Traditional Estimation FunnelMicrosoft Story Point accuracy
Story points give more accurate estimates, they drastically reduce planning time, they more accurately predict release dates, and they help teams improve performance. Hours give worse estimates, introduce large amounts of waste into the system, handicap the Product Owner's release planning, and confuse the team about what process improvements really worked.

Interesting new research has become available. The Standish Group has updated their findings on project success rates based on analysis of the last decade of data with tens of thousands of data points. In addition, Microsoft has new research findings showing that agile estimation is astoundingly more accurate than traditional project estimation. See:

Scrum + Engineering Practices:  Experiences of Three Microsoft Teams
Laurie Williams, Gabe Brown, Adam Meltzer, Nachiappan Nagappan
IEEE Best Industry Paper award winner

Many people who have managed projects with hours have a hard time understanding why story points are better. They have failed to understand some fundamental data that has been published for over 60 years in the industry literature as well as the latest research.

First, let's look at the latest data on project failures. Failure rates are increasing for IT projects during the current disruption of the global financial system. The latest Standish group analysis shows that agile projects have three times the success rate of traditional projects. Jim Johnson now recommends agile practice be used universally on all projects.


In fact the latest Forrester Group research shows that:
Common Project Management Metrics Doom IT Departments to Failure

The venture capitalists I work with say they have never seen a correct GANTT chart in a board meeting. When they dig down into the problem they say none of their management teams knew the velocity of their teams before they implemented Scrum. Not knowing the velocity of production of the teams is the root cause of 100% failure of release plans to be accurate in their board meetings.

The stability of a user story is critical for planning. A three point story today is three points next year and is a measurable part of the product release for a Product Owner. The hours to do a story depend on who is doing it and what day that person is doing it. This changes every day. The GANTT chart assumes a fixed number of hours for some fictitious person (who often is not the person to implement) and assumes fixed dependencies (which are always changing). A study of 80 multimillion dollar projects at GSI Commerce (now owned by eBay) showed that the best experts in the company were totally incapable of estimating how much time a project would take by the people who actually implemented it.

You would think these data would cause people to change their behavior but many companies seem to prefer to continue to fail and be acquired or go bankrupt rather than improve their project management techniques.

Rand Corporation research in the 1940's showed clearly that humans are not good at estimating hours and practical experience repeatedly confirms the research. The recommended the Delphi approach to estimation which was adopted in software development as the Wide Band Delphi technique. The same technique is now embedded in the practice called Planning Poker for agile teams.

The management metric for project delivery needs to be a unit of production. Production is the precondition to revenue and companies say they are in business to grow revenue and margins (even though in project planning they often do the opposite). At least a venture capital group is clear that it is all about the money and money comes from velocity of production combined with quality of the product. Hours are expense and should be reduced or eliminated whenever possible.

The best data on individual developer performance comes from Yale University and has been reported previously on this blog. The best developer on a project takes one hour to complete a task while the worst developer takes 10 hours (within a project) or 25 hours (across projects). For teams the difference is an order of magnitude greater. Larry Putnam's published data show that an hour for the most productive team turns into 2000 hours for the least productive team.

Hours completed tell the Product Owner nothing about how many features he can ship and when he can ship them.

The important metric is the number of story points the team can deliver per unit of calendar time. The points per sprint is the velocity. Therefore we estimate everything in points for the Product Owner so that he create a release roadmap based on team velocity and adjust the plan if velocity changes.

The way we do story point estimation gives better estimates than hourly estimates as they are more accurate and have less variation. A CMMI Level 5 company determined that story point estimation cuts estimation time by 80% allowing teams to do more estimation and tracking than a typical waterfall team. A telecom company noticed that estimated story points with planning poker was 48 times faster than waterfall estimation practices in the company and gave as good or better estimates.

Story points are therefore faster, better, and cheaper than hours and the highest performing teams completely abandon any hourly estimation as they view it as waste that just slows them down.

For a complete break down on the points vs. hours debate see Scrum Inc.'s webinar on the topic. 

The concern about continuous improvement has been a constant at Facta TI since the company's inception. This concern made some practices emerge in a natural way, and they quietly became part of our days. In fact, they became so natural to us tha...

While at a recent Project Management Institute (PMI) event, the question came up of whether you could use agile techniques in Construction Project Management (after all, not all PMI members are IT Project Managers). Earlier in my career I worked for some electrical contractors, and thus have some first-hand experience in the Construction industry.

My first inclination was that agile would not be a good fit; but after doing some research, it turns out there are some examples of the application of agile and Lean principles to Construction (see also sources below). After all, software development is often contrasted with construction.

In general, agile is more applicable to the execution portion of a construction project, as there still has to be some fairly serious upfront planning. Major changes late in a construction project are generally hard to do efficiently. Also, the key principle of incremental delivery of value in the form of working software does not translate well to construction.  However, agile concepts such as customer collaboration and responsiveness to change have a place in a construction project. Lean methods applied to construction are beneficial in regards to creating material and information flows, maximizing value generation, and the use of plan-execute-and-control paradigms.

Once the overall design and master schedule for the project has been created, then a method known as the Last Planner System can take that master schedule and provide a process for breaking work down into smaller units that can be executed more iteratively:

 

Source:  Agile and Lean Applied to Construction

At a more tactical level, here is one way that typical Agile terms could be translated for use in Construction:

Source:  Agile and Lean Applied to Construction

In his post, “An Agile Construction Project,” Chris Klein has some ideas on how agile roles would be represented on a construction site. For instance, the Superintendent could be the ScrumMaster, as s/he would be responsible for running the various meetings and coordinating work on the site. The Project Engineer or Project Manager could fulfill the Product Owner role, as s/he would be responsible for maintaining various project artifacts, make decisions on various questions around interpreting design specifications, and could represent other stakeholders to the project team similar to a Scrum Product Owner or Product Manager.

Chris also talks about how the various meetings and ceremonies of agile and Scrum might look in a construction setting. The Daily Standup would be more of a Daily Status Meeting where the various trades would coordinate their efforts and the Superintendent coordinates to remove impediments. Once an iteration cadence is established (how Sprints would work in a construction setting would vary project to project) there could be planning meetings and reviews associated with those iterations that would support collaboratively planning and reviewing work found in agile. There could even be sessions to review the processes being followed on the job site that would look much like a Sprint Retrospective. After all, both agile and Lean are all about continuous improvement, and Agile Construction Management would want to reap the benefits of this practice as well.

This is still an emerging concept in application of agile methodologies, but may have more relevance as the prospect of large infrastructure projects such as an expansion of broadband Internet and the creation of a Smart Electrical Grid could stretch the capabilities for existing construction project management methods.

Below is a list of the key references that I used in putting together this post. These provide a good starting point if you would like to learn more about Agile Construction Management. There will also be a post in the VersionOne Product Blog that will give an example of how these concepts might be implemented in VersionOne.

Thanks for reading; please share with us your comments and questions below.

References:

An Agile Construction Project by Chris Klein:   http://chrisklein.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/an-agile-construction-project/

Agile and Lean Applied to Construction by Adrian Smith: http://ennova.com.au/blog/2011/09/agile-lean-compared-applied-construction

Agile Construction Projects by Brian Doll: http://emphaticsolutions.com/2011/04/23/agile-construction-projects.html

Lean Agile in Construction Projects – 9/11/11 – 10 Years Later (Agilescout): http://agilescout.com/lean-agile-in-construction-projects-91111-10-years-later

1. The Scaled Agile Framework®, or SAFe, provides a recipe for adopting Agile at enterprise scale.  It is illustrated in the big picture.

As Scrum is to the Agile team, SAFe is to the Agile enterprise.

2. SAFe tackles the tough issues – architecture, integration, funding, governance and roles at scale.  It is field-tested and enterprise-friendly.
3. SAFe is the brainchild of Dean Leffingwell.

As Ken Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland are to Scrum,
Dean Leffingwell is to SAFe.

4. SAFe is based on Lean and Agile principles.
5. There are three levels in SAFe:
   * Team
   * Program
   * Portfolio

At the Team Level:

6. Scrum with XP engineering practices are used.
7. Design/Build/Test (DBT) teams deliver working, fully tested software every two weeks.  There are five to nine members of each team.
8. Rally’s weekly TeamStart webinar series covers the basic practices at the team level.

At the Program Level:

9. SAFe defines an Agile Release Train (ART).  As iteration is to team, train is to program.
10. The ART (or train) is the primary vehicle for value delivery at the program level.  It delivers a value stream for the organization.
11. SAFe is three letter acronym (TLA) heaven – DBT, ART, RTE, PSI, NFR, RMT and I&A!
12. Between 5 and 10 teams work together on a train.  They synchronize their release boundaries and their iteration boundaries.
13. Every 10 weeks (5 iterations) a train delivers a Potentially Shippable Increment (PSI).  A demo and inspect and adapt sessions are held.  Planning begins for the next PSI.
14. PSIs provide a steady cadence for the development cycle.  They are separate from the concept of market releases, which can happen more or less frequently and on a different schedule.
15. New program level roles are defined
    * System Team
    * Product Manager
    * System Architect
    * Release Train Engineer (RTE)
    * UX and Shared Resources (e.g., security, DBA)
    * Release Management Team
16. In IT/PMI environments the Program Manager or Senior Project Manager might fill one of two roles.  If they have deep domain expertise, they are likely to fill the Product Manager role.  If they have strong people management skills and understand the logistics of release they often become the Release Train Engineer.
17. SAFe defines a Scaled Agilist (SA) certification program for executives, managers, architects and change agents responsible for leading SAFe implementations.  Rally provides regular public and private Leading SAFe certification classes.
18. SAFe makes a distinction between content (what the system does) and design (how the system does it).  There is separate “authority” for content and design.
19. The Product Manager (Program Manager) has content authority at the program level.  She defines and prioritizes the program backlog.
20. SAFe defines an artifact hierarchy of Epics – Features – User Stories.  The program backlog is a prioritized list of features.  Features can originate at the Program level, or they can derive from Epics defined at the Portfolio level.  Features decompose to User Stories which flow to Team-level backlogs.
21. Features are prioritized based on Don Reinersten’s Weighted Shortest Job First (WSJF) economic decision framework.
22. The System Architect has design authority at the program level.  He collaborates day to day with the teams, ensuring that non-functional requirements (NFRs) are met.  He works with the enterprise architect at the portfolio level to ensure that there is sufficient architectural runway to support upcoming user and business needs.
23. The UX Designer(s) provides UI design, UX guidelines and design elements for the teams.  In a similar manner, shared specialists provide services such as security, performance and database administration across the teams.
24. The Release Train Engineer (RTE) is the Uber-ScrumMaster.
25. The Release Management Team is a cross-functional team - with representation from marketing, dev, quality, ops and deployment – that approves frequent releases of quality solutions to customers.
26. Rally’s monthly Program webinar series provides an overview of Scaling Agile Programs with SAFe.

At the Portfolio Level:

27. PPM has a central role in Strategy, Investment Funding, Program Management and Governance.
28. Investment Themes drive budget allocations.
29. Themes are done as part of the budgeting process with a lifespan of 6-12 months.
30. Portfolio philosophy is centralized strategy with local execution.
31. Epics define large development initiatives that encapsulate the new development necessary to realize the benefits of investment themes.
32. There are business epics (customer-facing) and architectural epics (technology solutions).
33. Business and architectural epics are managed in parallel Kanban systems.
34. Objective metrics support IT governance and continuous improvement.
35. Enterprise architecture is a first class citizen.  The concept of Intentional Architecture provides a set of planned initiatives to enhance solution design, performance, security and usability.
36. SAFe patterns provide a transformation roadmap.

