Edge of Chaos | Agile Development Blog

Agile software development is a cooperative game. At least Alistair Cockburn thinks so. I share his opinion and want to dig deeper. There are two words in the definition: game and cooperative. Let’s open the dictionary (isn’t it a silly trick to start a post?):

Game

Ha! Now it is clear why luck is important in software development at least. There are 2 more serious and interesting words in this definition: play and skills.

Let’s skip the details and go right down to the real meat. I have a theory. It is very simple, but my short experience proofs it. Here it is:

Why is that? Well, because software development IS a game. There is no elegant formal proof for this theory (so far, I am drafting it), but I have some in-vivo observations and some ideas behind.

Let’s take a non-cooperative game like table tennis. What do you need to do to play table tennis really well? Just 3 things:

1. Like table tennis.
2. Like to win.
3. Train to sharpen your skills.

If you are a decent player, you already have 2 very important skills for software development:

1. Know how to set goals and how to reach the goals (and what does it mean). In table tennis the goal is to win. In software development the main goal is to create a working software. You can directly apply your passion and feelings toward this goal. You are good at table tennis, why not be good at programming? It sets a goal-oriented mentality and helps a lot.

2. Know how to improve and maintain your skills and why it is important. I bet you knew nothing about top spin and dirty tricks as you stood by the table first time. I bet you knew nothing about OOP looking at first lines of code in your life. But you mastered the top spin. And you got OOP eventually. It is all about learning. Games help to set a learn-oriented mentality and that is huge.

I know a person who is equally great at various games: from Quake 3 and chess to table tennis. I believe he will become a great software developer. And I know people who don’t play games (almost), and I don’t think they will really rock sometime.

Now let’s dissect another word.

Cooperative

Mutual assistance and common goal are nice phrases. Cooperative brings team into the game and it makes huge (really HUGE) difference. You may play games and be a real star, but you may just suck at team games. There are people who are great software developers, but poor team members. They can hack alone and create nice staff, but can’t maintain communication with the other team members, don’t like to assist and pursue their own goals only.

Now imagine that you like to play software development game. You know how to win. You like to help others if it leads to a win. You are sure that your teammates will help you when needed. You share the common vision with the team. How cool is that? Do you want to work in such a place?

Now it is obvious that

It means you can (should?) play basketball, or football, or water polo, or whatever as a team to improve your cooperation as a team. It helps team to jell. It helps people to know each other. It helps leaders to emerge and lead the people. It helps to find people who don’t care. I understand that it is hard to find a game you all can play, but it is worth trying.

Disclaimer. Every rule has exceptions and sometimes you come across great software developers who don’t like games (and sport) at all, but I am curious enough to know what are they good at apart from software development? Maybe they write poems? Or maybe they paint like Monet? Are there parallels between art and software development? It is an interesting topic indeed.

Sketching is not so hard. It is really interesting to sketch something with basic tools. Here is an attempt to sketch a Mind Mapping tool for iPad. It is real fun to sketch for a touch device. In fact, that was our first experience with paper animation and video techniques, but I think the end result is good enough for 6 hours of work (taking into consideration that we’ve learned iMovie on the go).

The application is pretty simple. You can create nodes and connect them, delete and move nodes — all with simple gestures.

The video goes at 2x speed. It is more dynamic this way, but maybe  some details are lost…?

Read first part of the review.

Evaluating Design

There are two important aspects of design process: generative and reductive. We generate a set of alternatives, then we restrict this set based on various criteria. It is impossible to evaluate a solution without its alternatives.

The best way to a good idea is to have lots of ideas — Linus Pauling

I can’t critique just one thing — Richard Sewell

That is one more reason why sketching is so powerful. It helps to generate and evaluate various alternatives. I’ve read in one article that Apple creates a dozen alternative designs for any product. Good enough…

One of the most positive form of criticism is a better idea

Acquiring positive attitude to criticism is a hard change. People don’t like to be criticized in general. You can’t get the correct reaction to criticism out of the box, but should apply every possible effort to make it a part of team’s culture.

People on a design team must be as happy to be wrong as right. If their ideas hold up under strong (but fair) criticism, then great, they can proceed with confidence. If their ideas are rejected with good rationale, then they have learned something. A healthy team is made up of people who have the attitude that it is better to learn something new than to be right

Built to Last

Without appropriate design, yesterday’s success is tomorrow’s failure, since today’s great applications are tomorrow’s legacy systems

Some design decisions live for about 20 years if product is successful. For example, Photoshop has been on the market for 20 years, and some parts of its initial architecture still exist. Can you now imagine how important architectural decisions are? On to entities framework in TargetProcess that was designed 4 years ago. How long will it live? Definitely we did not consider a 20 year time frame back then…

We should assume that technology that is going to have a significant impact over the next 10 years is already 10 years old!

