> I had one project where we basically had our own process that just kind of evolved, a mix between waterfall and agile I guess.
Actually, having a team evolve its own process that works for the team is agile. That's all and exactly what the Agile manifesto calls for.
> That actually worked well for a year, until management had to fix it, because we weren't Agile.
Having management intervene and institute a process based on external, process-based preferences rather than evaluation by the team of what is and isn't working for the particular team in the particular context is exactly what the Agile Manifesto was a reaction against.
Agile was working for your team, then management came in and -- through an apparent lack of understanding of both what your team was doing, what worked for your team, and what Agile is -- did exactly what Agile is defined in opposition to, and broke it.
And, since many seem here to be too busy slagging on "Agile" to RTFA, note that the solution being proposed in the article is essentially to try to create a methodology that consists solely of "you have to grow your own methodology using evidence and adaptation", so that there's nothing left to hijack.
Personally I think the author underestimates the ability of management to turn good ideas into checklists wholly divorced from the original idea, but it's at least an attempt.
But the fact that people decry psuedo-Agile with exactly the same criticisms that technically "Agile" was supposed to be is indeed some pretty strong evidence that "Agile" has failed to accomplish its original goals.
Note I say this without regard to whether Agile in either form is "correct". It's just that things are what they are, and there's definitely a great deal of difference between what the Agile Manifesto, a real document that exists in the real world using real words that aren't just "whatever somebody says they are" [1], and "whatever processes some team somewhere developed that may or may not have worked for them and are not being blindly applied to your team because I say that's 'Agile' and you can't object, because it's 'Agile'". I wouldn't get emotional if you want to claim both are bad things and bad ideas, I will only say here that they are not the same idea.
Yes, I am guilty of this. I had too many bad experiences, so I never bothered.
This thread in general convinced me, I've done that now :)
I should have done this sooner, but I expected some tl;dr management stuff.
If I had done so sooner I could at least have told them they're not Agile, and back it up.
Actually, having a team evolve its own process that works for the team is agile. That's all and exactly what the Agile manifesto calls for.
> That actually worked well for a year, until management had to fix it, because we weren't Agile.
Having management intervene and institute a process based on external, process-based preferences rather than evaluation by the team of what is and isn't working for the particular team in the particular context is exactly what the Agile Manifesto was a reaction against.
Agile was working for your team, then management came in and -- through an apparent lack of understanding of both what your team was doing, what worked for your team, and what Agile is -- did exactly what Agile is defined in opposition to, and broke it.