Friday, 13 March 2015

I love Scrum / I hate Scrum

Scrum is a wonderful Agile method with a huge amount to commend it. And Scrum is a liability for the Agile paradigm.

Why I love Scrum

There’s no doubt at all that Scrum is a fantastic Agile method. Not the be all and end all, but just look at the tools it’s given us:

  • Short iterations
  • Retrospectives
  • Project Manager as Servant Leader
  • Burndown
  • Prioritised backlog

These alone should cement its place in Agile thinking.

Scrum also provides a consistent, compelling and simple model (single Product Owner, no external dependencies) that makes it a powerful sell to teams. Inspect and Adapt at all levels:

  • Inspect and Adapt your product: Sprint Reviews
  • Inspect and Adapt your process: Retrospectives
  • Inspect and Adapt your daily progress: morning Scrum
  • Even the backlog and its user stories undergo revision in the light of ongoing work

Scrum has also had excellent marketing. A host of user-friendly terms - Scrum, Scrum Master, Backlog, Product Owner, Sprint &c. And in selling training, the Scrum Alliance and Scrum.org continue to spread Agile understanding and uptake.

These have all made Scrum a fantastic first step into Agile for new teams. It remains the backbone of my Agile practice (and I suspect many of ours) even when I want to mix-and-match with tools from other methods.

There’s an awful lot to love in Scrum.

Why I hate Scrum

Agile is bigger than Scrum

I met a senior manager this week who worried that Agile’s insistence on a single Product Owner simply didn’t fit the realities of his business. This isn’t a feature of Agile at all - it’s specifically a feature of Scrum.

Of course this is a downside of that marketing I was praising a minute ago. And this confusion reaches its nadir in job advertising:

Project Manager with Agile/SCRUM

ugh! Agile isn’t Scrum. And Scrum isn’t SCRUM.

Scrum is bigger than Sprints

I used to think the major emblem of Scrum, and of Agile more generally was the whiteboard of post-its. I was wrong. For many, the entire Agile movement boils down to Sprints.

As in

“We work in Sprints.”

Or

“We blend Waterfall and Agile (because we work in Sprints).”

Like many of us, I’ve worked in a company that sold fixed time/scope/cost projects (yes all three) for their developers to deliver in an ‘Agile’ fashion by splitting the work into ‘Sprints’. Of course it wasn’t Agile and it wasn’t Scrum.

I really want to repeat that. Not. Agile.

Splitting fixed-specification work into short delivery periods is pure waterfall incremental delivery. They’re not even Sprints. Sprint is a Scrum-specific term for an iteration, so they’re only meaningfully Sprints if:

  • They start with collaborative Planning
  • They end with Review and Retrospective
  • The backlog is open to review and is expected to change
  • You build change into your expectations, without onerous Change Control or contractual penalties

Unfortunately companies doing this think they’re already Agile. It limits their own ability to embrace genuine Agile change, and brings the entire paradigm into disrepute.

The upshot

The marketing genius behind Scrum is both a benefit and a hazard. Scrum practices are and remain an invaluable contribution to the Agile space, and it is many practitioners’ first bite at Agile. At the same time, Scrum terminology has become debased by buzzword abuse that threatens broader Agile uptake.

If I had my way I’d abandon all those cool Scrum words. Make a clean break - save the great practices and leave the language to the buzzword cowboys. Iteration and timebox would be perfectly good plain-English alternatives for Sprint. (There are other good reasons for a language change - perhaps for another post.) Of course a wholesale language change isn’t exactly my decision to make ;)

That aside, I can only make a few recommendations:

  • Challenge assumptions that Agile = Scrum. If it’s something you yourself believe, learn about Kanban or DSDM or one of the other Agile methods. Expand your practice and your toolset.
  • Use Scrum and Sprint only when you’re genuinely employing Scrum practices.
  • When you find a Waterfall house that believes it’s Agile, gently work with them to to introduce genuine Agile change. And let me know how you did it and how it went!