  Legacy Approach Lean-Agile Pattern

#1

Centralized control

Decentralized decision-making

#2

Project overload

Continuous value flow

#3

Detailed project plans

Lightweight business cases

#4

Centralized annual planning

Decentralized, rolling wave planning

#5

Work breakdown structures

Agile estimating and planning

#6

Project-based funding

Agile Release Trains

#7

Projects and PMBOK

Self-managing teams and programs

#8

Waterfall milestones

Objective, fact-based measures and milestones.

Table above reproduced with permission of Leffingwell LLC and Scaled Agile Inc

37. Rally’s monthly Portfolio webinar series provides guidance on Lean | Agile approaches to PPM.

Adoption

38. Adoption focuses on identifying a value stream.  A value stream is a sequence of activities intended to produce a consistent set of deliverables of value to customers.  Value streams are realized via an Agile Release Train (ART).
39. SAFe poses questions to help identify value streams (ARTs):
    * What program might adopt the new process the fastest?
    * Which executives are ready for a transition?
    * What are the geographical locations and how are the team members distributed?
    * What programs are the most challenged, or represent the biggest opportunities?
40. When you identify a value stream, you go “All In” and “All at Once” for that train.
41. Rally is an SAI Gold Partner.  Rally’s cloud-based solutions for managing the Agile development lifecycle directly support SAFe.  Read two independent analyst reports that show why “Rally Software continues its leadership in Agile/Lean.[1]”

[1] The Forrester Wave™: Application Life-Cycle Management, Q4 2012

.content td { padding: 2px 6px; } ol li { margin-bottom: 13px !important; } .safe-table th { background: #444444; font-size: 13px; color: #fff; border: 0; padding: 8px 0 0 8px; } .safe-table td { padding: 11px; background: #f4f4f4; border-top: 3px solid #fff; border-left: 3px solid #fff; } .safe-table td.first_col { border: 3px solid #fff; } .safe-table td { font-size: 13px; color: #444; margin-bottom: 8px } .safe-table td p { margin-bottom: 3px; } Rob Pinna

Countdown: 17 days until RallyON!  As we get closer to the event, we are knee-deep in content (and planning a welcome reception that will knock your socks off). We're refining the sessions and how they map to our overall themes of people, practice, and technology. This year's conference adds a new focus on Rally's platform, and how to optimize up and across the organization.

People - What makes an Agile leader different? What kinds of trade-offs are involved in their decision-making? Find out as Rally's Tim Miller and Christopher Avery explore what it means to consciously lead an Agile organization.  Also find out Jean Tabaka's "secret sauce" that Agile heroes use to keep their world in peace and deliver at scale.

Practice - One of our customers is presenting "Beyond Swarm Soccer," and the name says it all. Are we all chasing the ball, or do we work in concert across the field? Also, as Agile practitioners, how do you know when you're getting better? Applying extensive research, we've identified the Seven Deadly Sins of Agile Measurement, and will discuss which metrics matter.

Technology - We're taking a technical deep-dive this year by sharing lessons learned from both our customers and our own use. Sessions include product development using a build-measure-learn process, creating the most useful and used dashboards, and managing complex QA and test automation.  Our own engineers take center stage to discuss Rally's approach to building Lean product experiments and how we apply that to our product roadmaps.

There are too many great sessions to choose from, so bring a colleague -- or seven -- to share the learning.  We’ll see you next month in Boulder.  

Rally Software

Since Rally launched Rally Portfolio Manager in Dec 2011, I have worked with many PMOs, program managers and portfolio managers who ask: How can I adopt Rally’s portfolio management solution when I already have a PPM tool?

The answer: Use a Rally--PPM tool integration.  But what does this look like, and what does it provide?

Integrations ensure your PPM dashboards keep their value.

As Gartner stated at their PPM and IT Governance Summit last year, there is not a “ one size fits all” solution in the portfolio management world right now. That world is experiencing a major disruption and until it settles, which likely will take years, PPM providers have to play well with one another for the sake of providing you with comprehensive solutions that provide real value.

Here is one example. Agile continues to grow as a standard for project management. So portfolio dashboards must include Agile projects as well as traditional waterfall projects or risk losing their value. An integration with Rally would make sense here.

Which PPM vendors have partnered with Rally?

In 2011, several PPM vendors (Daptiv, Planisware, Oracle) partnered with Rally to offer an integration to Rally’s Agile solution. With the launch of Rally Portfolio Manager in late 2011, more integration possibilities arose. In 2012 Innotas created a bidirectional integration, Pervasive Software (now Actian Corporation) wrote the CA Clarity integration, and Rally’s own services group built an integration to HP PPM. The latest PPM integration was co-designed with Planview for several joint customers.

The benefits of integration are extensive.

The integration with Planview Enterprise is currently the most extensive bidirectional third-party integration to date between Rally and a PPM solution. Planview leveraged several new aspects of our free API to provide these key benefits:

1. Synchronization. The Planview integration automatically creates a matching Program/Initiative in Rally Portfolio Manager when you create portfolio initiatives or programs in Planview
2. Delivery of Valuable Increments. Focus on delivering valuable increments for the Program/Initiative (instead of focusing on being ‘on time and on budget’) by creating Features below the Program/Initiative in Rally Portfolio Manager
3. Real-time Status. As Agile teams work on implementing the Program/Initiative, portfolio managers & PMOs automatically view the progress of those Programs/Initiatives in the Planview portfolio dashboards, including the percent of work done based on actual Agile execution facts. Red-green-yellow status indicators are based on actual Agile execution,  actual start and end dates... you get the idea :).
4. More accurate cost data. If your organization is required to track software capitalization using a PPM tool, the integration synchronizes Rally’s timesheets with Planview’s timesheets so that everyone can stay productive in their own tool and avoid context-switching. The result? Your cost data is more accurate than when developers enter their time weekly or bi-weekly in a separate PPM tool.

If your organization currently uses mixed development methodologies (Agile, waterfall, iterative), then PPM / Rally integrations provide a way to adopt Agile at your pace while retaining your current portfolio dashboards. Now you can include your Agile programs in those dashboards.

See the integrations in action

Customers will present their use of the Planview and CA Clarity integrations at our RallyON user conference in June. If you are attending Gartner PPM shows late this month in the US or early next month in the UK, come on by our booth to see live demos!

Catherine Connor

HEAR HEAR!
Printed and posted :)
Thanks for this

-by Matt Barcomb on 5/20/2010 at 2:12 PM

I’m in. Niklas B. Do I pledge allegiance?

-by smalltalk80 on 5/20/2010 at 2:53 PM

(heh heh. Alistair)

Is the log intentionally an inversion of the Microsoft color pattern? They also had a butterfly logo for MSN; Google: Microsoft Butterfly logo.

-M2k

Great idea, Alistair.

-by Gastón Nusimovich on 5/20/2010 at 3:10 PM

yes.

-by YvesHanoulle on 5/20/2010 at 3:18 PM

I agree, to the point I’m commenting from my iPhone.

-by Mark Levison on 5/20/2010 at 3:24 PM

Signed !

-by Géry Derbier on 5/20/2010 at 3:28 PM

whatever it means… I’m against it (remembering the Groucho’s song)

Signed

-by davengeo on 5/20/2010 at 3:42 PM

I’m in!

-by Paul Ingalls on 5/20/2010 at 3:58 PM

I’m all in!

-by Magnus Ljadas on 5/20/2010 at 4:05 PM

Eschew preconceptions.

-by Michael “Doc” Norton on 5/20/2010 at 4:15 PM

Hi Alistair.

Sounds a lot like some key “oaths” in the Core Commitments, which, as you know, we have been promulgating for 13 years or so, and which you experienced in bootcamp about, what, 7 years ago?

“I will personally support the best idea

i. regardless of its source,”

While it is ideal to use the best ideas regardless of their source, it is not good practice to use ideas without disclosing their source.

But, hey, you got the right idea!

All the best, and I hope we can comnect sometime soon.

Your friend,

Jim McCarthy
-by Jim McCarthy on 5/20/2010 at 4:25 PM

(Hi, Jim! Actually it’s pretty amazing that our words came out so close, given how different our purposes are. Your purpose in those words is to get people in a single team to listen to each other, mine is to get people on projects around the world to open their ears to people from differing professional cultures; your statement is about ‘supporting’ ideas, I only care if they even /consider/ an idea that comes from a different school of thought. I actually almost wrote “school of thought” instead of “source”, but my fingers generalized the former to the latter at the last second. I think “source” is broader, though somehow I still have “school of thought” in my head. I wonder if I chose the right words…

In the end, the wording is remarkably close, though the context and purposes are different. I certainly haven’t had the Core Protocols in my head as I’ve been formulating this “oath” over the last year, so you needn’t worry that I was lifting one of the Core Commitments. Just a happy coincidence that they sound so similar. My apologies if it alarmed you.

I’m interested in spreading this single idea around the world to allow discussion of different methodologies and the like; you have it embedded in the Core Protocols for team development. I think the addition of the two purposes will be quite useful.

Thanks for writing here! Alistair)

I’m in!

-by Michael Mahlberg on 5/20/2010 at 4:25 PM

Check!

-by Tobias Fors on 5/20/2010 at 4:42 PM

Have to agree on this one. So i’m all in.

-by Verneri Åberg on 5/20/2010 at 4:43 PM

Signed.

Thanks, it’s high time. Posted the words on my site :)

Anu

-by Anu Ramaswamy on 5/20/2010 at 4:45 PM

Is this opposite day? Or do I have to say “Isn’t that not same night”? :)

-by Bil Kleb on 5/20/2010 at 5:14 PM

Kevin Steffenson wrote me this in an email:

“I think a team (or an individual for that matter) needs to be open to any idea regardless of where it comes from, and make judgments about what to do about that idea based on what they perceive the merit of that idea to be. ”

Thanks for the nice elaboration, Kevin. :)

-by Alistair on 5/20/2010 at 5:50 PM

Well if I pretty much said the same thing then it must be true. :)

Signed!

-by Kevin (K-Steff) Steffensen on 5/20/2010 at 7:12 PM

Outstanding plan. I would sign… if only you weren’t an agile guy… WTF… I’ll sign anyway!

-by Payson Hall on 5/20/2010 at 7:49 PM

I like it!!

-by Kay Johansen on 5/20/2010 at 8:43 PM

Well said.
Signed

-by joel tosi on 5/21/2010 at 12:55 PM

Sounds great, where do I sign?

-by Skip Angel on 5/21/2010 at 4:16 PM

I wholeheartedly agree! I’ve added the statement to my business analyst manifesto.

Laura, Bridging the Gap

-by Laura Brandenburg on 5/23/2010 at 8:36 PM

Complete agreement! This is a guiding principle which is applicable in all parts if life.

-by Nils Weinander on 5/24/2010 at 1:21 AM

recently thought about a company motto: “buzzword free consulting”, but that would have been a buzzword itself. so I let it be….

-by modelpractice on 5/24/2010 at 5:19 AM

awesome ##### committed ##### signed #####

-by ka-ching~ on 5/25/2010 at 1:08 PM

This is what I have being saying for years… nicely put Alistair.

I’m all in :)

-by Ahmed Sidky on 5/27/2010 at 2:09 PM

Works for me.

