Why is Agile Still Being Treated as Gospel?
Agile just turned twenty-one, but don’t put away that fake ID yet. This software development methodology is still in its infancy when it comes to our understanding of which teams should be embracing it and which should be shunning it.
Ever since the Agile Manifesto was written in 2001, the concept of becoming more efficient by embracing iterative delivery models and “learning-on-the-go” has captivated senior executives to junior project managers alike. No matter what your role, going “Agile” still reigns as the often ill-equipped blanket solution to various day-to-day problems. Perhaps after twenty-one years it’s time to look back at what exactly spurred this obsession. Where does this groundbreaking methodology fit in an ever-evolving business environment?
The core concepts of Agile were originally defined by a small group of software developers who had mixed experiences with traditional working processes. Leveraged from other industries and not appropriate for software, most early web development schedules followed a Waterfall planning approach where tasks are worked in succession. Unlike planning for the sale of tangible goods, software provided the opportunity to be more nimble and free-flowing due to the fact that the deliverable is code rather than an often expensive product or prototype. The core concepts agreed upon in the Manifesto are:
Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
Working software over comprehensive documentation
Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
Responding to change over following a plan
It’s the last concept here: “Responding to change over following a plan” that has continued to guide the methodology over the years. Atlassian, the major software development tools tracking company (creator of Jira and Confluence) recognizes the importance of Agile:
“Teams choose agile so they can respond to changes in the marketplace or feedback from customers quickly without derailing a year’s worth of plans. ‘Just enough’ planning and shipping in small, frequent increments lets your team gather feedback on each change and integrate it into future plans at minimal cost.”
Iterative planning is so incredibly attractive because it puts the success of a product in the sole hands of the end user and assumes that by trusting the data, a natural path forward will present itself. This concept is also easy to teach. In the data-centric business environment of today, where data science and AI are all the rage, making small, targeted changes to products actually feels quite conservative. More chances to course correct, the less chance of a major wrong turn right?
All of this adapted to small development teams or small companies is no problem. Agile has often run into trouble, however, when its philosophy has been applied to corporate roadmaps with planning approaches that require forecasting and budgetary decisions to be made a year in advance. Unless large organizations fully embrace Agile from the top-down, somewhere along the corporate hierarchy, the disconnect between traditional planning/budgeting and an iterative Agile approach will present itself.
A popular example comes from Bosch, who recently invested in Agile as a purposeful path forward embraced by the entire organization. The executive board recognized immediately that in order for Agile to succeed, changes were needed from the top down. The “steering committee turned into a working committee” and executives began to take meetings outside of traditional “board room” environments. Not all organizations have the freedom to entirely disrupt their working processes, however.
With risk comes reward. Many publicly traded organizations are simply not willing to risk forgoing the established forecasting and budgetary models that have become commonplace to pursue a Silicon Valley trend that has yet to prove itself in the long term. So, does that mean Agile has lost its value? No. If applied with the right expectations and dexterity Agile can still bring efficiencies to the day-to-day of some teams while remaining unadopted for others. Maybe it was naïve or too optimistic to assume every team must embrace an Agile mindset to be successful.
Of course, there will still be that breakdown within the organization where separate Agile and Waterfall mindsets may not align, but that should not be a problem as long as there aren’t expectations of Agile as the gospel it’s been marketed as. It’s great in targeted environments but not appropriate for all. As long as there are clear expectations and more vocal clarification that Agile must share the playing field with other approaches, it will have a long and healthy future at most companies. This is not always the case, however, and that’s where the confusion lies. Agile promoters and consultants are more popular now than they have ever been so without clear direction given to teams, the efficiencies that Agile promises could get lost in the current as multiple groups embrace countering strategies.