Guy

Thursday, 26 February 2015

Dual-Track Scrum and the Waterfall Monsters

I was recently introduced to Dual-Track Scrum / Dual-Track Agile at a presentation by the Head of Product at a major high-street brand. It scared the willies out of me that he could describe his process as Agile. More on that later. First...

The challenge

A perennial difficulty for Agile teams: how to combine design with delivery.

  • You often need a degree of design before implementing in code
  • UX specialists often want to work to a very different cadence from developers, being less inclined to break their work into separable chunks

Some teams have difficulty resolving this within a Sprint. Some solve it by UX working 'a Sprint ahead'. It's not a difficulty that I've particularly experienced with Agile teams.

Another challenge: backlog items that are insufficiently understood or not 'validated', leading to protracted planning sessions where the team tries to understand the story, or expensive validation in code instead of cheap paper testing.

This too is a difficulty that I've not encountered.

Cue Dual-Track Scrum.

Discover / Deliver

Dual-Track Scrum addresses both of these by splitting the multi-disciplinary team into two: Discovery and Delivery.

The Discovery track clusters around the Product Owner. It may include BA, UX, technical representation (perhaps a designated lead engineer) and potentially QA. This track develops the Product Owner's ideas into feasible user stories and designs. At the end of their sprint they hand the designs to the Delivery track for implementation in the next sprint.

The Delivery track implements the Discovery track's specifications. They might then hand them back for QA a sprint later.

Why this makes me shudder

Let's look back at the first point of Agile manifesto:

Individuals and interactions over processes and tools

Dual-Track privileges inter-disciplinary interaction between members of the Discovery track, and subordinates the Delivery track. While it subtracts interaction, it adds process. It limits the ability of the experts on the Delivery track - the people with the bread-and-butter experience of actually building the thing - to feed their insight into the designs they're being asked told to implement.

To emphasise the point, Dual-Track also runs against the third point of the Agile manifesto:

Customer collaboration over contract negotiation

Each design that is passed over the wall from Discovery to Delivery is a mini-contract. We've 'validated' this. The lead engineer has signed it off for implementation. Now build it. Dual-Track is starting to look like a step back towards process and waterfall - even more so if Delivery hand the code back to Discovery a sprint later for QA.

Of course we try to be pragmatic rather than purist. If we lack effective tools to overcome those two challenges, perhaps Dual-Track is worth it.

We already have the tools

Back when I started Scrum, our whiteboard had two ticket states: Not Done and Done. Then the Kanban guys encouraged us to visualise our workflow, the INVEST mnemonic prompted us to make our tickets smaller, and our boards started to look rather different: Backlog / Design / Dev / Test / ...

Sure some up-front design is still required. By the same token there will almost always be some up-front dev: databases, environments, architecture, or spiking to discover the domain. This is not wasted time - it's the business of creating a high-functioning team.

Last time I facilitated a team on this basis, the devs came back with a familiar difficulty in the very first retrospective: designs that were unnecessarily difficult to implement. There and then the team agreed to have a quick multi-disciplinary conversation around the emerging designs straight after each stand-up. It served us for the next three months, to the end of the project.

Thats the second great tool. Inclusive, ongoing conversation. Or in terms of the Agile manifesto again: Individuals and interactions over processes and tools.

I'm not saying that Dual-Track is never a useful or appropriate tool. But if you have the problems that it's designed to solve, perhaps try some core Agile techniques first:

  • Visualise your workflow
  • Small, Independent, individually Valuable user stories
  • Conversation, Conversation and more Conversation

Lord knows this is lower impact than slitting your team in two.

Dual-track goes pathological

If my concern is that Dual-Track is process-heavy, it was rammed home in that presentation I was talking about. Head of Product. High-street brand. 150-head Agile Centre of Excellence!!!