Signed.

-by Curzon Wragg on 5/28/2010 at 4:44 AM

An idea becomes solid when enough people give it life.
I am new to this business and have found that old ideas
are hard to overcome.
Thanks for your leadership!
retired SFC
U.S. Army

-by Cy Seibel on 6/8/2010 at 10:11 AM

As a PMI member and Agile advocate, I want to sign the Oath of Non Allegience, so that I can engage in the respectful knowledge sharing required to improve the work lives of people everywhere.

Thank you Alistair for exhibiting leadership on yet another important front.

-by Jesse Fewell on 6/13/2010 at 10:29 AM

An idea that’s long overdue. Thanks, Alistair.

-by Sanjiv Augustine on 6/13/2010 at 1:00 PM

As a PMP and CSP, I completely agree with and endorse this wholeheartedly. There has been entirely too much bashing going back and forth. As folks in the industry who are trying to get work done the best way they can by being practical, we ought to be more supportive of one another.

Cheers!!

-by Daniel Gullo, PMP, CSP, CSM on 6/13/2010 at 2:37 PM

Signed. I totally agree!!! So glad that you started this, Alistar. Every opinion deserves to be heard at least.

-by Renato Garcia Ferracini on 6/13/2010 at 3:48 PM

A drop of common sense in an ocean of misdirection! Part of the enjoyment of working in a team is to improve, this often means going beyond what the manual says and I’m all for it.

Great stuff

-by Tom McDermott on 6/15/2010 at 12:38 AM

I love it! A lot of energy is wasted convincing people to be pragmatic and objective vs. dogmatic and close-minded.

Signed.

-by Joshua Chappell on 6/15/2010 at 10:07 AM

I sign it.

I’m working in small sized companies and there we have to choose our project management solution problem centric.

-by Sven Schoradt on 6/16/2010 at 11:54 AM

Thanks to Jesse Fewell for taking the butterfly logo and turning it into the I Signed It! badge. (Alistair)

-by Alistair on 6/16/2010 at 1:43 PM

Yay – I totally in!

-signed by Mikkel Haugsted Brahm

-by Mikkel Brahm on 6/18/2010 at 2:23 AM

Signed. Thanks.

-by Bernd Oestereich on 6/19/2010 at 7:55 AM

Great initiative Alistair. Count me in. I am a CSC and CST but have always lived outside of the box ;)

-by Bob Sarni on 6/19/2010 at 10:55 AM

Agreed and signed.

-by Michele Sliger on 6/21/2010 at 11:29 AM

Dogmatic discussions about whether you really qualify to earn the badge “practitioner of method X” is waste of time. It’s all about finding the methods that work in your specific context no matter where it comes from. And then keep on improving…

I so mush agree to the Oath. Signed.

-by Thomas Bøgh Fangel on 6/22/2010 at 3:00 PM

Signed and thanks for the iniative. As a practical IT-Consultant I totally agree and understand that even in IT-business there is not only black or white. So: try to know as much as possible but think critical of everything and take the best breath for your current problem.

-by Dieter Baier on 6/23/2010 at 2:34 AM

Agreed and signed.

-by Dave Howell on 6/23/2010 at 10:34 PM

Well said. It is a huge positive step in every dimension of life. Being open is the best way to learn and apply.

-by Vijay Venkataraman on 6/27/2010 at 2:34 AM

YES YES YES>
I Sign

-by Joseph Flahiff on 6/28/2010 at 9:41 PM

This just shows how deep the problem is if things that should be obvious have to be upheld with special oaths. But it is indeed needed, and I very much agree with the oath (as, BTW, a Scrum practitioner for 4 years and a project manager – and a PMP – for much longer).

-by Andy Brandt on 6/29/2010 at 10:35 AM

Signed!

-by Jens Himmelreich on 7/1/2010 at 7:04 AM

I’ve signed! Been trying to tell a prospective client exactly this for a couple of months now. Turned out to be not the thing they wanted to hear…

-by Mike Morris on 7/2/2010 at 5:13 AM

Agreed and signed!

-by Martin Sans on 7/2/2010 at 6:02 AM

Agreed and signed!

-by Hannes Romare on 7/2/2010 at 6:13 AM

I’m on board.

-by Dennis Stevens on 7/3/2010 at 1:24 PM

I’am in…

-by Ajay Jadhav on 7/7/2010 at 3:33 AM

This is my position on practically everything, so of course I agree. You have to do what makes sense for the circumstances, and you can’t know what that is if you dogmatically follow a particular path because it is the path you’ve always followed. (Ok, so maybe my metaphors are a bit mixed, but you get the idea.)

-by Gary Duzan on 7/8/2010 at 4:10 PM

Agreed and signed!

-by Zsolt Fabok on 7/8/2010 at 4:38 PM

Agreed and signed!

-by Uli Deiters on 7/8/2010 at 6:31 PM

I’m really looking forward to this becoming a consensus, so that when I read great content there is a growing chance is is not mixed up with “flame wars”.

As for the first part, this is how I live, this is a good chance to train on the second part.

Therefore: Agreed and signed!

-by Karfau on 7/8/2010 at 8:42 PM (and edited by Karfau some minutes after)

Adaptive vs. Prescriptive or “Don’t be a slave to formal methods” – Andrew Hunt, David Thomas

-by Dariusz Klupi on 7/9/2010 at 4:28 AM

Zealots despair

-by Tom Czarniecki on 7/9/2010 at 8:36 AM

Signed!

>>I’m tired of people from one school of thought dissing ideas from some other school of thought.

I am tired of people from no school that apply

a)methods
b) without consideration any idea based on its source

Mike

-by Michael Thuma on 7/9/2010 at 11:09 AM

Critical thought FTW.

-by Joe Wirtley on 7/9/2010 at 12:16 PM

Hooray – advocate less cookbook thinking and more idea fusion. The situation and the context is important in all decision making. It is the applicability to the current issues that is paramount not the methodology from which the approach originates.

-by Phil Williams on 7/9/2010 at 1:03 PM

Signed.

-by Franck Depierre on 7/10/2010 at 5:01 PM

Certainly!
/Henrik

-by Henrik Kniberg on 7/10/2010 at 5:13 PM

Signed!

-by Hans Brattberg on 7/10/2010 at 6:04 PM

Yes, I agree!

-by Edoardo Schepis on 7/10/2010 at 6:12 PM

Good ideas can come from any source, be open to them.

-by Ray Foss on 7/10/2010 at 7:01 PM

Signed!

-by Marc Bless on 7/10/2010 at 7:21 PM

Yes !
Context, diversity, not beeing toolhead, and “think for yourself”.

I just translated this site into Japanese to join Japanese signatories in.

-by Kenji Hiranabe on 7/10/2010 at 7:28 PM

Agreed and signed.

-by Fujio Kojima on 7/10/2010 at 7:40 PM

Excellent, i totally agree.

-by Reza Farhang on 7/10/2010 at 8:23 PM

Sounds good! I sign a document.

-by ebacky on 7/10/2010 at 8:51 PM

Sounds good! I sign a document.

-by ebacky on 7/10/2010 at 9:04 PM

Sounds good! I sign a document.

-by ebacky on 7/10/2010 at 9:42 PM

Sounds good! I sign a document.

-by ebacky on 7/10/2010 at 9:43 PM

Yes.
Agreed and signed.

-by Eiji Ienaga on 7/10/2010 at 10:12 PM

Strongly agreed and signed.

-by eiichi hayashi (essence_s) on 7/10/2010 at 10:35 PM

Strongly agreed and signed.

-by eiichi hayashi (essence_s) on 7/10/2010 at 10:57 PM

Agreed and signed!

-by Fumihiko Kinoshita on 7/10/2010 at 11:04 PM

Agreed, endorsed and signed!

-by Shane Hastie on 7/11/2010 at 1:19 AM

+1!

-by Olle Hallin on 7/11/2010 at 3:26 AM

Signed.

-by Kei Ogasawara on 7/11/2010 at 3:55 AM

Signed.

-by Kei Ogasawara on 7/11/2010 at 4:28 AM

Agree, well put and an important statement as it unfortunately is not the default case.

-by Michael Franken on 7/11/2010 at 4:56 AM

Signed!

-by Per Lundholm on 7/11/2010 at 6:14 AM

Signed.

-by Bernd Schiffer on 7/11/2010 at 8:03 AM

Awesome! Signed!

-by Marie Drahroad on 7/11/2010 at 11:43 AM

Signed

-by Mary on 7/11/2010 at 3:10 PM

Signed.

-by Takashi Takebayashi on 7/11/2010 at 7:30 PM

Signed!

-by Aaron on 7/11/2010 at 10:38 PM

Signed!

-by Jonas Montonen on 7/12/2010 at 3:57 AM

Signed!

-by Micke Värn on 7/12/2010 at 3:57 AM

It’s sad this much common sense is so uncommon. I’ve been voicing this very opinion for years and will continue to do so. Let’s stop the “my method is bigger than yours” schoolyard fights and really get to work.

-by Laurens Bonnema on 7/12/2010 at 4:36 AM

I totally agree!

-by Oscar Lantz on 7/12/2010 at 5:26 AM

Signed

-by Mikael Brodd on 7/12/2010 at 8:47 AM

Signed!
Descisions should be taken regarding to context, not by methodical “religion”.

-by Michael Ginart on 7/12/2010 at 10:00 AM

Different countries, different cultures and different companies have ways that work for them, the trick is to work with the parts that are productive :)

-by Brian Silberbauer on 7/12/2010 at 10:22 AM

Signed!

-by Junilu Lacar on 7/12/2010 at 7:16 PM

Signed.
People create the future, not concepts.

-by Keven on 7/12/2010 at 10:55 PM

Signed.

-by 沉心 on 7/13/2010 at 12:17 AM

Signed!

-by James T on 7/13/2010 at 5:48 AM

Signed!
I agree it!

-by Ialy Wolf on 7/13/2010 at 8:43 AM

Signed!

-by SunLiang on 7/13/2010 at 9:49 AM

Signed!

-by QUALIDATA on 7/13/2010 at 3:32 PM

Signed!

-by takehara(take3000) on 7/14/2010 at 7:40 AM

It certainly gets my vote. I’ve seen projects and people get really torn up by the kinds of comments and diatribes that Alistair illustrates all to negative affect.

-by thecronester on 7/14/2010 at 9:19 AM

Signed!

-by Stefan Roock on 7/14/2010 at 10:23 AM

Signed!

-by Paul Momola on 7/14/2010 at 10:40 AM

Signed!

-by Anders Ekdahl on 7/14/2010 at 4:41 PM

Count me in!

But here’s a limited defence of reasonable partisanship. The provenance of an idea does matter, if you want to maintain some degree of consistency.

I see myself as mainly a Coffee sort of a guy; but on a project that’s sinking, someone comes up with an idea that frankly reeks of Tea. Yet on its own it makes a lot of sense, so I hold my nose and go with it.

All works out well – so now, I should ask myself: what does this mean for Coffee? Were our ideas not quite as complete as we hoped? Were there special features of this situation that indicated a more Tea-centric approach? Or was it just a freak? And perhaps I adjust my view a little, so next time around I’m wise to the limitations of straight Coffee-thinking.

If I ignored the tensions between Tea’s assumptions and my own, I might not have learned as much from the success of the Tea-inspired idea as I did.

Get hung up on ideology, and you may miss the best ideas; but ignore the ideological background altogether, and you may not learn as much from them as you could.

