Agility and Service

June 5, 2004 at 4:15 pm — Collaborating, Process

The Manifesto for Agile Software Development, also known as “The Agile Manifesto,” says:

We are uncovering better ways of developing software
by doing it and helping others do it.
Through this work we have come to value:

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,
we value the items on the left more.

The key relationship expressed by the repeated word “over” is ranking. We compare pairs of items and rank one higher than the other. The summarizing statement that “we value the items on the left more” goes beyond this ranking and sorts all of the items into two buckets. The items on the left are the primary values of agile software development, and the items on the right are secondary values.

Sorting values is a fundamental way in which a community defines itself. As important as this sorting is, I see an even stronger, richer relationship among these values: secondary values in service to primary values. We value the items on the right to the extent that they serve the items on the left.

For example, we value following a plan to the extent that following the plan serves individuals and interactions, helps the project collaborate with its customers, and helps the project respond to change. In order for us to value following a plan, we first want to see how it serves either our identified primary values or some deeper, more fundamental values that transcend The Agile Manifesto.

Trouble starts when projects treat the secondary values of documentation, contracts, processes and tools, and following plans not merely as potential means to achieving deeper values, but as ends in themselves.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

4 Comments »

Comment by Chris Matts — June 7, 2004 at 7:48 am

I agree.

Even though they are secondary values, sometimes they have value. Sometimes Agilist think that “over” means instead of and as a result do no planning. Some planning is necessary especially on large projects when funding needs to be secured.

Comment by Alan Francis — June 10, 2004 at 9:39 am

I love this.

Thanks, as always, Dale for yet another valuable insight.

A.

Comment by Laurent Bossavit — June 11, 2004 at 10:11 am

I like this a lot - it has great potential. As I reflected on this I was reminded of the diagrams I’ve seen from the TOC people - “Reality Tree” diagrams.

Comment by David Anderson — June 23, 2004 at 10:07 pm

Can we take this thread further and suggest that measurements should be made against the items on the left and not the items on the right (as they only serve those on the left)?

Hence, is the essence of a core manifesto for agile management (as opposed to leadership) that the management metrics reflect the achievement of the items on the left of the manifesto?

David

Leave a comment