Their Dual-Track process sports:

  • Multi-sprint Discovery, with multiple stages for each feature
  • Yes he really called them stages - straight outta PRINCE2
  • Finished designs handed to the Delivery team for implementation
  • Multi-sprint stages in Delivery
  • In fact so many stages that he couldn't fit them all on one slide
  • Designs that never make it to Live, simply because the pipeline is so long that they're no longer relevant when they get to the end
  • Tweaks to features on Live that have to go back to Visualisation, the very first stage of the Discovery track

He described the process as "Agile" and "Lean", with the tagline "Speed leads to perfection". Yet it's a perfect picture of Big Design Up Front and Winston Royce's original description of Waterfall, complete with features that never make it into production!

From Winston Royce's 1970 paper Managing the Development of Large Software Systems. It starts with a fantastic description of the problem that really is a must-read. His solution - lots more documentation - not so much...

Dual-Track may be a valuable tool in the hands of practitioners with a genuine commitment to Agile values. Clearly it holds appeal for some who understand Agile and Lean as buzzwords, but have an instinctive bent towards Waterfall and heavy process.

Beware snake-oil salesmen.

Tuesday, 18 November 2014

Cynefin Complexity - a new perspective on old Wickedness

The Cynefin Framework overlaps with earlier work on Wicked problems. Both have things to say about sophisticated software development, and both point towards agile techniques for delivery. DSDM seems to have a trick up its sleeve to meet the challenges of wicked problems.

Something New

The Cynefin Framework
The Cynefin Framework - wikimedia commons

In the past couple of years Dave Snowden’s Cynefin Framework has captured imaginations in the software industry. Snowden proposes that problems and activities exist in one of several domains through which they can be better understood: Simple, Complicated, Complex and Chaotic:

I'm not going to go into the framework in any great detail here. You can find out all about it on Wikipedia, on Snowden's own company, or all over the web.

Snowden recommends operating in the Complicated and Complex domains, and some commentators have suggested that this is the natural mode of software product development. Day-to-day coding sits largely in the Complicated domain, which requires specialists who can apply acquired expertise and perceive Good Practice solutions. Product and project thinking sit in the Complex domain: we make a small change, understand its effect on the product and on users, and modify our plans accordingly. It’s a nice characterisation of agile approaches.

Something Old

Wicked problems were first characterised in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s:

  1. The problem is not understood until after the formulation of a solution.
  2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule.
  3. Solutions to wicked problems are not right or wrong.
  4. Every wicked problem is essentially novel and unique.
  5. Every solution to a wicked problem is a 'one shot operation.'
  6. Wicked problems have no given alternative solutions.

This is a great description of software dev:

The problem is not understood until after the formulation of a solution.
The delivery process explores its own requirements, and invariably exposes complexities that the client hadn’t considered.
Wicked problems have no stopping rule.
There is such a thing as too little development and too much, and often a large grey zone around 'just right'.
Solutions to wicked problems are not right or wrong.
Any business requirement has multiple legitimate solutions. Some will be better than others.
Every wicked problem is essentially novel and unique.
Otherwise an off-the-shelf solution would already exist and the work would be unnecessary.
Every solution to a wicked problem is a 'one shot operation.'
If we fail, (as an internal team or a contracted consultancy) the client won’t have the money or the time to try again. And if they do, it certainly won’t be with us!
Wicked problems have no given alternative solutions.
No off-the-shelf solution.

A Cynefin perspective on wicked problems

It feels like Snowden’s Complicated/Complex boundary has things to say about wicked problems:

The problem is not understood until after the formulation of a solution.
Emergent characteristics of the Complex domain.
Wicked problems have no stopping rule.
Probe - Sense - Respond applied to stopping as well as to continuing.
Solutions to wicked problems are not right or wrong.
Beyond the domain of Best Practice, into Good Practice and Emergent Practice.
Every wicked problem is essentially novel and unique.
Hence the need to Probe - Sense - Respond.
Every solution to a wicked problem is a 'one shot operation.'
Big Design Up Front is dangerous - again why we prefer to Probe - Sense - Respond.
Wicked problems have no given alternative solutions.
Hence no established Best Practice.