-by tomf on 7/14/2010 at 7:40 PM

_Good thoughts Tomf, thanks. What I do is to keep including the ideas looking for the larger unifying principle, e.g. Warm Beverages. When it works, it allows me to function in wider territories, say, when Hot Apple Cider is called for. It’s likely I’ll also learn more about Coffee as a result. ... and then there are the times when an Iced Bubbly Soda (shudder!) is just the ticket. I oblige myself to recognize those times for what they are, but I don’t try to turn an Iced Bubbly Soda into a Warm Beverage anyway. Nice metaphor :). Alistair

Julierme Carvalho de Oliveira

-by Julierme on 7/14/2010 at 9:57 PM

Signed.

-by Don Murray, P.Eng. (donaldm314) on 7/15/2010 at 8:26 AM

Great idea, regardless of the source.

-by Laurent on 7/15/2010 at 3:34 PM

heh :). Nice riposte, Laurent :))

-by Alistair on 7/15/2010 at 4:50 PM

I’m all in.

-by Glenn Waters on 7/18/2010 at 5:59 PM

Strongly agreed and signed.

-by Stuart Guest-Smith on 7/18/2010 at 8:10 PM

I’m in!

-by Nightshade427 on 7/18/2010 at 10:28 PM

Signed.

-by Stavros Pitoglou on 7/19/2010 at 12:28 AM

I fully appreciate this.

-by Markus Gaertner on 7/19/2010 at 1:45 AM

Hebrew Translation:

אני מבטיח לא לדחות אף רעיון על פי מקורו, אלא לבחון רעיונות לרוחב סקלות ומורשות שונות על מנת למצוא את אלו המתאימים ביותר למצב הנוכחי.

If you post it, please right-justify it. (also, the period should appear on the left side… software is not made for rtl languages…)

-by David Elrom on 7/19/2010 at 2:26 AM

I appreciate the sentiment, here. But not the oath itself. You guys are a little nuts. And a little dishonest. Because the source of ideas absolutely DOES matter to you.

Schools of thought, and communities of practice, are a vital part of human intellectual practice. Personal and professional reputation DOES matter. Different and incompatible paradigms DO exist. Does no one here read anything in the history or sociology of ideas? Or do you dismiss it as just the childish rantings of partisan philosophers?

Because schools really exist, the urge to transcend schools of thought is nothing less and nothing different than the urge to silence necessary debate and pretend that the world of ideas is simple. That actually reinforces the barriers between schools.

We don’t need to pretend that there is a universal objective reasonable way to think. There is no such thing. What we need is a tolerant pluralism. In other words, I have my patterns of thinking and people I trust to think with me, AND YET, I also understand that there are other ways of thinking and other communities. I recognize that I am biased in my appraisals of ideas. I must be so, or else I could not get much done.

Each idea is embedded in a thick context of assumptions and connections. Although it is possible to get great ideas from untrustworthy sources, it may not be economical. That’s why all of you are running SPAM filters for your email. All of you routinely delete mail unread that has certain characteristics.

— James Bach

I forthrightly acknowledge the following affiliations:
- Context-Driven School of Testing
- Skeptical Empiricist School of Philosophy
- Radical Unschooling School of Homeschooling Parents
- Humanist, Apatheist, Pluralist, Epicurean, Buccaneer-Scholar, American Pragmatist

-by James Bach on 7/19/2010 at 4:01 AM

It’s a great idea!
I’m in!

-by Paulo Roberto Donatilio Rego – Btolinux on 7/20/2010 at 1:42 PM

How refreshing! Thanks!

Signed

Markus

-by Markus Andrezak on 7/20/2010 at 4:01 PM

Seems obvious, doesn’t it?

-by Adolfo Neto on 7/21/2010 at 9:35 AM

Strongly agreed and signed

-by José Orete do Nascimento, M.Sc., PMP, CSM on 7/22/2010 at 10:02 AM

It’s great to see some common sense left in this IT world! Signed!!!

-by Alexandre Valente on 7/22/2010 at 10:14 AM

I´m in too

-by Caiuby Freitas on 7/22/2010 at 12:26 PM

I agree!
Signed!

-by Satoshi Tashima on 7/23/2010 at 1:01 AM

yes, indeed!

-by Ellen Gottesdiener on 7/24/2010 at 6:41 PM

I completely agree. Thanks Alistair.

Signed!!!

-by Alexandre Magno on 7/25/2010 at 10:32 AM

I agree!
There is no silver bullet. We find the best solution, no matter where it originated.

-by Ricardo Fernandes Luiz on 7/25/2010 at 2:30 PM

I agree!
There is no silver bullet. We find the best solution, no matter where it originated.

-by Ricardo Fernandes Luiz on 7/25/2010 at 10:12 PM

I agree!
There is no silver bullet. We find the best solution, no matter where it originated.

-by Ricardo Fernandes Luiz on 7/25/2010 at 10:25 PM

Signed. We should never lose our critical perspective.

-by Julio Oliviera on 7/26/2010 at 11:08 AM

I agree!

All of good ideias must be considered

-by Rogério Carrasqueira on 7/26/2010 at 9:59 PM

agreed

-by Carlos on 7/26/2010 at 10:25 PM

It could also be called, “I pledge to be pragmatic, not dogmatic”.

I’m in total agreement.

-by Yvonne on 7/26/2010 at 10:43 PM

Agree, signed and saddened that it is needed.

-by Hans Samios on 7/28/2010 at 4:21 PM

I agree.

-by Anders Jonsson on 7/29/2010 at 3:49 AM

Awesome!

-by Tom Perry on 7/29/2010 at 6:53 PM

Signed

-by NickyMouse on 7/29/2010 at 10:49 PM

Signed!

-by NickyMouse on 7/29/2010 at 10:49 PM

Signed. Individuals over (agile) processes… and ideas, thank you Alistair.

-by Thierry Cros on 7/30/2010 at 2:55 AM

Although there are times for being single-school-of-thought dogmatic, that too should be a choice. So, Signed.

-by Machiel Groeneveld on 7/30/2010 at 5:48 AM

Signed

-by Jarell Mallari on 8/1/2010 at 11:42 AM

Signed

-by Colin Scott on 8/1/2010 at 9:40 PM

Any good idea is valid, and people must learn to be open-minded to them. Everyone with good sense must be signing this =)

-by Pablo Lima Dias on 8/1/2010 at 9:49 PM

Signed

-by Kaiserguilherme on 8/1/2010 at 9:50 PM

Signed and proudly displayed

-by Cathy Carleton on 8/1/2010 at 10:21 PM

Like the idea in principle, but the practice is hard. Sometimes a source of ideas is so consistently bad that it just saves time.

That said, I’d love to see this, particularly in politics. So sick of one side dismissing an idea just because the other side thought of it

-by Doug Paice on 8/1/2010 at 10:38 PM

I’m in !!

-by Ben Hughe on 8/2/2010 at 2:42 AM

Signed.

-by Torbjörn Gyllebring on 8/2/2010 at 3:26 AM

You are so right, Doug – it’s easy to say “I sign” to this, but just wait till the next argument shows up :). I hope even 1/3 of the people who say they sign this can carry it out at work (let alone politics). thanks. Alistair.

-by Alistair on 8/4/2010 at 11:17 AM

I promise!

Arabic Translation:

اتعهد بعدم استبعاد أي فكرة من النظر على أساس مصدرها ، و النظر في الأفكار من المدارس الأخرى و الخبرات السابقة من أجل العثور على تلك التي تناسب الوضع الراهن.

-by Shady M. Najib on 8/7/2010 at 12:10 PM

Signed

-by André Faria Gomes on 8/8/2010 at 10:31 PM

Signed!!

-by Kondala Rao Maddala on 8/10/2010 at 11:46 AM

Here here!

-by Peter Green on 8/10/2010 at 3:31 PM

Signed.

-by Chris Tohline on 8/10/2010 at 5:30 PM

Signed.

-by shevek on 8/12/2010 at 5:40 AM

I hereby swear my allegiance to this… wait a minute.

I hereby refuse to swear my allegiance to this… no, that’s not it either.

Screw it – count me in.

-by Jonathan House on 8/13/2010 at 7:24 PM

Eu juro! Ops… Signed!

-by Gustavo Maia (GutoMaia) on 8/15/2010 at 11:26 AM

Signed It. Nice initiative.
French translation:
“Je promet de n’exclure aucune idée sur la base de sa source mais de donner toute la considération nécessaire aux idées de toutes les écoles ou lignes de pensées afin de trouver celle qui est la mieux adaptée à une situation donnée.”

-by Mathieu Poitras on 8/16/2010 at 4:17 PM

PERKELE! Never heard anything so good! It’s like… like we’re all brothers (or sisters in half the cases). Sign me in!

-by Pekka Marjamäki on 8/17/2010 at 12:49 PM

What does the Finnish version look like? (now adding Perkele to my 3-word Finnish vocabulary)

-by Alistair on 8/20/2010 at 12:33 PM

I think its a great concept, Alistair. Count me In.

Signed.

-by Iain Davis on 8/20/2010 at 1:18 PM

yep

-by Vincent van der Lubbe on 8/21/2010 at 1:09 PM

Signed!

-by Ilker Cetinkaya on 8/24/2010 at 6:40 PM

Timeless. Open-minded thinking. Signed!

-by Scooter Schneider on 8/25/2010 at 10:57 AM

I completely agree. Over the last 20 years we’ve had debates over mainframe vs. client-server, waterfall vs. RAD vs. iterative, OMT vs. Booch, RUP vs. Agile, Agile vs. the world.

I believe we need to focus first and foremost on being pragmatists!

Signed!!!

-by William F. Nazzaro on 8/25/2010 at 12:16 PM

I sign hoping to be congruent with this statement. Not an easy task if you recognize that there are some ideas that doesn’t sound to you at all.
Also, here is a Spanish translation:

“Prometo no excluir de consideración ninguna idea en base a su origen, sino considerarlas todas sin importar la escuela o la línea de pensamiento de donde provengan, para encontrar aquellas que mejor se ajusten una situación específica.”

-by Witt Igahluk on 8/25/2010 at 9:33 PM

I’m on board!

-by Pattern-chaser on 8/26/2010 at 6:00 AM

I concur wholeheartedly. I have always considered myself a “shopping cart methodologist”, synthesizing approaches from different sources and experiences to meet a client’s particular needs. Of course, I got dissed a lot for doing it, since it wasn’t “pure” nor “by the book”. It is nice to see that others may agree with me.

-by Mark Layman on 8/29/2010 at 10:16 AM

I sign.

-by Olaf Lewitz on 9/1/2010 at 5:54 PM

Swedish translation:

Jag lovar att inte låta bli att beakta någon idé på grund av dess källa, utan att beakta idéer från alla skolor och ursprung för att finna dem som passar bäst i den nuvarande situationen.

-by Nils Weinander on 9/2/2010 at 3:11 AM

I concur.

-by Hans Höök on 9/2/2010 at 6:01 AM

This is just great! Signed!

-by André Pinto de Souza on 9/7/2010 at 5:23 PM

I agree to uphold the oath of non-allegiance. The key SCRUM gurus in my community are arrogant, dogmatic people who are very quick to attack and disrespect anyone who does not strictly implement their approach. It’s about time the scrum gurus got a bick kick to teach them some humility and flexibility.

-by Murray Robinson on 9/14/2010 at 9:52 PM

!...fully aware before fully engaging…! Thanks for reminding us of the need to be open and not just for open source. ;-)

-by Melodye Creason on 9/19/2010 at 11:29 PM

signed.

