Agile Development Blog

I have been told repeatedly that my brain thinks in pictures, and as a result I have to work hard to communicate my logic effectively in words. Recently in my argument against an Agile Process Maturity Model, I made a comment that Agile is an instance of Lean.

One of the replies on the Agile Alliance Group of Linked-In countered that my statement isn’t accurate – and in fact a team being both “Agile and Lean” is an oxymoron. So, I looked in the mirror and said this must not be clear. I need to communicate better in both words and pictures.

“The term Oxymoron originates from the Greek oxy (“sharp” or “pointed”) and moros (“dull”). Thus the word oxymoron is itself an oxymoron.”  Wikipedia’s Etymology for Oxymoron

Instead of trying to figure out which is sharp and which is dull, I thought I would present my mental model on the evolving Agile software development ecosystem.

Agile as an umbrella term

First and foremost, Agile as an umbrella term was hatched in 2001 to represent a “way” of developing software that is focused on rapid value delivery, collaboration with a customer, face-to-face communication and measuring progress in working code.  It casts a wide net of iterative and incremental process frameworks including RAD, Spiral, Extreme Programming (XP), Scrum, DSDM, Feature-Driven Development (FDD), Lean Software Development, OpenUP and Kanban. These methods stand in contrast to highly structured methods that tend to measure success based on meeting plans and following the process.

My rendition of the geneology of Software Development Approaches

Agile has evolved both bottom-up and top-down based on the evolution in technology infrastructure, tools and guiding ideas of our industry. It is symbolized by increased productivity, speed to market, response to change and craftsmanship.

I believe it is not a fad, but a natural by-product of the increasing scientific as well as craftsmanship approach brought to this critical industry.

Lean merges with capital-A Agile

I see the pictured genealogy tree merging Lean software development methods together with capital-A Agile methods. This is because the physics behind Lean design and production are the same physics that make Agile deliver impacts like we see in the Agile Impact Report from QSMA – 50% faster time-to-market and 25% increased productivity.

Though the principles of the Agile Manifesto do not sound like the principles of Lean, the patterns are the same. (For a great overview of Lean software do not miss Corey Ladas’ guest post on Shaping Software.)

• Small batch sizes, short cycles that create rhythm
• Reduction in queues through pull
• Reduction in work in process inventory
• Design quality in
• Stop-the-line defect control
• Value streams the link to the customer
• Integrated learning through reflection
• Last responsible moment decision making

These patterns are the same for an effective Lean effort or an effective Agile effort. This thinking has me advocating that Agile is an instance of Lean, not just a ground-up new tree that was born solely from the roots of OO, Spiral and RAD.  I am having a hard time seeing the black and white separation between agile and lean. This is all grey, maybe I should say blue and red based on the diagram, to me. 

What do you believe – is Agile is an instance of Lean, or together are they are an oxymoron?

The MoSCoW technique for backlog prioritization has its flaws

It’s OK Sergey and Boris. I’m not referring to the capital city of your homeland with its rich history of classical music, literature and sporting heroes.

Instead I’m referring to the technique that the DSDM consortium recommends for prioritizing backlog items – the acronym MoSCoW, which stands for:

• Must Haves
• Should Haves
• Could Haves
• Won’t Have (this time around)

There are a couple of problems with this technique, and in my classes my students spot them right away.

1. The customer always thinks everything is important, and therefore the distribution of the backlog items is hopelessly skewed towards the Must Haves.
2. Let’s say we are planning an iteration. We have only room left to take on one more backlog item, but we have two Must Haves. Which one gets planned into the iteration? Of course we should ask the customer, but what if they aren’t there?

Many customers think that promoting backlog items to Must Haves is exercising better control over delivery, but in fact it is not. A customer who cannot differentiate between the importance of backlog items is ceding control to the delivery team. Work has to be sequenced, and if the customer will not choose then the team will.

A better technique is to rank backlog items such that no two items have the same priority. In this instance, it is very clear the preferred order of delivery.