A new representation of old observations can be fruitful - Mendeleev’s arrangement of the periodic table is a classic example. I generally find Cynefin frustratingly vague, and Wicked problems provide it with a concrete context that I can understand. The Probe - Sense - Respond approach partially dismantles Wicked Challenge 1 (problem not understood until after the solution) and Challenge 5 (one-shot operation). Of course this is part if the core of the Agile paradigm.

Cynefin also nicely characterises what clients hire consultancies for. Simple problems they can manage by themselves. The Complicated and Complex domains encompass activity where specialists can add expertise and value. Even the Chaotic domain has value for innovation spikes.

Wicked projects and DSDM

Agile approaches meet Wicked Challenges 2-6 very well. They generally address Challenge 1 only in iteration - The problem is not understood until after the formulation of a solution. This is fine for ongoing product development, but perhaps insufficient for projects with a discrete start (and end).

Waterfall methodologies have a partial solution. PRINCE2 has an Initiation Stage with a go/no-go gate preceding full delivery. At the end of this, the team should have given due consideration to the problem space and to alternative solutions. But PRINCE2's up-front approach to planning, with an expectation of minimal engagement, makes it fragile to unexpected change. It doesn’t Probe - Sense - Respond.

DSDM has a nice trick here - an agile method with an 'Enough Design Up Front' mentality. It directly addresses Wicked Challenge 1 with explicit Feasability and Foundations phases. At the same time, its principles of ongoing client collaboration, iterative delivery and flexible, prioritised scope retain the responsiveness required in the Complex domain.

Wicked problems and #noprojects

In my previous post I suggested that there are three equally legitimate modes of software development: projects, product dev (which I aligned with #noprojects) and support. How do these modes support Wicked problems?

When clients hire consultancies, it is almost inevitably project work. A start date, a fixed budget and therefore an end date. We'd better hope then that projects can satisfactorily address them - I've made a case above that by combining up-front preparation with ongoing agility, they can.

Product dev teams operating in the #noprojects mould are ideally placed to engage with Wicked problems. On the ground on an ongoing basis, they can continue to Probe - Sense - Respond and keep improving the solution. This may make #noprojects a better fit than a project or an external agency, if the company can afford and manage its own team devoted to the product.

Support mode is a poor fit for Wicked problems. A team focused on support is trying to address discrete issues as they are raised, and is unlikely to give a Wicked problem the all-round consideration and the iterative attention that it requires. We've all seen support teams continue to fix point problems without addressing the underlying root cause. Once they step back and recognise a Wicked problem, the team often drops out of support into one of the other modes - project or product dev, whichever suits them best.

Wednesday, 5 November 2014

Projects, #noprojects, language and thought

It's a truism that when you learn a different programming language, you learn a new way of looking at code. The language we use changes our abilities to think about what we're describing. The same principle applies to Orwell's Newspeak, the linguistic battlegrounds of social equality, to the fact that arithmetic is simpler in Chinese than in English.

So it's likely that the language we use to describe our work affects how we think about it and how we perform it. Last year for example a client pointed out to me an emotive stumbling block for participants new to agile methods - he found the standard terminology of Scrum alarmingly negative - sprint, backlog, grooming.

I've had roles with an interesting range of employers, on different types of of work. Real-life examples:

  • 'Lift-and-shift' of a website from one web stack to another, with no user-visible changes
  • Ongoing feature development of a website and its custom CMS
  • Development of a social network application, segueing into product support

All of these have been software development for long-lived products, and we've described all this work as projects.

But only one is a project. And the confusion is harming us, as practitioners and as a community.

