<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Agile Tales</title>
	<atom:link href="http://agiletales.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://agiletales.com</link>
	<description>Tales of the Agile world</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:28:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on When you are struggling: what agile is really about by Jeff Patton</title>
		<link>http://agiletales.com/agile/if-you-are-struggling-what-agile-is-really-about/comment-page-1/#comment-1046</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Patton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:28:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://agiletales.com/?p=45#comment-1046</guid>
		<description>Igor,

I really like this... and I think you know I agree wholeheartedly.  

There&#039;s lots of odd paradox about process.  We need just enough of it to work together.  Too much moves our focus from what we&#039;re trying to accomplish to the process - it makes the process what we&#039;re trying to accomplish.  Too little makes it challenging for us to work together.  

In classes these days I do a quick word association.  That is I write down the word &quot;process&quot; and ask participants to give me first words that come to mind.  The words that come up usually aren&#039;t particularly uplifting and give some strong hints about the culture they work in.  I then write down the word &quot;game&quot; and ask participants to shout out the first words that come to mind.  In addition to words like &quot;fun,&quot; and &quot;team,&quot; I often hear words like &quot;competitive,&quot; and &quot;winning.&quot;  

It seems to me that games have just enough rules to allow us to play together as a team, have fun, and focus on the real object of the game - ideally to win.  Winning in software [for me] is building a successful product. 

Contrast that to the processes most companies labor under.  Just surviving a process seems like winning at times.  Winning at process is often &quot;doing it right,&quot; or &quot;following the rules.&quot;

One thing I recall from working with your company is that your leaders, most of them, seemed focused on winning the game.  That&#039;s the best cultural foundation a process can have.  

Reminding people that process should feel like we&#039;re playing a game has helped me a lot lately.  Some folks still don&#039;t like the Scrum game.  I&#039;ve often South Americans complain about US football that there&#039;s &quot;too many meetings.&quot;  :-)  One agile &quot;game&quot; may not be right for every culture - but within an organization and especially a team, it&#039;s important that we all be playing the same game.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Igor,</p>
<p>I really like this&#8230; and I think you know I agree wholeheartedly.  </p>
<p>There&#8217;s lots of odd paradox about process.  We need just enough of it to work together.  Too much moves our focus from what we&#8217;re trying to accomplish to the process &#8211; it makes the process what we&#8217;re trying to accomplish.  Too little makes it challenging for us to work together.  </p>
<p>In classes these days I do a quick word association.  That is I write down the word &#8220;process&#8221; and ask participants to give me first words that come to mind.  The words that come up usually aren&#8217;t particularly uplifting and give some strong hints about the culture they work in.  I then write down the word &#8220;game&#8221; and ask participants to shout out the first words that come to mind.  In addition to words like &#8220;fun,&#8221; and &#8220;team,&#8221; I often hear words like &#8220;competitive,&#8221; and &#8220;winning.&#8221;  </p>
<p>It seems to me that games have just enough rules to allow us to play together as a team, have fun, and focus on the real object of the game &#8211; ideally to win.  Winning in software [for me] is building a successful product. </p>
<p>Contrast that to the processes most companies labor under.  Just surviving a process seems like winning at times.  Winning at process is often &#8220;doing it right,&#8221; or &#8220;following the rules.&#8221;</p>
<p>One thing I recall from working with your company is that your leaders, most of them, seemed focused on winning the game.  That&#8217;s the best cultural foundation a process can have.  </p>
<p>Reminding people that process should feel like we&#8217;re playing a game has helped me a lot lately.  Some folks still don&#8217;t like the Scrum game.  I&#8217;ve often South Americans complain about US football that there&#8217;s &#8220;too many meetings.&#8221;  <img src='http://agiletales.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' />   One agile &#8220;game&#8221; may not be right for every culture &#8211; but within an organization and especially a team, it&#8217;s important that we all be playing the same game.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on When you are struggling: what agile is really about by Gebhard Greiter</title>
		<link>http://agiletales.com/agile/if-you-are-struggling-what-agile-is-really-about/comment-page-1/#comment-990</link>
		<dc:creator>Gebhard Greiter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2011 14:58:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://agiletales.com/?p=45#comment-990</guid>
		<description>We need to think beyond the Agile Manifesto &#8212; the Manifesto’s approach is not abstract enough:

For defining Agile we should focus on &lt;strong&gt;the goal of Agile&lt;/strong&gt; rather than on the misleading, very problematic way suggested by the authors of the Manifesto. Please read 

&lt;a href=&quot;http://greiterweb.de/spw/dox/The_New_(2011)_Definition_of_Agile.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The New (2011) Definitions of Agile&lt;/a&gt; or
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.greiterweb.de/spw/Agile_is_not_Manifesto.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Manifesto can be Poison&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ggreiter.wordpress.com/2011/12/30/agile-methods-so-far-ignore-cios-interest/&quot; / rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Manifesto is ignoring CIO’s Interest&lt;/a&gt;.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We need to think beyond the Agile Manifesto &mdash; the Manifesto’s approach is not abstract enough:</p>
<p>For defining Agile we should focus on <strong>the goal of Agile</strong> rather than on the misleading, very problematic way suggested by the authors of the Manifesto. Please read </p>
<p><a href="http://greiterweb.de/spw/dox/The_New_(2011)_Definition_of_Agile.pdf" rel="nofollow">The New (2011) Definitions of Agile</a> or<br />
<a href="http://www.greiterweb.de/spw/Agile_is_not_Manifesto.htm" rel="nofollow">The Manifesto can be Poison</a><br />
<a href="http://ggreiter.wordpress.com/2011/12/30/agile-methods-so-far-ignore-cios-interest/" / rel="nofollow">The Manifesto is ignoring CIO’s Interest</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

