Agile and Wilful Blindness

by

@ruthmalan challenges @swardley on #Agile

Asked what is agile? It’s a method of reducing the cost of change when developing an uncertain act.
— swardley (@swardley) April 21, 2015

@swardley have you seen John Seddon’s quip: “Waterfall: doing the wrong thing righter. Agile: doing the wrong thing faster.”?
— ruth malan (@ruthmalan) April 21, 2015

@swardley in theory 🙂 What we’re paying attention to shapes what we perceive and pay attention to. etc.
— ruth malan (@ruthmalan) April 21, 2015

@swardley I was making a sophisticated/nuanced point. We canalize — we think we’re open to finding misdirection but it’s hard
— ruth malan (@ruthmalan) April 21, 2015

Some things are easier to change than others. The architect Frank Duffy proposed a theory of Shearing Layers, which was further developed and popularized by Stuart Brand. In this theory, the site and structure of a building are the most difficult to change, while skin and services are easier.

Let’s suppose Agile developers know how to optimize some of the aspects of a system, perhaps including skin and services. So it doesn’t matter if they get the skin and services wrong, because these can be changed later. This is the basic for @swardley’s point that you don’t need to know beforehand exactly what you are building.

But if they get the fundamentals wrong, such as site and structure, these are more difficult to change later. This is the basis for John Seddon’s point that Agile may simply build the wrong things faster.

And this is where @ruthmalan takes the argument to the next level. Because Agile developers are paying attention to the things they know how to change (skin, services), they may fail to pay attention to the things they don’t know how to change (site, structure). So they can throw themselves into refining and improving a system until it looks satisfactory (in their eyes), without ever seeing that it’s the wrong system in the wrong place.

One important function of architecture is to pay attention to the things that other people (such as developers) may miss – perhaps as a result of different scope or perspective or time horizon. In particular, architecture needs to pay attention to the things that are going to be most difficult or expensive to change, or that may affect the lifetime cost of some system. In other words, strategic risk. See my earlier post A Cautionary Tale (October 2012).

Wikipedia: Shearing Layers

Agile and Wilful Blindness

by

@ruthmalan challenges @swardley on #Agile

Asked what is agile? It’s a method of reducing the cost of change when developing an uncertain act.
— swardley (@swardley) April 21, 2015

@swardley have you seen John Seddon’s quip: “Waterfall: doing the wrong thing righter. Agile: doing the wrong thing faster.”?
— ruth malan (@ruthmalan) April 21, 2015

@swardley in theory 🙂 What we’re paying attention to shapes what we perceive and pay attention to. etc.
— ruth malan (@ruthmalan) April 21, 2015

@swardley I was making a sophisticated/nuanced point. We canalize — we think we’re open to finding misdirection but it’s hard
— ruth malan (@ruthmalan) April 21, 2015

Some things are easier to change than others. The architect Frank Duffy proposed a theory of Shearing Layers, which was further developed and popularized by Stuart Brand. In this theory, the site and structure of a building are the most difficult to change, while skin and services are easier.

Let’s suppose Agile developers know how to optimize some of the aspects of a system, perhaps including skin and services. So it doesn’t matter if they get the skin and services wrong, because these can be changed later. This is the basic for @swardley’s point that you don’t need to know beforehand exactly what you are building.

But if they get the fundamentals wrong, such as site and structure, these are more difficult to change later. This is the basis for John Seddon’s point that Agile may simply build the wrong things faster.

And this is where @ruthmalan takes the argument to the next level. Because Agile developers are paying attention to the things they know how to change (skin, services), they may fail to pay attention to the things they don’t know how to change (site, structure). So they can throw themselves into refining and improving a system until it looks satisfactory (in their eyes), without ever seeing that it’s the wrong system in the wrong place.

One important function of architecture is to pay attention to the things that other people (such as developers) may miss – perhaps as a result of different scope or perspective or time horizon. In particular, architecture needs to pay attention to the things that are going to be most difficult or expensive to change, or that may affect the lifetime cost of some system. In other words, strategic risk. See my earlier post A Cautionary Tale (October 2012).

Wikipedia: Shearing Layers

“Force Generation” Architecture: Transition phase

by

In our previous article we explained how a commander started to initially prepare his organisation – the “Cold Phase”. He got his troops organized and in basic working order. His military capability – an organized element with a specific mode of operation to a specific end – encompassed several ‘building blocks’: staff, basic training, doctrine, equipment, combat drills and joint exercises. Ready for action? Not yet!  

The Open Group Madrid 2015 – Day One Highlights

by

By The Open Group On Monday, April 20, Allen Brown, President & CEO of The Open Group, welcomed 150 attendees to the Enabling Boundaryless Information Flow™ summit held at the Madrid Eurobuilding Hotel.  Following are highlights from the plenary: The … Continue reading →

Tripling the Odds of Transformation Success: A Critical Role for Business Architecture

by

McKinsey & Company reports that implementing a set of 24 best practices for “communicating, leading by example, engaging employees, and continuously improving” increases the odds of organizational transformation success from

The post Tripling the Odds of Transformation Success: A Critical Role for Business Architecture appeared first on Enterprise Architecture Professional Journal.

Arguing with Drucker

by

@sheldrake via @cybersal challenges Peter Drucker on the purpose of business.”Peter Drucker asserted that the purpose of business is to create and keep a customer. He was right at the time in offering previously inward-looking firms a more appropriat…

Arguing with Drucker

by

@sheldrake via @cybersal challenges Peter Drucker on the purpose of business.”Peter Drucker asserted that the purpose of business is to create and keep a customer. He was right at the time in offering previously inward-looking firms a more appropriat…

Survey Shows Organizations Are Experiencing an Identity Crisis When it Comes to IT Risk Management

by

By Jim Hietala, VP, Business Development & Security, The Open Group Last fall, The Open Group Security Forum fielded its first IT Risk Management Survey in conjunction with the Society of Information Risk Analysts (SIRA) and CXOWARE The purpose of … Continue reading →