Project projects and non-project projects

PMI describes a project:

It’s a temporary group activity designed to produce a unique product, service or result.

Temporary duration to meet scoped business goals. If that annoys you because it doesn't describe your work, bear with me for a minute.

By the PMI measure, my web lift-and-shift was clearly a project.

Ongoing feature development was not a project, and while initial delivery of my social network was a project, the current support effort is not. These efforts have existing descriptors - product development and product support respectively. Together they're sometimes classed as BAU (business as usual), distinguishing them from the one-shot (and disruptive) nature of projects.

Note that I'm not suggesting that one is 'better', 'more legitimate', 'more hardcore' or 'more professional'. Clearly these are all crucial software development activities and the language to tell them apart can help us.

Why does it matter?

Simply because the different types of effort have different delivery and (whisper it) governance needs. For the dev team, BAU and support need no spinning up - there's already a product, a UX framework, an architecture, domain knowledge etc etc. And save for occasional 'major' releases there's probably no need to think much about go-live. This makes them fertile ground for a wide range of fantastic lightweight agile techniques. Projects are harder, and often mean a new team, a new set of stakeholders and business domain, new architecture, a deployment plan, handover, training and so on.

For management - the lovely people paying us to develop software - there's a predictable operating expense to BAU (OPEX - the cost of doing business) to maintain and develop an existing product with known business value. Projects are a riskier proposition. They create change in the business - that's the whole point - which means rocking the boat. They take capital expenditure (CAPEX - investment over and above OPEX). The manager has a fixed pot of money and it might go anywhere - Project X or Projects A, B and C, another server, more marketing or straight into the bank to earn interest. She has to have some reason to believe that Project X is worth the investment, which means some idea of what she's going to get, when and for how much.

How our language harms us

We throw around the 'project' to describe all of these activities, and it harms us as individual practitioners and a community.

As an individuals, the language of 'projects' blinds us to difference between the models. After all, it's all programming (or design, or system development or...). We try to apply approaches suitable for BAU to projects, techniques for projects to support, etc. Or we simply get confused why two pieces of work are shaping up very differently. This is not conjecture - I've seen extremely intelligent and skilled engineers declare 'OK but it's all just projects.'

As a community, we're engaged in a divisive debate between estimates and #noprojects / #noestimates. Each side has its impassioned advocates, and they see each other as variously as hidebound or naive.

But the clue's right there in the name. If you're not doing projects, then the #noprojects paradigm might be an fantastic fit. #noestimates might clear a swath of unnecessary overhead - even enable you to make more accurate forecasts!

If you're doing projects, this doesn't apply. Your investors still need...a project and much that comes with it.

What doesn't this mean?

This doesn't mean that projects are waterfall and #noprojects is agile. It might mean that projects sacrifice a degree of agility for a degree of predictability. How far you end up along the agile spectrum may depend on the appetite of the investor and the deftness of the team.

In similar vein, it doesn't mean that there's a hard-and-fast divide between the models. The team doing a project within a product that they support. The ongoing dev effort managed as mini-projects. There are as many ways to blur the lines as there are individual circumstances.

Where from here?

As a software delivery professional, my role is to create clarity and shared understanding. Part of that is agreeing a shared language. So I propose the following.

Within the class of Software Delivery we have three (maybe more) subclasses:

  • Projects
  • Product Development
  • Support

Because they are all Software Delivery, some aspects of all three are very similar.
And because they have different technical and management requirements, techniques that are suited to one are not appropriate for another.

And perhaps we can re-frame the #noprojects debate. Rather than pushing dogmatic points on two 'sides' that now appear illusory, we can ask when are #noprojects and #noestimates approaches beneficial? What new tools can #noprojects and #noestimates thinking add to the seasoned software pro's armoury? And framed like this, might they even find applicability in the projects domain?

