Google and Agilists and Psuedoscience

This is a day or so late, but the article at CNET and a variety of other places tells a little bit about what goes on at the big G. It is interesting to me, because I have recently had a discussion with a manager who said they did not care about the happiness of the developers at their shop, but only their billable hours.

Funny, when a developer is happy, they write better code (I only have experience to vouch for this) and when a professional is unhappy and feels constrained by arbitrary numbers (they do not mean anything as standalone data).. well… they leave.

People over process. There has been recent discussion in the Agile community about adding things to the Agile Manifesto like items stating that there should be talent, not just people. At some point, you have to think a little bit, yeah? Do I really need to be told what is and what is not a valuable person? Do I really need to bang my head against the wall to know that is not a valuable process?

Agile is being taken too far, as is just about everything that can be poked and prodded. I really think, more and more, that it is about experience and trust more than numbers and scientific modus ponens proof. Thinking outside the box makes companies and people great. Analyzing that box seems to cause problems. If you do your job well, are always learning (hopefully you surround yourself with people even smarter than you are?), never purport to know it all, and listen to those around you who share a common goal – I think you will be okay.

You can become a CERTIFIED Scrum Master just by attending some classes. Give me a break. I am not a fan of hardcore Agile, but the Manifesto sure makes good common sense to me. That is, unless you are surrounded by bean counters. At that point, you might want to reassess your situation. I have to assume that if you are reading this, you care to some extent about your professional life.

This is my first post on my new sexy Toshiba. Liking it so far. Dig the stripes.

Best,

Josh Milane