My takeaway lesson is that we should pay more attention to new technologies and think ahead at the same time. This may sound impossible, but it is worth trying.

Learning

Learning is a very important thing. No, I will re-phrase it. Learning is the most important thing in your company. Surprisingly, Bill has given an interesting perspective on learner’s experience levels:

I haven’t seen this concept of levels before, and I like it very much. If we take agile, I am in transition between levels 9 and 10 (I think). In UX, I am between levels 5 and 6. This model is a good guide and may help understand and plan personal or even corporate learning process. Is it possible to apply it to the whole company? Maybe.

Story-telling and Play

A good story is worth thousands of pictures

That one is true. For example, Steve Jobs told 3 stories from his life at Stanford Commencement Speech in 2005. And this speech was remarkable indeed. I remember all the 3 stories, despite the fact that I heard them only once.

Without play imagination dies

and one more:

Stories, and more importantly, story-telling and play, are critical part of design

Ever been on a boring brainstorming session? Fun is an essential part of any creative activity. It should be encouraged, not suppressed.

Design

Finally, some outstanding quotes on design:

Design is a funny word. Some people think design means how it looks. But, of course, if you dig deeper, it’s really how it works. To design something really well, you have to ‘get it.’ You have to really grok [understand] what it’s all about — Steve Jobs

The last thing that you should do when beginning to design an interactive system is write code

The role of design is to find the best design. The role of usability engineering is to help make that design the best.

I purchased this book at UXLX conference in Lisbon. I did not expect too much of it initially. But after several dozen pages it paid off every cent I’d spent and exceeded my expectations in every possible way. This book is for UX designers, yes, but I’d say every executive should read it. There’re so many gems inside.

I can’t resist sharing my takeaway lessons. The ones that impressed me most.

Executive Vision

Everyone knows that Steve Jobs saved Apple after his comeback. But Bill provides a nice and somewhat unexpected perspective on iMac release lessons learned. I highlighted the points that seemed most important to me:

1. Design saved Apple
2. The design innovation was done with the existing team
3. Executive vision was critical to success
4. Momentum was sustained and rapid (the iMac alone did not save the company, repeated improvements did)
5. There were failures (hockey-puck shaped mouse [see image], Power Mac G4 Cube [see image])
6. The failures were key to success (in the long term, safe is far more dangerous than risk)
7. The design that led to success was largely in the realm of styling, bordering on the superficial
8. There was almost no interaction between industrial design and user interface design.

This story re-emphasizes the importance of leadership. People haven’t changed, it was the same team, but with the great leader they managed to create a brilliant product. Which impediment have they had until Steve came into the spotlight? Lack of executive vision. If there’s no vision and you don’t care too much about design, failure is the most expected result of a new product release.

Actually, I felt the same about a year ago. That’s why I am paying so much attention to UX: reading books, blogs and articles, visiting conference and, of course, championing UX changes in our company. Bill’s book once again instilled me with passion and with confidence that we are going in the right direction.

“It is important to establish a corporate culture that understands and respects the design plan and objectives…”

New Products

“You can’t milk that cow forever” — this quote relates to old products. Company can’t survive without new products, and here is why.

“As product reaches late maturity, development cost for the next release increases at precisely the same time that the size of the addressable market diminishes.”

This is not the case with TargetProcess so far. Our market is still growing, but development cost indeed gets higher. That is something I don’t like and want to change. There are plenty of technical debts we should pay and features we should remove or re-work to be more simple and consistent. We are already doing that. In several years we should release something new, something different than TargetProcess (frankly, we already have plans for some new products).

Sketches

Sketches are very important for design process. They help to explore alternatives and quickly try them. Without sketches it is really hard to find the best solution. I like sketching and do it often, but Bill provides very good reasons and explanations why and how sketches work.