Monday, 14 July 2014

Naked Lunch and the shared backlog

The title means exactly what the words say: naked lunch, a frozen moment when everyone sees what is on the end of every fork"
William Burroughs, Naked Lunch

A minor incident ordering coffee

So I've noticed this lovely little coffee shop with an intimate atmosphere, comfortable seating and wifi. Win! I have to make a meeting after lunch, but there's no queue so I order my coffee and take a seat. Ten minutes later and still no coffee - it turns out that they'd taken a large order just before I walked in. I end up pouring my cup out into a takeaway cup and running back to the office. Luckily the client is later than me.

How did this go wrong? I expected usual coffee shop dynamics to apply, with a visible queue as a rough indication of how long I'd have to wait. But with table service, no queue...

A minor incident ordering takeaway

My wife and I are in a mood for takeaway. We spot a local Nepalese restaurant on a local online service, order and pay. It comes back and tells us that our food will be delivered in 1 hour. Damn. Normally I'd ask how long it will take before placing my order, but the website has removed that step from the workflow. And we're hungry!

Your project should be a Naked Lunch

Both times the assumptions that I use to regulate my order were violated. In the coffee shop, no visible backlog. On the online order form, no delivery time information. It worked out well for the suppliers - an order when I wouldn't have otherwise. But it's a very short-term win - I won't order takeaway online again and I'll be more cautious next time I visit that lovely little coffee shop. I need clear information to make an informed decision, to have confidence in my supplier.

It's almost facile at this point to suggest that the same applies to your project and your stakeholders. If you want your client to come back, they have to be confident that you're sharing the information they need to make informed decisions. And that means sharing openly. Backlog, risks, delays - the good and the uncomfortable. They have to see exactly what's on the end of every fork.

Thursday, 26 June 2014

Fear and Learning

An interesting news story emerged this week: A fifth of hospitals are under-reporting mistakes that lead to avoidable patient deaths. To address this the government has launched a microsite on Patient safety in the NHS ranking hospitals by their safety data. It includes a category of 'Open and honest reporting'.

Increased openness - A great idea?

In 2005 Martin Bromley's wife died in hospital following a routine minor operation. Drawing on his experience in the airline industry, Mr Bromley managed to instigate an investigation with a focus on learning rather than blame. As a result, the investigation uncovered 'communication problems' that initially appeared to be within team, but were in fact a systemic issue across the healthcare system (sounds like they did a great job of popping the why stack).

Mr Bromley went on to found the Clinical Human Factors Group, a charity campaigning to prevent exactly the kind of avoidable deaths that are being under-reported. The BBC's Today programme interviewed him (go to 01:09 - available in the UK until Tuesday 1 July), and Mr Bromley's thoughts on the new website are worth quoting at some length:

My concern is that what we're trying to develop...is a culture of learning...where you balance learning and accountability. My concern here is that we might be naming, shaming and by implication blaming. What we really see is in organisations that do have a strong learning culture is a genuine desire to hear the bad news, a genuine desire to learn and I'm not convinced at the moment that simply naming, shaming is going to bring out the best.

Opening yourself to criticism makes you vulnerable. You have to overcome an emotional cost, and there's a risk of losing face in the organisation. Even critiquing a colleague can feel risky. In the NHS it can only be harder, where simple errors can have grave consequences. Mr Bromley fears that this new site raises the stakes, so makes open internal reporting less rather than more likely.

However taking and giving criticism are also some of the most powerful skills you can learn.

And so to Agile

A learning culture isn't directly part of the Agile Manifesto but it is a very congruent value. Of course it's embodied in Scrum's retrospectives. Retrospectives endeavour to create a safe environment for continuous improvement by focusing on the team rather than individuals. Scheduling retrospectives at fixed intervals, not in reaction to a crisis, makes them a routine learning opportunity rather than an investigation (with inevitable overtones of blame), and creates an opportunity to address small weaknesses before they become big problems.