-by Geoff Rayback on 9/21/2010 at 7:33 PM

Signed.

-by Matthew Helmke on 9/22/2010 at 1:38 PM

Russian translation:

Я обещаю не исключать из рассмотрения никакой идеи, основываясь на её источнике, а рассматривать идеи любых школ и традиций, чтобы найти те, которые лучше соответствуют текущей ситуации.

-by Ivan Sagalaev on 9/22/2010 at 2:28 PM

Croatian translation:

Zakljinjem se da niti jednu ideju necu iskljuciti iz razmatranja na osnovu njezinog izvora, vec da cu razmatrati ideje iz svih skola misli i nasljedstava kako bi pronasao one koje najbolje odgovaraju trenutnoj situaciji.

-by quant on 9/22/2010 at 5:11 PM

Hi quant! I put your text through the online Croatian-English translator, and it produced this: “Zakljinjem does yes we do ravel jednu the idea of necu peck out through meditation at an warp his authentic vec yes we do cu contemplate the idea of through svih scholastic thinker plus hereditament in order to to find they which najbolje draw upon currently situation.” Powered by WordTran/NeuroTran®. ... When you get done laughing, it’s probably not what you meant :). Is there another online Croatian-English translator you know of I could use? Thanks, Alistair.

Signed.

Asturian translation:
Prometo nun dexar de considerar idea denguna basandome nel so orixe, sinón considerar idees de toles escueles y tradiciones, col envís d’alcontrar les que meyor s’axusten a cada situación

-by Xuacu Saturio on 9/22/2010 at 6:27 PM

Signed!

-by Seung Soo, Ha on 9/22/2010 at 8:16 PM

Affirmed.

-by Wood [AU] on 9/28/2010 at 9:28 PM

Signed.

-by Kent J. McDonald on 9/29/2010 at 1:05 AM

Polish translation of
“I promise not to exclude from consideration any idea based on its source, but to consider ideas across schools and heritages in order to find the ones that best suit the current situation.”
is
“Przyrzekam, że nigdy nie pominę w rozważaniach pomysłów bazując na ich źródle, lecz uwzględnię pomysły z różnych szkół i dziedzictw w celu znalezienia tego, które najlepiej pasuje do zaistniałej sytuacji.”

-by Piotr Podsiadły on 9/29/2010 at 3:52 AM

Turkish translation –

“Kaynağına bakarak bir fikri değerlendirmeden dışlamayacağıma, farklı düşünce gruplarına ait fikirleri mevcut duruma en uygun olanını bulmak için değerlendireceğime söz veriyorum.”

-by Berke Sökhan on 9/29/2010 at 11:18 AM

I swear to combat conformity and mechanism and powerpoint for the sake of learning, using wit, imagination, mystical powers, coffee, blues guitar, flower petals, legos, my children’s art, pig Latin, and bad puns. —Patrick Wilson-Welsh

-by Patrick Wilson-Welsh on 10/5/2010 at 11:42 AM

Awesome, Patrick! I’m signing up for your program! Alistair

-by Alistair on 10/6/2010 at 9:34 PM

“I promise not to exclude from consideration any idea based on its source, but to consider ideas across schools and heritages in order to find the ones that best suit the current situation.”

in Dutch:

“Ik beloof dat ik ideeën niet zal afwijzen op basis van herkomst, maar dat ik ideeën van verschillende scholen en afkomsten zal beproeven om de oplossingen te vinden die het beste aansluiten bij de huidige situatie.”

-by Jeroen on 10/7/2010 at 5:29 AM

Signed.

-by Rune Bjerregaard on 10/7/2010 at 9:44 AM

Sold. And Signed.

-by Murali on 10/11/2010 at 9:55 AM

Signed.

-by Dennis Mancl on 10/11/2010 at 3:10 PM

Completely and utterly agree. Anyone who has a passion for what they do will have opinions & affiliations, nothing wrong with that. The ability to adopt the appropriate technique for the challenge at hand, while respecting the nuances of culture is true professionalism. Agile/Iterative/Use Cases/RAD/Cient-server/OO/COBOL…, gems everywhere.

Nice one, Alistair.

-by Fergal McGovern on 10/12/2010 at 6:41 PM

Long live command and control & waterfall!

I’m out

-by Christian Blunden on 10/13/2010 at 4:30 AM

Long live command and control & waterfall!

I’m out

-by Christian Blunden on 10/13/2010 at 4:31 AM

I completely agree. signed!

-by Frank Arndt on 10/13/2010 at 9:35 AM

It is so good to hear that others feel the same way. Too often we in the community bash each other for not being “pure” enough in a particular school of thought. Too often we stick to the same techniques instead of choosing the appropriate technique for the situation.

-by Brian Levy on 10/14/2010 at 3:08 PM

This is going to be hard to abide by but worthwhile I believe.

-by Gavin Hogan on 10/22/2010 at 11:43 AM

Agreed, signed.

-by Matt Doar on 10/25/2010 at 4:10 PM

Free range ideas are often the best :-)

-by Joel Sanda on 10/27/2010 at 11:40 AM

If you need to agree with a group to be right, you’re wrong.

-by Evan Cofsky on 10/27/2010 at 5:32 PM

Signed

-by Gerald stober on 10/29/2010 at 9:05 AM

Signed

-by Gerald stober on 10/29/2010 at 9:10 AM

Signed

-by Gerald stober on 10/29/2010 at 9:10 AM

beautiful assertion in a software world that get’s unnecessarily divisive by excluding ideas because they’re not cool or familiar.

-by Timothy J. Morris on 10/31/2010 at 8:47 AM

I agree! Count me in and signed! Thanks Alistair.

-by Joe Astolfi on 11/1/2010 at 2:49 PM

Signed.

-by Jacques-Antoine Massé on 11/3/2010 at 6:32 AM

We’re in! Check out our latest blog post on the topic.
http://www.quickstonesoftware.com/blog/2010/11/02/virtues-of-the-oath-of-non-allegiance

Thanks! and good luck with it. Alistair

-by Quickstone Software on 11/3/2010 at 6:34 PM

Signed!! Thanks Alistair

-by Damon Gaylor on 11/10/2010 at 2:11 AM

Thank you Alistair! Find what fits!

-by Raffi Simonian on 11/12/2010 at 1:14 PM

I signed it !

-by Pablo Pernot on 11/16/2010 at 8:04 AM

Agree 100%

-by Andy Newcomb on 11/16/2010 at 12:15 PM

I am in and just signed it. Thank you Alistair!

-by Prem on 11/21/2010 at 7:50 PM

Great Job! Alistair! Thanks!

Agree!!!!!

-by Tsuyoshi Ushio on 11/22/2010 at 3:59 AM

I agree!

-by Ken Tamagawa on 11/22/2010 at 11:16 AM

Signed and included the logo in my blog!

-by Walter Ariel Risi on 11/22/2010 at 1:25 PM

Some companies or project leaders think a single school of thought is based not on principles but rather composed of strict rules and all encompassing.

I conform not to conform. I therefore sign the Oath of Non-allegiance.

-by Reuel Cruz on 11/22/2010 at 5:18 PM

Signed!

-by Anders Jönsson on 11/29/2010 at 4:57 PM

Jepp! Signed! Great Idea!

-by Thomas Mosel on 12/3/2010 at 10:30 AM

I absolutely agree with this wonderful, inclusive statement.

I would love to see this type of oath taken by those involved in national politics and international diplomacy.

-by Ben Przystanski on 12/8/2010 at 2:18 PM

Don’t we all wish it, Ben! sigh. hard enough to get programmers and methodologists to give it 5 minutes. Thanks! Alistair

-by Alistair on 12/8/2010 at 3:49 PM

History shows me that blind faith leads to dogmatism. Dogmatism manifested in software engineering is ridiculous (and in general as a matter of fact). There are at least two arguments to be open-minded: give evidence of maturity and professionalism, and enable you to see beyond the cave you sit in.

I sign in, although it is a beautiful =><=. I will do everything possible to keep my oath.

Thanks Alistair.

Below is my translation (interpretation) into Romanian.

Promit, să nu desconsider nici o idee doar pe considerentul sursei și să accord atenție ideilor altor școli, în scopul de a le găsi pe cele care se potrivesc cel mai bine cu situația actuală.

N.B. Maybe you still need to reconsider your involvement in SEMAT :-)

-by Ioan VINTOIU on 12/10/2010 at 3:52 AM

I’m all in!

Signed!

Thanks Alistair

-by Takehiko Akimoto on 12/13/2010 at 10:00 AM

It’s a great idea, I think so too, but I wish you to do not dis the people who cannot wake up to this idea. :)

-by Tetsuya Satoh on 12/15/2010 at 1:46 AM

Here’s a perfect Value!

-by Catia Oliveira on 12/21/2010 at 10:49 AM

I’m In.
Signed.

Michael Larsen (aka the TESTHEAD)

-by TESTHEAD on 12/22/2010 at 4:18 PM

Assinado!

-by Rafael Justino Costa on 12/30/2010 at 5:55 AM

Count me in.

-by JTJ on 1/18/2011 at 11:24 PM

Me, too…..

-by Molly Lovelace on 1/18/2011 at 11:33 PM

Nodding in violent agreement…

-by Ellen Grove on 1/20/2011 at 12:28 PM

thank you

-by Dan Lewis on 1/20/2011 at 1:04 PM

Nice one.

Slovak translation:

Sľubujem, že nikdy neodmietnem zvažovať myšlienku len na základe jej pôvodu, ale dôkladne zvážim myšlienky z rôznych myšlienkových smerov a učení, aby som našiel práve tie, ktoré sa najlepšie hodia pre danú situáciu.

—-
Peter Perháč
perhac(dot)com

-by Peter Perhác on 2/7/2011 at 7:45 AM

Agree 100%. Might want to add “All egos are to be checked at the door.”

Dutch translation:

Ik beloof om niet buiten te beschouwen enig idee op basis van de bron, maar om ideeën te overwegen over scholen en erfgoeden om degenen te vinden die het beste bij de huidige situatie passen.

-by Robert Koehl on 2/9/2011 at 10:27 AM

Excellent, I agree to refuse to limit my thinking and creative ideas by the confines of one framework, philosophy or dogma. I promise to judge ideas based upon the impact and merit they bring to the situation.

-by Paul Roest on 2/9/2011 at 10:28 AM

Count me in as well

-by Tony Ponton on 2/23/2011 at 6:18 AM

Agreed and signed.

-by Chris Chan on 2/24/2011 at 5:10 AM

Signed. Thanks for the opportunity to declare myself in.

-by Fred Ballard on 2/24/2011 at 11:06 AM

This is exactly what I believe in for a long time now!

-by Marcin NIebudek on 2/25/2011 at 5:38 AM

Count me in!

-by Andy Roth on 3/3/2011 at 2:54 PM

Signed – of course.

-by Rick Butler on 3/13/2011 at 10:22 PM

Signed, hand on my heart, and too much experience to think otherwise. Good work.

-by Andrew Webster on 3/16/2011 at 10:46 AM

Signed! Thanks for creating this!

-by Alan on 3/17/2011 at 4:28 PM

Signed. Great idea Alistair.

-by Fred Joliot on 3/19/2011 at 2:17 PM

Je signe ! Excellente initialive !