First, it is interesting to define properties of a sketch:

“Sketches are:

• Quick
• Timely
• Inexpensive
• Disposable
• Clear vocabulary (style signals that it is a sketch)
• Distinct gesture (fluidity that gives sketches openness and freedom)
• Minimal detail (“it is usually helpful if the drawing does not show or suggest answers to questions which are not being asked at the time”)
• Suggest and explore rather than confirm
• Ambiguity (much of their value derives from their being able to be interpreted in different ways, if you need to get the most out of sketch, you need to leave big enough holes)”

Here are the main conclusions I’ve made about sketches:

• Ability to quickly generate many ideas. Sketches stimulate imagination and you may invent something initially unexpected. That’s what’s important. I’ve never thought about sketches this way, I always use them as an ideas evaluation technique, but this side effect is brilliant.
• Sketches are useful to express ideas. They do not interfere with changing and improving the ideas, since they are not “final”.

Another important thing is that “Sketches are not prototypes”.

Read second part of the review

Related Links

Sketching User Experience Book at Amazon

Bill Buxton’s web site

Many interesting posts and discussions about Scrum and Kanban published last weeks. Someone even called this a war I don’t think it is a war, but some posts indeed may drive such feeling.

• Ken Schwaber bashed Kanban. “I was told that Kanban is frequently used when an organization cannot readily adopt Scrum. Many of Scrum most difficult aspects are then sidestepped. Managers are still in charge of telling people what to do. People can be interrupted at any time. People are still work in functional silos, preserving the jobs of functional managers. People are not allowed to work in containers, sharing skills and knowledge to bring complexity into solutions – instead they are worked on a pull (more sophisticated than push) production line.”
• Karl Scotland discusses Scrum and Kanban difference as Intentional vs. Implementational approaches. Interesting perspective in fact. Karl thinks that Kanban can be used with Scrum to reveal even more problems in development process.
• David J. Anderson posted the most rational article about Scrum and Kanban difference. I like it a lot. Some phrases are true gems: “Kanban is not a project management or software development lifecycle method. It is an approach to change management - a framework for catalyzing change in an organization.” and “Kanban uses a WIP limit as a change agent and Scrum uses commitments. This is a fundamental difference in approach.” David also posted some reflections later with interesting thoughts about anarchy and science.
• A year ago Tobias Mayer didn’t believe that it is possible to use Kanban at all. “I fundamentally disbelieve that there is any such thing as a “value stream” when you are working in a complex environment, in a creative process, building new products or generating new ideas.”

I think Ken is wrong. His arguments against Lean and Kanban quite ridiculous. Sure there is no intention to treat software development as a factory and apply lean manufacturing principles blindly. Of course there are people who will try (or already tried) that and fail. But vast majority of lean community in software development do understand the difference and working on concrete practices. Lean philosophy is great, but tools and practices can’t be taken from manufacturing directly.

Pull system is more complex than Push? C’mon!

David has wise arguments and perfect position. I think Kanban will be more popular than Scrum in long-term perspective, but it will take time. Visualization is a key thing to manage complexity, and software development is a complex system.

I haven’t attended many conferences in my life. To be honest, agile conferences disappointed me. Agile 2009 was half boring, half OK with just one mind-blowing keynote by Jared Spool. As you probably assume, he talked about UX. In fact, this talk has changed many things in TargetProcess, as we started incorporating UX into the company culture. And this is the only reason why I can give Agile 2009 a “good conference” label.

We decided to visit UX LX in Lisbon to check whether there’s any difference. I am an expert in agile, but novice in UX. Conferences are good places to re-charge batteries and to fuel vision. UX LX fully met my expectations. It. Was. Cool.

So what I’ve learned? What we’ll try to apply at TargetProcess soon?

Brainstorming

Maybe this is a number one and Dan Saffer did a really great job at the workshop. To be honest, brainstorming sessions sometimes were boring at TargetProcess. We used several whiteboards and markers. The process was synchronous. It means one person grabs the marker and writes something on the board. Other people throw out ideas and suggestions. Sometimes it works, but there is a much better way.

It is a very good idea to separate two activities. Brainstorming phase may be asynchronous. It means all people can brainstorm the problem and sketch/write results/ideas. There are several techniques that help. One of my favorite is brainwriting. You have a problem and everyone has a sheet of paper. You have 1 minute to write or sketch anything related to the problem. It may be just few words or a very brief sketch. Then you pass the sheet to the next person and receive a similar sheet from the person at the left hand. You see absolutely new content and have 1 minute to understand it and expand it. Very clever and fun.

Photo by Adaptivepath

Also it is very important to engage everyone. Use wall, sticky notes and paper to break down ideas into groups. Then you may review every idea and decide what to do with it. Group interacts with physical objects and these simple activities boost engagement. Also you may give some simple gifts for really cool ideas. It sounds silly, as Dan said, but this works!