The issue of vulnerability as a blocker to learning is also highlighted by Liz Keogh in her blog entry on How to run Safety Checks. If you don't know the technique it's worth a read. The bottom line: people can only open themselves up to this kind of learning if they feel safe.

Do we feel good about this?

Agile development is better at fostering a learning culture than healthcare? Yay us!

Wait a minute. That's 20% of hospitals under-reporting errors, ie 80% doing a faithful job. When we get to figures like that in IT, we can start thinking about feeling smug...

Wednesday, 21 May 2014

Bruce Lee and the Agile spectrum

I've been lucky enough to have practiced a range of the published Agile delivery methods: XP, Scrum, Kanban and now DSDM. And I've been doing this for 10 years now. Time enough to form some opinions.

Right now I feel that these techniques sit on a spectrum of Agility:

Winging it
Too few controls
Delivery at risk
more Agile <----- Agile -----> less Agile Not agile
Too many controls
Delivery at risk
Co-hacking Kanban Scrum & XP DSDM Trad PM
  • Intimate communication
  • Shared commitment
  • Inexpensive
  • Unconstrained
  • Uncontrolled
  • Foster a Co-hacking-like work-style
  • Owned externally to the delivery team
  • 'Bottled lightning'
  • Agile-friendly governance
  • Work-style-agnostic
PRINCE2 &c
Focus on rapid delivery of highest priorities Focus on inspect-and-adapt continuous improvement of product and team

Co-hacking

Hacking is a complex knit of ideas. Getting things done. Rapidly. Dirtily if necessary. On the one hand unconstrained sparks of genius. On the other, spikes that become rabbit holes and technical debt. Doing it your own way. No constraints, no controls.

At its best hacking is a beautiful sweet-spot for any creative professional. It's what Picasso did with his brilliantly innovative lithographs of bulls, an act of creative discovery without a known end-point. Co-hacking is simply my term for two or more practitioners working together - a pair of coders, throw in an IA etc. It sounds the team developing BBC Playlister worked this way.

Co-hackers have the Agile Manifesto almost down to a tee. Individuals and interactions - check. Working software - check (we hope). Responding to change - these guys can pivot on a dime. Customer collaboration? The customer's probably part of the team, so can't provide an independent steer. Even if there is an independent customer, she may not have much pull with the team

So as sweet as that spot is, co-hacking is not Agile. It's not controlled to deliver business value. But it is an important part of the spectrum.

Kanban

I was a Scrum practitioner when I first learnt of Kanban. It scared me. I understood the value of single piece flow. I appreciated the tremendous flexibility for the product owner in on-the-fly re-prioritising. But no fixed points? No obvious planning horizon? No opportunity to take stock? Challenging stuff!

Of course this places huge reliance and trust in an ongoing conversation between the customer and the team, and it engages the team to find their own feedback mechanisms. All this while letting the customer to re-prioritise at will.

So Kanban is perhaps unbeatably agile - more so than the rest of the spectrum.

More agile. Not necessarily better.

Scrum & XP

When I moved from XP to Scrum, they were already pretty similar. They've only got closer over time. Scrum teams routinely adopt XP technical practices - chiefly TDD but also pair programming. XP, which started with 3-month 'short' iterations, has converged on the Agile 2-week de facto standard, and has adopted retrospectives.

Scrum bills itself as a general-purpose Agile project technique suitable for all types of project, though you'll be hard-pressed to find it used outside the software industries. XP is explicitly intended for software delivery and includes technical practices. So it makes sense to consider XP a software-specific specialisation of Scrum (or vice versa - I don't mean to imply any precedence here).

Scrum & XP foster a co-hacking environment, with just enough governance to ensure that they keep delivering value. "Go make me some of these. Come back in 2 weeks to show me how well you've done." They're the 'bottled lightning' version of Co-hacking lightning, harnessing it to meet product goals.

