. If by any chance not all your developers are "excellent" (which is generally the case) you can still do something about it: work with them -- mentor them -- to build their skills and experience. In the long run this may proove to be even more cost effective than hiring only top developers. Nurture professionalism in-house. See: http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/04/10/mastering-context-sensitive-domains/ Lidor Thanks for both comments.

Generally, I agree with what you say. But there is one point, however, that must be clarified. Well, actually two:

1. Hiring excelent people is not a guarentee for good products (as BradM wrote). But more important :

2. If by any chance not all your developers are “excellent” (which is generally the case) you can still do something about it: work with them — mentor them — to build their skills and experience. In the long run this may proove to be even more cost effective than hiring only top developers. Nurture professionalism in-house.

See: http://blog.qualityaspect.com/2006/04/10/mastering-context-sensitive-domains/

Lidor

]]>