Emotions

During one session I understood that TargetProcess is  (quite) a boring product. It has almost no emotions inside. It should be more emotional and humanish. Out of the box ideas are:

• Use avatars and real people faces
• Use better wording in dialogs, navigation, etc.
• Make it more personalized

Copywriting

Text is important. It is really, really important. If someone looks for information, finds the page, reads the text and has no clue what that mess of words is all about — that’s really bad. You might have a beautifully designed web site, but if the copy was written by a marketer or developer with poor writing skills — it will not be effective.

Eric Reiss ran fantastic workshop on copywriting and showed how poor wording can literarily kill a product.

Visualization

The truth is that visualization is hard, but if applied well may lead to unexpected boost of satisfaction. There is a lot of data in TargetProcess, but visualization is not so good. Many areas can be improved. We should pay attention to data visualization all the time.

Source: Swarm

Async Usability Testing

We tried synchronous usability testing on new navigation. It works perfect, but there are less intrusive methods to gather interesting statistic via async usability testing. For example, we can try daily notes or true intent studies. I clearly see how daily notes can be used for installation experience. We just ask a person to install TargetProcess and write everything during this activity (emotions, thoughts, problems). True intent studies may be context-dependent and it is a quick way to gather some interesting data in just a few minutes.

The conference was very good. I feel refreshed and full of new ideas. Also, I feel that in general we are on the right track about User Experience at TargetProcess, but some tactics should be changed.

“You can’t apply Scrum without an external expert”
“You can’t apply Scrum without a Certified Scrum Master”
“You can’t apply Scrum without XYZ”

You can replace Scrum with any other buzzword. Is it really necessary to have an agile coach on board to join agile camp? Is it really required to send someone to CSM courses and delegate Scrum adoption to this brave knight in a shiny armor? I believe it is not the only way to go, and there are 2 reasons that support my vision:

1. I did not attend any courses, conferences and other events, but I did learn agile and became an agile expert.
2. We implemented agile process in our company without any external help.

To me it looked (and still looks) natural to improve development process internally. It was an ad-hoc agile adoption  in our company. There was no defined structure, but on-going learning. People have been reading books about agile development which I recommended. I’ve been making some presentations about agile history, main processes and so on. People have been reading articles and discussing new ideas. It worked out, finally. Even with such an unstructured approach you are able to set up an agile company. But are there better ways?

Agile Coaches

What’s wrong with external coach/trainer/consultant? Nothing, actually. You pay someone to teach you. You pay someone to inject agile culture into your company. You pay someone to get it faster.

The problem is that this process is so slooow. It is inevitably slow, because all the mindset changes are slow, and you can’t speed them up greatly. My estimate is about 1 year as a minimum (no proof, sorry, just personal experience). You can’t absorb all the agile spirit in a shorter period of time (maybe some geniuses can, but they don’t need coaches anyway). I do believe that a good agile coach can speed up agile adoption, but not as greatly as often advertised.

OK, so changes are slow. It is absolutely required to manage the change over a long period of time. You can’t setup something, run it for a couple of iterations and leave. There is a high chance that development team will degrade and slip back to old-and-oh-so-known practices quite fast. It leads to several possible conclusions:

1. If you hire agile coach, it is better to have about 1 year contract.
2. If you hire agile coach for just 3-6 months, setup internal learning/change process as fast as possible.

The main idea of agile adoption is a paradigm shift. People should change their habits, rituals, working patterns and activities. It is SO hard! Some people just can’t accept it and leave the company. The goal of agile adoption is to change mindset of as many people as possible and let rock-hard minority go.

So why I personally don’t like the idea to hire someone who will teach us agile? It immediately puts our intelligence to question. Are we really not able to learn ourselves? Can’t we read some books, discuss them and try, for example, Scrum in a single dev. team? If we want to hire someone, to me it looks like we’ve already given up and can’t do anything cool without external help. It looks like we got exhausted and now need a power recharge. It is similar to an external CEO hired in a desperate attempt to save company.

Don’t get me wrong. Agile coach can help greatly. But I don’t buy the paramount idea that development team can’t go agile without external help.

Problems and Solutions

I like challenges and like to solve problems without external help. What I like is a full team involvement and participation. It is so cool when people discuss problems and generate solutions. If I ever hire an external consultant, it will be a person who will teach how to solve problems. Problem solving is the MOST IMPORTANT skill (can I stress it more?) for any good developer/tester/designer/you-name-it.