-by Frederic Vandaele on 4/6/2011 at 9:42 AM

Signed and sworn

-by Anthony S. Kilhoffer on 4/16/2011 at 12:31 PM

Signed! I agree with you.

-by Zhou Jiancheng on 4/17/2011 at 10:44 PM

Signed!

-by Mike, HibbardConsulting on 4/18/2011 at 6:33 AM

Signed!

-by Mike, HibbardConsulting on 4/18/2011 at 6:34 AM

Now if only some of the other patriarchs would see it that way…

-by Raul Vejar on 4/18/2011 at 9:55 AM

Totally agree. Signed :)

-by Monika Konieczny on 5/7/2011 at 4:56 PM

Signed.

-by Matthias Assmann on 5/9/2011 at 1:31 PM

Signed :)

-by Jussi Mononen on 5/17/2011 at 3:55 AM

Accepted and Signed!

-by Srinivas Mandalemula on 5/24/2011 at 2:08 PM

Of course!
Now if Imay hint at one step further.
In order to evaluate new ideas properly (as opposed to dogmatically, emotionally) we need to

1. Learn to quantify our requirements and constraints, so we have a clear agreed idea of what we really want to have and to avoid

2. Learn to measure or estimate the corresponding performance/quality cost attributes , so we can fairly decide if they are relevant for our defined purposes.

3. learn to compare multidimensional objects, to find the alternatives that fit our requirements best.

Those who want detailed advice on such ‘engineering’ methods will find ample free data at gilb dot com

a beginners kit is in
How Good is a Process
Paper

-by Tom Gilb on 5/25/2011 at 3:15 PM

Of course!
Now if Imay hint at one step further.
In order to evaluate new ideas properly (as opposed to dogmatically, emotionally) we need to

1. Learn to quantify our requirements and constraints, so we have a clear agreed idea of what we really want to have and to avoid

2. Learn to measure or estimate the corresponding performance/quality cost attributes , so we can fairly decide if they are relevant for our defined purposes.

3. learn to compare multidimensional objects, to find the alternatives that fit our requirements best.

Those who want detailed advice on such ‘engineering’ methods will find ample free data at gilb dot com

a beginners kit is in
How Good is a Process
Paper

-by Tom Gilb on 5/25/2011 at 3:15 PM

Signed.

-by Andrew Lenards on 6/2/2011 at 10:11 AM

great idea,

signed

-by Xavier Zebier on 6/9/2011 at 12:47 AM

This so harks back to the volatile environment of the original C2 days, when things were chopped and changed, considered, tried, commented and USED, and the proofs were what came through under fire. And everything was challenged. Everything was mutable. Wiki in the first sense.

Yes.

Signed.

Remembered.

-by Ashkelon on 6/9/2011 at 11:43 AM

At last – common sense is reborn!

-by Richard Scott-Will-Harknett on 6/16/2011 at 10:39 PM

Very sensible indeed. The sooner we stop splitting hairs and recognizing that all systems/schools/methodologies are made for the same human brains. They’re all facets of the same truth looked from different vantage points.

I am in…

-by Peter Tillemans on 6/19/2011 at 3:37 PM

Nice one. Ideas should always be considered on technical merit not politics.

-by Phil H on 6/21/2011 at 2:02 PM

I was sure I signed this after Agile 2010, but it appears not. Agile Australia 2011 reminded me to take another look.

So count me in as officially signed.

-by Craig Smith on 6/22/2011 at 8:07 AM

Thank you for this Alistair. I am so sick of small minded zealots. Aren’t we all in this thing to try to improve the industry rather than scrap amongst each other? Well done. Count me in.

-by Edwin Dando on 6/22/2011 at 4:50 PM

Count me in!

-by Cristine Naylor on 6/23/2011 at 12:07 PM

Where do I sign?....

~n

-by Nick Borders on 6/23/2011 at 3:33 PM

I agree

-by robert McDonald on 6/24/2011 at 12:57 AM

I agree

-by robert McDonald on 6/24/2011 at 1:27 AM

dengis > signed :)

-by jon stahl on 6/29/2011 at 10:15 PM

Previously I worked for a company that invented the saying “not invented here!” so you learn to not look out the window so you don’t get inspired. But I have since long escaped that mental prison and arrive here to swear the oath!

-by Patrik Malmquist on 6/30/2011 at 4:03 PM

Here comes (finally ;-) the Italian translation.

“Prometto di non omettere di considerare nessuna idea in virtù sulla sua origine, ma di considerare invece idee provenienti da scuole ed eredità differenti, al fine di individuare quelle effettivamente più adatte alla situazione corrente.”

I’m officially signing :-)) ... and I’ve put the badge on my website.

ciao
carloz

-by carloz on 7/2/2011 at 1:56 PM

Signed!

-by NAKA Yamato on 7/6/2011 at 10:35 AM

You’re right! I agree.

-by Takahiro Nohdomi on 7/6/2011 at 10:54 AM

I agree. Signed!

-by Liza Wood on 7/9/2011 at 8:50 AM

Signed!! To become a master in something one should be able to surpass different schools of thought.

-by LeanAdaptiveManager (@PatrickSteyaert) on 7/13/2011 at 3:37 AM

Signed! We need to get rid of that God complex and be prepared to make good mistakes, see Tim Harford: Trial, error and the God complex on TEDGlobal 2011

-by Peter Bakker on 7/24/2011 at 3:46 AM

Signed.

-by Allan Stoneham on 7/24/2011 at 8:15 AM

Wholeheartedly agree!

Signed…in blood.

-by Dacid Dame on 7/29/2011 at 3:27 PM

Closing your mind indiscriminately is much worse than opening it indiscriminately and neither are as good as open in consideration.

Count me me.

-by Matt Grierson on 7/29/2011 at 4:54 PM

But wait… which flavour of Agile is supporting this Oath thingy?

Ah what the heck, put me down for it… it’s what I do anyway.

-by John Carter on 8/3/2011 at 10:12 PM

I agree with that.

I cannot stand strict adherence to any process/strategy that is unwilling to embrace the fact that situations vary and may require a modified approach to achieve a practical, valuable solution.

-by Gordon J Milne on 8/3/2011 at 10:27 PM

Count me in! I don’t mind which technology you use as long as you agree with what I think… :)

-by Phil Barr on 8/4/2011 at 5:58 AM

I’m in. I promise…to find the ones that best suit the current situation. Thanks!

-by Brent Oglesby on 8/4/2011 at 3:49 PM

+1

-by Tamas Rev on 8/8/2011 at 4:26 AM

Interesting. Here is the translation in Greek:

Υπόσχομαι να μην εξετάζω ιδέες με αποκλειστική βάση τήν προέλευση τους, αλλά να συμπεριλαμβάνω ιδέες από όλες τις σχολές και κληρονομιές για να βρω αυτές που ταιριάζουν καλύτερα τα δεδομένα της συγκεκριμένης περίστασης.

-by ΗΜ on 8/22/2011 at 2:30 PM

Allegiance to ideologies always results in some perversion of the original intent anyway. Schools of thought are valuable, but shouldn’t way any more than their component thoughts.

So this Oath represents a school of thought – not an ideology, right?

I hereby take the Oath!

-by Matthew Liddle on 8/26/2011 at 10:52 AM

I also promise to understand that understanding agile means there is no Agile

-by Erik Klein Nagelvoort

Hi, Erik. Thanks for the Dutch translation! I moved the comment about agile down here because the oONA is wider than just agile – the agilist exclusionist mindset is just a subset of the issue. bests, Alistair.

+1

I created a Linked In group for this (Group ID=4081877). If you’re on linked in, then join the group and the butterfly logo will be displayed along all your other group memberships.

-by Steve Tendon on 9/11/2011 at 9:30 AM

“The other terror that scares us from self-trust is our consistency; a reverence for our past act or word, because the eyes of others have no other data for computing our orbit than our past acts, and we are loath to disappoint them. ” —Emerson
Count me in!

-by Kim Forthofer on 9/13/2011 at 5:33 PM

So signed.

- Joel I. Hart

-by mprototype on 9/27/2011 at 2:29 PM

I’m in and hereby sign the oath

-by Joel Oosthuizen on 9/28/2011 at 4:48 PM

I am in complete agreement with this objective and hereby sign the oath.

-by Ramesh Nori on 10/6/2011 at 10:06 PM

This is how I’ve been working through all these years of coaching, I’m definitely in!

-by Jussi Markula on 10/14/2011 at 1:06 AM

I’m in!!

-by Leandro Fernandes Fraceto on 11/8/2011 at 11:34 AM

I completely agree and endorse this stance. Sign me up!

-by Andrew Annett on 11/8/2011 at 1:35 PM

Simple but profoundly important. I sign the oath.

-by Declan Whelan on 11/8/2011 at 7:59 PM

This is pragmatic and I agree with the statement made by the Oath of Non-Allegiance. I officially sign.

-by Christopher R. Goldsbury on 11/13/2011 at 11:26 AM

I’m in! Openness to ideas regardless of source is essential in all aspects of life.

-by Shawn Button on 11/17/2011 at 11:36 AM

I Signed it!!!

-by Pablo Bender on 11/18/2011 at 4:10 PM

Firmly signed.

-by Nigel Smith on 11/19/2011 at 7:01 PM

I’m in!

-by Sean Farmar on 11/20/2011 at 6:57 AM

Signed: Supporting open sharing and re-using of ideas!

-by Ben Linders on 11/30/2011 at 9:20 AM

Thank you Alistair for this pragmatic statement!

-by Anda Abramovici on 11/30/2011 at 3:05 PM

Thank you. I sign.

-by Ken Hansen on 1/2/2012 at 11:38 AM

Signed. Thought I signed it the first time I saw it – guess not! Good way to start the year off!

-by Jake Calabrese on 1/5/2012 at 8:51 PM

I whole heartedly agree with the Oath and have been living by it for sometime now. Thank you for putting it into words.

-by Andrew Rusling on 1/7/2012 at 10:58 PM

If you meet the Buddha, kill him. Signed.

-by Alex Kell on 1/17/2012 at 4:02 PM

I take the oath, maybe… I’ll withdraw my oath if something better comes along!

-by Mike H on 1/17/2012 at 5:45 PM

I agree with the Oath. I hope people will be open minded to the ideas from different sources.

-by Hulisi PEKSÖZ on 2/6/2012 at 8:23 AM

I agree with the Oath. I hope people will be open minded to the ideas from different sources.

-by Hulisi PEKSÖZ on 2/6/2012 at 9:13 AM

Listening means to first assume, the other opinion is right, and then to scrutinize the own opinion again in this light.

Signed!

-by Gerd Bleher on 2/7/2012 at 11:37 AM

I continue to encounter those who refuse to get it – just had one of those discussions this morning.
I sign and will stand by this Oath of Non-Allegiance!

-by Richard Dolman on 2/8/2012 at 7:01 PM

I continue to encounter those who refuse to get it – just had one of those discussions this morning.
I sign and will stand by this Oath of Non-Allegiance!

-by Richard Dolman on 2/8/2012 at 7:03 PM

Signed and extended beyond software development
Thank you.

-by Igor Shchetinin on 2/9/2012 at 1:20 PM

I swear! (the oath, of course!)

This reminds me of Buddhism’s emphasis of experience over doctrine: it is not enough to hear about or think a thing in order to determine its truth, you must experience it firsthand.

-by Nigel Runnels-Moss on 3/4/2012 at 8:14 AM

On board and signed!

Wise words in the Oath of Non-Allegiance!

