Damn, this post is really struggling to come out. It was started in February 2011, picked up again in August. And I’m stuck, I just feel like I’m writing something totally useless. But I need to express these ideas, and I don’t know how it will be understood. “Nobody cares pablo just spit it out”. ah ok that’s reassuring. let’s go then.

Do your V-cycle first

To lead agile teams or do coaching you need experience (yes I’ve decided to state the obvious).

And my opinion is that you’re probably more effective in agile if you have experience with classic projects, or let’s say what we call V-cycle (perhaps wrongly: see Claude’s posts here and there ), because it constitutes a significant foundation in terms of experience (from all points of view).

We’re much better able to understand certain directions of agile by having feedback from “traditional” projects. We perceive better the difference between these two ways of doing things and therefore the choices made by agile. Let’s not forget that this movement was launched in response to the way classic projects were done, the agile manifesto wants to show “how to better develop projects”. Our understanding of agile is better because we better perceive its foundations and the reasons by having known its reference point (what it positions itself against): the so-called classic project, V-cycle, waterfall, etc. Like a musical movement, artistic movement, etc. does.

But is this enough to say that you must have done your V-cycle first before starting agile? That people who have never known “classic” projects are handicapped for doing agile? Ultimately I seriously doubt the validity of my reasoning. Isn’t this a reaction from my consultant immune system (old? I turned 40 in June) facing this mismatched tide of young wolves? All these people who will do agile without having known other alternatives, won’t they keep a refreshing spontaneity? No “muscle memory” that will come back to them (“shit shit I’m being too directive and stifling these guys”). Yes okay they won’t have a reference, nor experience, but maybe this will leave them a freedom of action that we perhaps no longer have?

Yes yes and yes …but also no: I’m talking about leadership, support, coaching. For these roles spontaneity etc. are more dangerous qualities that must be mastered. So yes to participate in agile projects, but I’m much more mixed about leading and supporting them. And in fact I’m therefore actually just stating the obvious: it’s a plus if you have experience to support or lead agile projects. This experience is perhaps even more useful if it involves having done classic projects in the past.

Writing a useless post (but it had to come out because I can’t write anything else before finishing this one).

I’m bouncing off another debate that will bring me back to the same source:

Ah my friends agile is no longer what it used to be!

Well my opinion on that is that we shouldn’t be too critical. This success is a success. Ah this shame: it’s become fashionable, yuck. We’re no longer the underground elite, gasp! You don’t really want agile to remain an isolated thing known only to a single group of chosen ones ? (That’s almost what Marick implied during his keynote at XP2011 Madrid, and so even if his speech wanted to be anarchist, on this point it was very conservative in my opinion, well that was my understanding of his keynote).

Naturally things evolve and agile is no exception to the rule (see for example the new version of the scrum book, -which I haven’t read yet-). Because of its success it is confronted with many more things and it must deal with them. Yes.

And yes it must keep its identity naturally (but not close itself off).

And yes there are drifts, attempts at recovery etc etc we must be vigilant. But to cry wolf that loudly, I don’t know.

Why so many fears? Probably because the “entry ticket” to agile is very low. That’s its strength and its weakness. Read one or two books, grab four great values, and there you are the master of the scrum! And that yes is very dangerous. Many sorcerer’s apprentices probably. And so, it’s also full of very willing and optimistic people who want to learn and help. Among these people there will be very talented people who will work wonders very quickly. However they are a minority, let’s not kid ourselves.

So I return to my original idea: the strength of agile is the ease of learning it through its “compact” approach (no need to read War & Peace) but we must compensate for this flip side of the coin by placing experienced people in key positions: support, leadership, evangelization, etc.

So, are you experienced?

Have you ever been experienced?

Well, I have

Let me prove you…