I hear it time and time again: “they don’t understand Agile” - “they don’t get it” - “they won’t let us do Agile” - “they” means managers. I get frustrated when I hear this because a) I’m now on management side of software development, b) I get Agile, c) To me “Agile management” is just the application of good management.
The problem was repeated on ACCU General last week when someone said:
“I often find there is little to no problem convincing the programmers. The problem is convincing people "higher" up the corporate ladder. The ones who control the purse strings”
Recognise the problem?
The poster suggested a reason:
“but typically they have only a shallow understanding of the nature of software development.”
I think the poster is right, typically this is the case but it is not the whole story, there are other factors.
Last week I was putting together my ideas for Øredev 2008 were I’m giving a talk entitled “Hitch Hikers Guide to Management.” In the session I want to talk about the role of managers in Agile development. It was then that it all came into focus...
Managers don’t get Agile because Agile appears anti-management. Not only is there no clear role for managers in Agile but many of the Agile methods set out to remove management.
Lets look at the evidence, and for once Scrum is the best example.
Just about all Agile methods are developer centric, they were created and pioneered by developers. XP does away with just about all roles except customer and developer. So at first sight Agile methods are a threat to managers.
Somewhere in the back of my mind I remembered Peter Block’s comment in Flawless Consulting:
“Maintaining control is the center of the value system of most organizations. There is a belief in control that goes beyond effectiveness or good organizational performance. Many managers believe in maintaining control even if keeping control results in poorer performance. There is case after case demonstrating that more participative forms of management are more productive, yet the practice of participative management is not too common. ... Control is the coin of the realm in organizations.”
Agile, as often presented, threatens control in an organization, it appears to say: “remove the managers and give control to the code monkeys software engineers. (i.e. the guys who don’t wash, the same guys managers don’t want speaking to the customers).”
Contrast this with something like PRINCE 2. As regular readers will know I qualified as a PRINCE 2 Practitioner earlier this year. I learned very little about project management on the five day course, and much of what I was taught flew in the face of my own experience. But what PRINCE 2 does present is a control mechanism, or rather lots of control mechanisms.
And there are many management roles: Project Manager, Project Executive, Chief Supplier, Chief Customers, etc. etc. PRINCE 2 will ensure the ritual and appearance of control even if a project is widely out of control. In other words: PRINCE 2 is not a threat to anyone in management.
In contrast Agile, and the organizational learning approach I advocate, do represent a threat to management. They don’t remove management from the picture but they do change the role. And so far Agile methods haven’t done a good job of explaining where management fits in.
So, is anyone still surprised that management don’t get Agile?
I have been convinced for a while now that the main problem in software development is not technology but poor management. Its why when I moved from development to management I went off and got a management degree. I am also convinced that Agile and modern, management practice are totally aligned - go read Changing Software Development if you don’t believe me.
Anyone for Agile Management ?
The problem was repeated on ACCU General last week when someone said:
“I often find there is little to no problem convincing the programmers. The problem is convincing people "higher" up the corporate ladder. The ones who control the purse strings”
Recognise the problem?
The poster suggested a reason:
“but typically they have only a shallow understanding of the nature of software development.”
I think the poster is right, typically this is the case but it is not the whole story, there are other factors.
Last week I was putting together my ideas for Øredev 2008 were I’m giving a talk entitled “Hitch Hikers Guide to Management.” In the session I want to talk about the role of managers in Agile development. It was then that it all came into focus...
Managers don’t get Agile because Agile appears anti-management. Not only is there no clear role for managers in Agile but many of the Agile methods set out to remove management.
Lets look at the evidence, and for once Scrum is the best example.
- Scrum does not define a “Project Manager” role - it does define a “Scrum Master” role (increasingly organisations are interpreting “Scrum Master” as a “Project Manager” which kind of defeats the objective)
- Scrum does not define a “Business Analyst” or “Product Manager” role, instead it defines a “Product Owner” role (and does a bad job in my view)
- Scrum strongly advocates self organising teams, i.e. no manager or leader
Just about all Agile methods are developer centric, they were created and pioneered by developers. XP does away with just about all roles except customer and developer. So at first sight Agile methods are a threat to managers.
Somewhere in the back of my mind I remembered Peter Block’s comment in Flawless Consulting:
“Maintaining control is the center of the value system of most organizations. There is a belief in control that goes beyond effectiveness or good organizational performance. Many managers believe in maintaining control even if keeping control results in poorer performance. There is case after case demonstrating that more participative forms of management are more productive, yet the practice of participative management is not too common. ... Control is the coin of the realm in organizations.”
Agile, as often presented, threatens control in an organization, it appears to say: “remove the managers and give control to the code monkeys software engineers. (i.e. the guys who don’t wash, the same guys managers don’t want speaking to the customers).”
Contrast this with something like PRINCE 2. As regular readers will know I qualified as a PRINCE 2 Practitioner earlier this year. I learned very little about project management on the five day course, and much of what I was taught flew in the face of my own experience. But what PRINCE 2 does present is a control mechanism, or rather lots of control mechanisms.
And there are many management roles: Project Manager, Project Executive, Chief Supplier, Chief Customers, etc. etc. PRINCE 2 will ensure the ritual and appearance of control even if a project is widely out of control. In other words: PRINCE 2 is not a threat to anyone in management.
In contrast Agile, and the organizational learning approach I advocate, do represent a threat to management. They don’t remove management from the picture but they do change the role. And so far Agile methods haven’t done a good job of explaining where management fits in.
So, is anyone still surprised that management don’t get Agile?
I have been convinced for a while now that the main problem in software development is not technology but poor management. Its why when I moved from development to management I went off and got a management degree. I am also convinced that Agile and modern, management practice are totally aligned - go read Changing Software Development if you don’t believe me.
Anyone for Agile Management ?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.