And on the spectrum? They both provide time-limited iterations. Opportunities for the client to feed back and re-prioritise, and for the team to retrospect its own performance. For all the reasons that Kanban initially scared me, this structure provides a safety framework that is inherently a little less Agile.

Less agile. I didn't say worse.

DSDM

DSDM takes a very different approach to Agile. The other methods foster an Agile work-style with minimal governance, DSDM creates Agile-friendly governance but is agnostic about work-style.

Uniquely on the Agile spectrum, DSDM offers an up-front project timescale and cost. Just Enough Design Up Front and Timeboxes based on MoSCoW prioritisation (DSDM's approach to flexible scope) enable DSDM to offer the business a high-confidence timescale and cost, and fail-fast discovery if these are at risk.

Any responsible business considering a new project needs some confidence around cost and time to assess project value (Glen Alleman reiterates this point on his blog Herding Cats, and in doing so does us all a good turn). If you're offering software services as a third-party consultancy or agency, you'll definitely need some way to generate these figures.

But this confidence comes at a cost: a plan.

Yes there is still a Prioritised Requirements List (Backlog to the rest of you). Yes, the client still owns the priorities. But the very fact of having a project-length plan creates a resistance to changing that plan. Particularly the introduction of new high-priority capabilities, which will violate the plan. Then change control comes into play, something mercifully absent in the rest of the Agile spectrum.

So DSDM is distinctly less agile than Scrum, XP and Kanban. But not worse.

What about Bruce Lee?

Bruce Lee originally studied Wing Chun. By 1960 he was disillusioned with the artificial boundaries imposed by the martial schools so he founded a martial art philosophy: Jeet Kune Do.

I have not invented a "new style," composite, modified or otherwise that is set within distinct form as apart from "this" method or "that" method. On the contrary, I hope to free my followers from clinging to styles, patterns, or molds.

So you use the right tool or technique for the task. This kick exists in Kung Fu but not Karate? Use it anyway. You need a grapple from Hapkido? Go for it. It seems like the simplest wisdom.

Applying this view simply to the Agile spectrum: pick the methodology that best fits your project. Your customer has fluid requirements and a high level of engagement? Kanban may be just right for you. They need to know a cost and a date before they can commit funds? DSDM may be a better fit. Neither is inherently better and it doesn't matter which is more Agile - they're each a better fit in different cases.

Jeet Kune Do projects

The PM and/or Agile methodologies present themselves as 'whole'. XP is a great example, with a range of practices that support one another: unit tests, refactoring. If you don't employ them all, XP warns that you're heading for disaster (Matt Stephens entertainingly parodies this as a ring of poisonous snakes). Similarly with most methodologies, if you're not following enough of their directives you're not 'doing' Scrum/DSDM/whatever/delete as necessary. You're headed for the rocks.

This is good advice for neophyte Agile practitioners. Each methodology presents a coherent project delivery toolset. If you follow the teachings of a well-reputed school, you'll probably come out OK and start learning how it all fits together.

But this approach also encourages experienced practitioners to pick a school and stick to it. This is clearly nonsense - the existence of multiple successful Agile schools proves there's more than one way to skin a cat. Any given school is probably not a perfect fit for a given project situation, so we should expect more of the experienced practitioner.

Jeet Kune Do projects mix it up. Your client requires up-front commitment? Give them DSDM Foundations. They need an MVP in 3 weeks? Re-configure as a Scrum backlog and use some appropriate tool to track progress - burn-up perhaps. The team wants to operate with WIP limits. No problem. Minimum quality guarantees? Use a Definition-of-Done, or a defined Quality Level or Pair Programming or...

A JKD project practitioner makes herself aware of what the project needs from moment to moment. She knows the teachings of multiple Agile schools, of various Masters both great and small (Fowler, Keogh, Uncle Bob etc), perhaps even schools outside the Agile family (PRINCE2 et al). She understands what each tool gives her, which others support it and where to let go.

And one day, if I work hard, I'll be as good at Agile project delivery as she is.