[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/02/2007 01:40:08 PM: > > I'm confused by the point of these anecdotes. Is there some study > that backs up these stories? > > Without defending the pros and cons of these (so called) agile > methodolgies we can stipulate that indeed different orginaztions have > different needs. However, these anecdotes come across as an attack on > non-formal methodologies and not a careful study of when and where > orginaztions need to apply different methodologies. > > Frankly, it seems just an attempt to troll for controversy. Any > methodology has aspects that can be abused. > > Cheers, > Chris Dean
The "stories" are true stories, things that actually happened. If need be, I could have an outside auditor in to verify that. As things that actually happened in the real world, they're probably far better data than you'd get out of most controlled studies. >From the point of view of nearly all of the writing in the agile world, the statement that "indeed different organizations have different needs" would be considered heresy, much less something that one could go ahead and stipulate. I've been reading "Agile Project Management with Scrum" by Ken Schwaber. No where does it say that SCRUM might be unsuitable for some organizations; in fact, it attempts to suggest that when SCRUM fails, it probably is due to inadequate training (Chapter 3). Before we can do our "careful study of when and where organizations need to apply different methodologies," there has to be some awareness that this is, in fact, worth doing, because methodologies do, in fact, fail. It's also useful to have some real world data on which to base theories of methodology suitability. I offer my "stories" as serving both purposes. Ruven Brooks