-by David Kohrell on 3/12/2012 at 4:48 PM

roger that, signed and practiced today – before I read the Oath

below the Danish translation

Jeg lover ikke at udelukke nogen ide på grund af dens oprindelse, men at inddrage ideer på tvœrs af skoler, kultur og baggrund til at finde den løsning der er bedst til den aktuelle situation

-by Kasper Jørgensen on 3/14/2012 at 4:22 PM

Signed!

Great idea – there is no one right answer – miss out when we dismiss without thinking first.

-by Gary Rush on 4/1/2012 at 10:36 AM

What a profoundly simple yet amazing concept. To open one’s mind to accept knowledge no matter the source

-by paul mahoney on 4/2/2012 at 10:34 AM

I can’t improve on Paul Mahoney’s comment. Ditto.

-by Kevin Hart on 4/2/2012 at 1:25 PM

It takes experience to realize that a single methodology does not work in every situation. The clever system architects and designers blend ideas from a variety of approaches to deliver results.

-by Aakash Sahai on 4/3/2012 at 11:48 AM

I’ll link to that.

DOWN with Dogma :-)

-by Mike Robinson on 4/5/2012 at 10:08 AM

Very cool!

-by Elinor Buxton Slomba on 4/5/2012 at 12:46 PM

Heureka! – heuristic development …

-by Göran Hagert on 4/7/2012 at 12:36 PM

Signed!

-by Adrián Boimvaser on 4/9/2012 at 10:27 AM

Signed!

-by Takeshi Arai on 4/10/2012 at 12:14 AM

Signed!

-by Carl Blomberg on 4/13/2012 at 3:56 AM

Hi Alistair,

Can I post a Bengali translation of the Oath? Bengali is the national language of Bangladesh and a very widely used language in India. People who speak Bengali form a significant section of the computing community too.

Here it is:
আমি শপথ করছি যে আমি কোনো চিন্তা বা ধারণাকে তার মূলের ভিত্তিতে বিচার করবো না, বরং বর্তমান প্রসঙ্গে কোন ধারনাটি সবচেয়ে বেশি উপযুক্ত তাতে উপনীত হওয়ার জন্য সমস্ত চিন্তাধারা ও ঐতিহ্যের ধারণাবলীকে বিচার করে দেখব |

If you feel, you can validate and modify this from other reliable sources.

With best regards,
Sayan

-by Sayan Mukherjee on 4/13/2012 at 8:12 AM

Great idea and let’s hope to see many more signatures and not just confined to software environments.

-by Craig Strong on 4/13/2012 at 10:40 AM

Signed!!!

-by Abhilash Kuzhikat on 4/20/2012 at 3:20 PM

Signed!

-by Tomi Schütz on 4/25/2012 at 6:40 AM

Signed!

-by Tomi Schütz on 4/25/2012 at 9:37 AM

Seems like a good idea

-by Marjie Carmen on 4/28/2012 at 10:20 PM

Hiya, Brilliant, most definitely support this. Ta Roy

-by Roy Gouck on 5/7/2012 at 7:27 AM

Signed! Fantastic initiative!

-by Constantijn Blondel on 5/10/2012 at 5:20 AM

Spot on. Signed.

-by Bill Nicolich on 5/10/2012 at 10:50 AM

Yes, i promise.

-by Madhu on 5/24/2012 at 5:02 AM

Fantastic Initiative. Good Job.

-by Homayun Zahidi on 5/29/2012 at 4:45 AM

I pledge non-allegiance! +1

-by Brian Teachman on 6/3/2012 at 7:40 PM

I’m in.

-by Dana Fortier on 6/12/2012 at 11:12 AM

I hereby swear.

-by Josh Devins on 6/14/2012 at 5:04 AM

Bravo!

-by Gene Hughson on 6/26/2012 at 11:23 AM

Signed

-by James A. Curtis on 6/28/2012 at 10:17 AM

Filipino Translation:

Ipinapangako kong hindi isantabi ang pagsasaalang-alang sa anumang ideya na batay sa kanyang pinagmulan, bagkus isaalang-alang ang mga ideya sa kabuuan ng mga paaralan at mga heritages upang mahanap ang mga pinakamahusay at angkop sa kasalukuyang sitwasyon

-by gio on 6/30/2012 at 10:53 AM

Ako din – me too!
signed.

-by gio on 6/30/2012 at 11:01 AM

Signed. Very well put.

-by Ilan Kirschenbaum on 7/2/2012 at 4:22 PM

Signed! The “no good, not agile” attitude has weakened products, projects and worst of all teams in the past.

-by William Braymer on 7/9/2012 at 8:44 AM

This is spot on. Signed. I’m in! Done!

-by Glenn Thimmes on 7/10/2012 at 10:29 PM

I most gratefully sign. Thank you for this vision!

-by Birgitte Due on 7/13/2012 at 4:30 AM

Yes, I swear

-by Fernando Martin Maroto on 7/13/2012 at 10:23 AM

+1000

-by Gian Carlo Pace on 7/16/2012 at 5:35 AM

This oath works in so many contexts…

-by Melissa Plicque on 7/17/2012 at 3:10 PM

Love it, solutions often exist for problems in completely unrelated areas or fields, from science and engineering to putting a sandwich together in a canteen or cafe.

Leveraging off others individuals skills and experiences is common sense.

Always bodes the question ‘Why is the common sense approach always so uncommon?’

-by Mike Amur on 7/18/2012 at 1:16 AM

Love it, solutions often exist for problems in completely unrelated areas or fields, from science and engineering to putting a sandwich together in a canteen or cafe.

Leveraging off others individuals skills and experiences is common sense.

Always bodes the question ‘Why is the common sense approach always so uncommon?’

-by Mike Amur on 7/18/2012 at 1:37 AM

signed…....

-by Raghu on 7/23/2012 at 6:54 AM

• I acknowledge the intent in this Oath to discuss ideas no matter the school. However, I am missing a little discussion about how people will behave after they have signed this oath.
• What will you say to the Project Manager that says “I have a lot of experience in different schools and kind of uses my own mixture of them all – I choose what fits best in each situation”? I would ask the Project Manager “How will your project members know how the project should run and how can we evaluate how well you practice your own discipline?”.
• My point here is that thinking out-of-the-box requires a common box to escape when the situation requires it. What if no common box has been selected?
• Isn’t a common box NEEDED to be “default” thinking in a team or a community? At least then we together can try to master one discipline at a time. A discipline may work terrible if not followed in full e.g. take the Scrum vs. ScrumBut discussion.
• Does signing this Oath mean that you and your team members do not strive to learn how to master a discipline?

-by Keld Ølykke on 7/25/2012 at 8:17 AM

Hi, Keld: I see 5 paragraphs there, so I can respond by referring to the para number:
para1: hopefully they will discuss what they found along the way, and the ways those things work, not fixate on where they found the ideas (although heritage to ideas is useful information, too.
para2: PM is giving answer in keeping w OONA, your reply is out of scope of OONA: the OONA does not assert that everyone is an expert in their discipline, only that good ideas are not excluded on the basis of their point of origin.
para3: Personally, I offer that there is no “box” to think out of, there are only situations. The “box” we standardly operate within without deep introspection grows larger as we incorporate more ideas from more schools.
para4: imho: No, no default box is needed. I personally dislike and disapprove of the Scrum v ScrumBut discussion, because it starts with the assertion that Scrum is good and ScrumBut is bad, a straight violation of the OONA. Instead, how about just investigating what the situation is, and what might work in that particular context, without regard to where the ideas come from, usual or unusual though they may sound? That is what I am after with the OONA.
para5: au contraire, you will master the discipline better if you are open to ideas from all schools of thought, you will always have more tricks in your bag and better understanding than your neighbors, who are excluding useful ideas out of preconceptions about the source of the ideas.
best wishes, Alistair

Craig Smith made me sign it (only joking) ;-p

Great idea and a very valuable statement that everyone should sign up to!

-by Craig Aspinall on 7/30/2012 at 10:46 PM

Perfect! I plan to use it as part of the “ground rules” for meetings with stakeholders.

-by Al Wilkinson on 8/1/2012 at 9:53 AM

I am into it. Don’t want to be considered as a one-trick pony.

-by Marc Otto on 8/2/2012 at 3:54 PM

good luck with that, Al :). Alistair

-by Alistair on 8/3/2012 at 4:58 AM

Signed.

-by Hass on 8/3/2012 at 7:46 AM

Signed!

-by Viktor Nyblom on 8/9/2012 at 5:10 PM

Better late than never (wrt me signing)

Adult thinking in software development – hooray!

-by Andy Longshaw on 8/16/2012 at 5:40 PM

Signed!

-by Mats Berglund on 8/20/2012 at 7:02 AM

Signed!!

-by Girish on 8/21/2012 at 11:18 PM

Signed; we need to listen and speak without prejudice if we are to grow

-by Ian Cooper on 8/22/2012 at 4:14 AM

Signed / all in!

-by Tony Brill on 8/22/2012 at 3:45 PM

Signed!

-by Giuseppe De Simone on 8/30/2012 at 3:57 AM

Signed!

-by Giuseppe De Simone on 8/30/2012 at 9:03 AM

Signed! :)

-by Naveen K Agrawal on 9/3/2012 at 1:08 AM

Thank you, Alistair, for putting this into words. Signed !!

-by Todd Ross on 9/12/2012 at 9:30 AM

Yup – been on board and din’t even know it! :D

-by Leyton Collins on 9/22/2012 at 4:33 PM

Signing this with honesty is a marker in progressing from Agile Zealot to Agile Thinker…also, i guess, in understanding why that is an upward evolution.

-by David Babicz on 9/24/2012 at 7:28 PM

I pledge to seriously consider the oath.

-by David Nieman on 9/25/2012 at 6:37 PM

10-4

-by Jedd Parker on 10/4/2012 at 7:54 PM

Sold!

-by Marc-André Langlais on 10/12/2012 at 12:56 PM

Signed!

The Parable of the Raft

A man is trapped on one side of a fast-flowing river. Where he stands, there is great danger and uncertainty – but on the far side of the river, there is safety. But there is no bridge or ferry for crossing. So the man gathers logs, leaves, twigs, and vines and is able to fashion a raft, sturdy enough to carry him to the other shore. By lying on the raft and using his arms to paddle, he crosses the river to safety.

The Buddha then asks the listeners a question: “What would you think if the man, having crossed over the river, then said to himself, ‘Oh, this raft has served me so well, I should strap it on to my back and carry it over land now?’”
The monks replied that it would not be very sensible to cling to the raft in such a way.

The Buddha continues: “What if he lay the raft down gratefully, thinking that this raft has served him well, but is no longer of use and can thus be laid down upon the shore?”
The monks replied that this would be the proper attitude.

The Buddha concluded by saying, “So it is with my teachings, which are like a raft, and are for crossing over with — not for seizing hold of.”

-by Jason John Wells on 10/19/2012 at 9:19 AM

Signed!! Thank-you for the Oath and thank-you for the Logo!! It’s a great idea of true compassion!!!

-by Wanda B. on 10/22/2012 at 11:17 AM

Less dogma, more catma. Signed!

-by Larry Farmer on 10/22/2012 at 1:43 PM

I love the oath – it isn’t just limited to programming – it applies universally – this should be a precept that is taught in all schools world-wide beginning with kindergarten (actually at birth)

I’m going to post this on my Facebook page, giving you attribution

Cheers!