Here I see a major flaw of Scrum as a methodology (so far?). It does provide a framework, but it says nothing about problem solving. OK, you should have a retrospective meeting every other week. You should identify problems, generate ideas and write action items. You should execute action items and retrospect in 2 weeks. Sounds good. But HOW to identify problems? HOW to generate ideas? Scrum says nothing about that, but I believe this should be the core of any agile process.

That is why I pay more and more attention to lean and other problem solving techniques like 5 Whys, TRIZ, etc.

Knowledge From Within

There are various ways to ignite the team and solve problems internally, but you can’t solve problems effectively without knowledge. Study Groups could be the most promising way to educate people. To be honest, we did not try it. As I mentioned, we did not have any structural approach so far, but intuitively came to something similar to Study Groups.

Study Group is a small group of people (4-6) that have cadence sessions e.g. weekly. There’s no distinct leader, they rotate with every session. People should be really interested in the domain. For example, if you have Study Group to learn TDD, all the members of the group should be passionate about TDD learning and actively participate in discussions.

Why I think Study Group should work? First, there’s no Boss inside. People can freely discuss various problems without pretending that they know everything. Second, there is a clear focus. You should not form a group with a goal to solve all the development problems, instead it is better to form groups to study UX, study TDD, study Scrum, study Lean. Once again, Study Group is not a problem solving technique, but it helps to educate people. And it is absolutely clear that educated people will generate better solutions faster.

Here is the nice summary about Study Group. And here is the list of other learning methods that every agile team should pay attention to.

UX

Touch interfaces are a logical replacement of point-and-click devices like mouse. Here is a great concept: Reinvent desktop human-computer interaction. I really like it, since it is quite easy to build and learn. It looks like an advanced touch-pad and some gestures are already implemented in MacBook. Also it utilizes Zooming user interface ideas, which is cool. Hope we will have something similar in laptops really soon!

Chaos

Outstanding and very interesting BBC movie The Secret Life of Chaos. It shows unexpected relations in nature and chaos theory and explains some fundamental principles of the complexity science like Butterfly Effect, Feedback, Simple Rules. I promise you will enjoy it

Changes

Decent article about changes Understanding How To Respond To Change. “Isn’t it odd that so many companies fight change instead of embracing it?”. I especially like this phrase “The good thing is, that the people who change, are the people who wins. The problem with change is trying to make it stop, or trying to catch up to it.”

Complexity

Thought provoking posts by Rafe Furst. Here are some nice quotes:
1. Certain actions generate more future possibilities than others. In my experience, those actions tend to be the cooperative ones, ones that produce network effects: financial, social and otherwise.
2. By surrounding yourself with people who have the same vision as you do and want similar things as you do means that you will all have help in getting there.
3. When you are successful at something, others notice and their reactions to that noticing will make it easier for you to succeed in the future

Kai Gilb started a series of posts that challenge Agile Software Development. Part 2 is about creativity and “how well” focus in software development. While I agree with the problem, I strongly disagree with the solution. Kai recommends to write requirements (the format he uses doesn’t allow me to call it “user stories”) in a form that does not contain solution:

Developers Are Not Product Owners

Then developers should creatively find the ways to implement this requirement, to invent the solution and to solve the “how well” puzzle. We’ve got a huge problem here indeed. Most developers can’t invent solutions at this high level. They can create beautiful architecture and build the quality in. They can write tests upfront and use powerful tools to speed up development. They can do many things, but often they can’t invent a “how well” solution that will make customers happy. Why?

1. Most developers know nothing about User Experience (and don’t care).
2. Most developers can’t create usable design.
3. Many developers barely know a problem domain and in any case don’t want to dig into much details here.

In short, most developers are engineers (so far?), so what Kai proposes will not help. It is just a theoretical solution to “how well” problem. It’s the same like trying to grow 4 hands and 2 heads to double your productivity (well, sacrificing beauty maybe…)

In Scrum Product Owner is responsible for writing User Stories. It means he should invent solutions and care about “how well” thing.  I don’t see a significant problem here. Of course, it’s great if developers are interested in requirements handling and solutions investigation process, but if they are not, Product Owner can do that alone or with special people who care. Who they can be?

Those people are UX specialists. They know how to solve “how well” problems effectively. They know many things about design patterns and all new trends in interfaces. They like to explore problem domain and talk to customers. If you have such people among developers — you are SO lucky! But often this is not the case.

