Adam Gonnerman

It's one thing when agile coaches pipe up with "that's not Scrum," and quite another when accusations of "fake Agile" are thrown around. I find the former irksome, but at least they have a leg to stand on with the 'End Note' of The Scrum Guide in their corner: "Scrum is free and offered in this Guide. Scrum’s roles, events, artifacts, and rules are immutable and although implementing only parts of Scrum is possible, the result is not Scrum . Scrum exists only in its entirety and functions well as a container for other techniques, methodologies, and practices." (emphasis mine) This is why I've taken to calling any more pragmatic approach 'Notscrum.' After all, if they insist that Scrum is 'immutable' ( like Plato's heavenly perfections ), then clearly what I introduce to teams and use to coach them is a more mutable creature, one that adapts to situations to achieve the dream of Agile. "We are uncovering better ...

It grates on my ears every time someone says "That's not agile," even when they might be justified in saying so. It's said far too often and without much thought, often reflecting more of the bias and personal preferences of the person complaining than it does any violation of the spirit of Agile. What is Agile? It boils down to the Manifesto For Agile Software Development, as worked out in 2001: Individuals and Interactions  over processes and tools Working Software  over comprehensive documentation Customer Collaboration  over contract negotiation Responding to Change  over following a plan That is, while there is value in the items on the right, they value the items on the left more. That's both simple and sufficiently vague to allow some room for interpretation. Sadly, I hear people calling any documentation at all, any handing down of deadlines, or any semblance of a project plan 'unAgile.' This is the sort of thing that gives Agile in ge...