We, at TargetProcess, try to instill UX culture into development process. We started in August, now it’s February and I can’t say we’ve had much success. Sure there are significant improvements, but to be honest most developers are not so interested in UX staff, they like BDD, DDD, C# and SOA more. I expect it will be a long process that will take years. And our company is quite small. I can’t even imagine an effort for such a radical shift in a huge company.

Broad Requirements Are Not Testable

I wonder how you can write BDD scenarios for broad requirements as Kai suggests. How the hell can you test anything, if you don’t have any clue on how it should work? So broad requirements can’t replace user stories obviously. They can live in backlog, but developers should deal with concrete requirements that are testable right away.

I can agree that you can split backlog in 2 parts. The first small part contains detailed stories that can be put to development asap. The second large part contains broad requirements without solutions. That might be a good idea. But we should clearly separate UX phase and Development phase. During UX phase we should solve “how well/how cool” problems, and during development phase we should solve technical problems only (with some corrections in “how well” for sure if required).

P.S. Kai, I hate gray text on gray background in your blog. It is not user friendly.

I read Agile development grows UP article written by Mark Lines. It has quite a strange taste… Is it an attempt to advertise new methodology? I hope it is, otherwise Mark is completely missing the point and agile development trends.

I want to review the article. Just can’t resist, sorry.

Many of us don’t have the benefit of co-location, where the entire team works in close proximity (ideally in the same room), with the user representative present at all times to answer questions

Sure we all know that a co-located team is better. It is not a surprise that consultants advise to co-locate team members. If you need to win the race, it is better to drive BMW M3 than Ford Focus. There are so many discussions around distributed agile this year. There are so many ideas and experience reports on how to implement agile remotely. Agile works in remote teams.

Pair programming i.e. 2 programmers sharing 1 keyboard is an expenditure most management will not endorse

It’s a very strange argument. Many managers will not support continuous integration, iterative development and BDD. It does not mean that these practices are bad. Context is everything. In some companies and on some projects pair programming will increase productivity. While on other projects there will be no benefits or even degradation. How many agile coaches insist on pair programming and say “You are not agile without PP”? Not many. It is wrong to spread this argument to the whole agile community.

Delivering a system without moderately detailed requirements (beyond User Stories) is not acceptable for testing, writing training materials, and production support purposes.

C’mon! User stories can be VERY detailed. For example, you may use BDD-style user stories format and write many cases that will describe functionality in some format, that can be directly converted to unit tests! It is an incredible thing, to be honest.

Fixing architecture as you go (i.e. refactoring) without some initial architectural design is not appropriate for large-scale enterprise systems

Most people in agile community believe that it is required to spend some time on architecture. Again, it is so context dependent. If you create a simple application, one day may be enough to nail down all important decisions. If you create a complex system, it may take several months. Common sense is a critical factor here. There is always a danger to over-architect things and working software is the best proof of concept.

Also something called “emergent architecture” is being developed. I like the idea and maybe it is a right direction.

Most projects are not completely independent and cannot be built in isolation. Dependencies and integrations with other systems are required and require some co-ordination.

Agile adoption is spreading rapidly and indeed there are no common/standard approaches to solve this problem. But I believe it will be resolved during agile enterprise adoption (and we already stepping into this phase).

Organizations usually have some governance practices in place (such as PMOs, ISO, CMMI) that necessitate a level of bureaucracy and documentation

Does it all mean that PMO, ISO and CMMI are good and we should give up and follow the rules? Agile community tries to fight bureaucracy and I personally love that. Documented process means NOTHING for success of software development project. In 90% of cases it holds you in the spider’s net and blocks creativity. There is NO software development without creativity. Wake up, Mark.

We live with these standards, but we should fight them.

Deploying software to users every 1 or 2 weeks is usually not practical in most organizations. Just migrating software through development, test, system test, user acceptance, production environments is a major undertaking. Having many projects trying to do this in parallel on a weekly basis simply isn’t feasible.

This argument is so common… and “not practical in most organizations” is a truly masterpiece. Any statistic data? Did Mark try to deploy anything outside the enterprise-scale Java mastodon applications world? Many SaaS services do painless weekly updates. Some services do painless updates on a Daily basis! It is unbelievable, but I like that. Customers like that!

Mark promotes OpenUP methodology (based on Unified Process). Only advantages in the post, no disadvantages or context at all. Folks, I think it is a so long-awaited silver bullet! Finally it is there! Let’s bury Scrum. Let’s bury XP. Let’s burn Kanban and all the other processes that spark agile movement. God bless the OpenUP silver bullet. Amen.