-by Robb Sauerhoff on 10/24/2012 at 6:47 PM

Sage words to guide the practitioners of our profession, count me in!

-by Michael Banks on 11/6/2012 at 12:03 PM

Signed!

-by Lisa Weiss on 11/7/2012 at 10:55 AM

Signed!

-by Pepijn van de Vorst on 11/10/2012 at 5:41 PM

Applies universally! Favors think-for-yourself approach, based on ideally having learned and experienced a few ways things methods beforehand ;-) I’m in!

-by Martin Kontressowitz on 11/12/2012 at 10:57 AM

Signed!

-by Claudio Ravizza on 11/21/2012 at 6:25 AM

Signed! I feel better already.

-by Kim Adelhardt on 11/23/2012 at 9:46 AM

Ever since I read your Crystal Clear book I’ve felt this way. Open minds, unite in non-conformity!...or don’t unite…I’m open…

-by Derwyn Harris on 11/29/2012 at 2:16 PM

Signed.

-by Ryan Kelker on 12/14/2012 at 12:14 AM

Signed!

-by Sibylle Peter on 12/21/2012 at 3:33 AM

I follow this concept from the beginning. It helped that I saw every single trendy idea of today before it was fully formed.

-by AkitaOnRails on 12/23/2012 at 11:21 AM

Signed! We need to new ideas and hybrid approaches.

-by Guillaume Iacino on 12/26/2012 at 7:56 PM

Just be Open Mind and consider other paths

-by Fáber F. Giraldo on 1/9/2013 at 2:28 AM

¡Firmado! Being open-minded is essential for evolution. Be water, my friend.

-by Amador Durán Toro on 1/9/2013 at 4:16 AM

It makes sense!

-by Gu Xuan on 1/9/2013 at 4:31 AM

Signed!

-by Ramon Gorrin on 1/10/2013 at 9:37 AM

Signed

-by Meenakshi Ramesh on 1/13/2013 at 8:24 AM

Excellent idea. I will happily put my name to this.

-by Daniel Hardman on 1/17/2013 at 11:46 PM

I hearby swear to never agree with anyone’s ideas ever again… oops did I take it too far the other way? :) Its a great oath that I’m happy to sign my name to.

-by Jason Ivey on 2/9/2013 at 12:08 AM

HERE HERE!

-by Justin Thomas on 2/28/2013 at 1:42 PM

I’m surprised I hadn’t already signed this… :)

This is clearly a great idea.

-by John Heintz on 3/5/2013 at 3:00 PM

Stumbled across this Oath while looking for “Use Case” vs “User Story”. Great philosophy! I’m signing on!

-by Trish White on 3/8/2013 at 12:00 PM

Only too glad to sign. Glad Dr. Cockburn initiated this.

~mc

-by Mark Carroll on 3/9/2013 at 7:08 PM

I support it from the bottom of my heart.

-by Karthik Sirasanagandla on 3/12/2013 at 3:48 AM

Signed! Hungarian translation: Megígérem, hogy egyetlen ötletet sem hagyok figyelmen kívül a forrása alapján, hanem megfontolok különböző iskolákból és örökségből származó minden gondolatot, hogy megtaláljam az adott helyzetre legjobban illőt.

-by Gaboo on 3/12/2013 at 7:15 AM

Spondeo ac policeor :-)

-by Ondrej Krajicek on 4/4/2013 at 5:33 AM

Joining the club

-by Nigel Foley on 5/13/2013 at 5:32 PM

Joining the club

-by Nigel Foley on 5/13/2013 at 5:32 PM

Sad that ‘religion’ invades distructively even in this sphere of endeavour

-by Sion Harri, D4-Accred, PMP, CGEIT, P2-RP, Mor-RP on 5/14/2013 at 3:38 AM

Count me in too!

-by Cheryl Court on 5/14/2013 at 10:09 PM

Let's face it: People skills is not an area in which the software development community has traditionally excelled. The very traits that can help a developer excel at technical problem solving can often make him or her challenging to work with day...

An international leadership expert, Pollyanna Pixton developed the models for collaboration and collaborative leadership through her thirty-eight years of working inside and consulting with many organizations. She helps companies create workplaces where talent and innovation are unleashed—making them more productive, efficient, and profitable. Pollyanna is a founding partner of Accelinnova, president of Evolutionary Systems, and director of the Institute for Collaborative Leadership. She writes and speaks on topics of creating cultures of trust, leading collaboration, and business ethics. Her models are found in her book, Stand Back and Deliver: Accelerating Business Agility. Pollyanna co-founded the Agile Leadership Network and has chaired Leadership Summits in the US and England.

Thanks, Alistair.
Your opinion/critique is relevant for software developers and, IMHO, it saved SEMAT. Without it, I would have lost one more opportunity to read your very interesting, concise, published research results.
In fact, it would be nice to see a verified Meta-Method-Kernel available (freely) for students and IT professionals.
While this is not available, I will try sooner to make a list of common responsibilities (including the people and technology related ones) in software development, based not only in my own experience (25 years). Then, I would be able to ask for several companies in the world to map these responsibilities to their corresponding specific actual roles and practices. Sharing this, there is one chance people start to reuse/share/evaluate the community’s experience.

-by Edmundo Andrade on 4/16/2010 at 11:32 PM

Hi Alistair,

Let me start with saying that you are one of the “process experts” that I respect a lot.

At pragmatic level, I personally don’t believe whatever SEMAT generates will have any positive impact on my day-to-day work as a software developer. But that’s my personal biased view. At an intellectual level, I have a different take of the SEMAT initiative. I don’t think there’s a need to answer why we “need” a theory. When Einstein put forth his Theory of Relativity, people didn’t ask why we needed an alternative theory for physics. At one level, it’s just human nature craving for understanding the nature. At another level, a new theory gives us an alternative view. The view can be useful (i.e. it predicts accurately things we haven’t seen before), or it isn’t (i.e. it fails to predict). But being right or wrong isn’t important. Either way, our understanding expands after the exercise. It’s very possible whatever resulted from SEMAT will fail miserably when applied in the real world. But to me, there’s fine. That doesn’t automatically negate the value of such initiative. To use a phrase I learned from an UK economist John Kay on many finance/economy theories (e.g. EMH and CAPM), “these theories are illuminating but not true.” (Finance/economy isn’t that different from software engineering. Human are so unpredictable rigid math can’t capture the behaviours.) Even so, they still help us in understanding the world better.

-by John Y on 4/17/2010 at 12:48 AM

Thanks, John. As I write in the article, that would all be fine if they didn’t say “lack of a theory is a problem, a problem due to our industry’s immaturity, and a problem that can be solved by the design of a meta-process-kernel.” I also think that a good theory is practical, I have a decent starting candidate, and I and others use it to both predict project trajectories and to come up with ideas for real projects. And … I wish to remind myself and others, although I’d really prefer they didn’t say they were going to create a theory of software engineering as enticement to join, if N people wish to go off and discuss meta-process-kernel languages in places around the world, that’s totally up to them and best wishes to them. cheers – Alistair

-by Alistair on 4/17/2010 at 1:58 AM

Thank you for the explanation, Alistair.

I was surprised to hear that your approach was not considered as an important part of SEMAT. This seems contrary to these words in Why We Need a Theory: “Now we are not presumptuous enough to propose that our kernel provides the needed theory. More and greater minds than ours are needed to do this.”

As a Supporter of SEMAT I am currently reflecting on my experience and continuing to read (including your material) prior to further involvement.

Bob (Developer)

-by Bob Corrick on 4/17/2010 at 1:52 PM

For me this discussion goes to philosophy. What are the philosophical roots of your views, mine and those leading SEMAT?

And what do the philosophers say about reconciliation?

-by Craig Brown on 4/18/2010 at 8:25 AM

While I like the idea of empirically-based technique, I think it needs to be done bottom-up instead of top-down. Thanks for the summary, Alistair… do you know about the Agile Skills Project?

-by D. André Dhondt on 4/19/2010 at 3:07 AM

I am still interested in what the singatories are going to discusss but the starting point which I believe is ‘working software’ does not allude in any way to a meta-process-kernel. Even the position paper from Larry constantine that your blog linked to seemed to be against the ‘meta’ focus. So I was surprised that this seems to be about rigor.

In my opinion your position paper and opinions seem to be more light-weight and they emphasize a creative bent of mind while the official position seemed to be rigorous.

Now I know the difference :-)

My personal interest stems from a string of improperly managed and tested projects. I want to investigate software engineering also. Hopefully the meta-process-kernel will help to improve the quality in some way. So I will continue to watch and learn.

-by Mohan Radhkrishnan on 4/19/2010 at 4:48 AM

I have been doing some research (rethinking) recently about a need for a theory for project management – PM (in particular I am interested in software project management…). I came across some philosophy including DIALECTICS which could help do solve conflict contexts (thesis—anti-thesis—>synthesis—>thesis) along the lines of the work of the German philosopher Hegel. But some caution is needed (see “A consideration of reflexive practice within the critical
projects movement” — Daniel Sage, et al.).

PM has a lot do do with organizations and people — a project is not an island. I think software projects — and processes — have a lot to do with organizations (contexts), people and the project features itself. And that is really difficult to capture as a theory (or theories) from one discipline. I think a blend of different theories from several disciplines will play an important role in PM (research). Maybe that is the case in software development research/practice…

-by Hermano Moura on 4/19/2010 at 11:16 PM

thanks, Hermano —- I have tried to think of what a theory of Project Management would look like, and I keep coming up empty. I have strategies, and theory for the strategies, but nothing that even looks like a theory for PM. Thanks for the note…. If you have any leads I’d love to see them. cheers,

-by Alistair on 4/19/2010 at 11:28 PM

Alistair — we’ve hung out so I think you’ll know this is meant only to be helpful.

A simple way to remember when to use “it’s” vs. “its”: use the apostrophe to separate “it’s” into “it is” and say it in the sentence. If it makes sense, then use the apostrophe.

-by Bruce Eckel on 4/21/2010 at 4:09 PM

Thanks for the tip about its and it’s, Bruce – Actually I know the rules for its and it’s; what I’m really hoping for is that if you see a typo on the page, you just edit and fix it. Most pages on this site are viewer-editable. thanks,

-by Alistair on 4/22/2010 at 10:19 AM

Alistair,

About your reply to Hermano – is this of interest?
http://www.leanconstruction.org/pdf/ObsoleteTheory.pdf

-by Bob Corrick on 4/22/2010 at 5:58 AM

Hi, Bob, sorry about the URL business – ongoing wars against spammers caused that – I’ll look at the refs…

-by Alistair on 4/22/2010 at 10:20 AM

As I commented on another thread on this site, the metalanguage and kernel are only a part of the SEMAT initiative. Some signatories and participants are passionate in pursuit of rigor and others of us find formality less compulsory. In the end, Alistair prefers to take his marbles home, while I would rather keep playing and hope to shape the game, at least to the extent of keeping the matters introduced in my position paper in play.(And thanks for the citation and link, Alistair.) Many things happened in Zurich, some of them positive. SEMAT may go nowhere, but that does not mean that raising the issues was wrong. And I think more than just software engineering matters may be at stake. (See m-iti.org/node/234).

-by Larry Constantine on 4/23/2010 at 12:28 PM

We posted a commentary of Alistair’s critique on the Semat blog: http://sematblog.wordpress.com

-by Semat on 4/24/2010 at 11:56 AM

Hi Alistair

This is a wonderful article. I was thinking that I was the only one asking about SEMAT to finalize the definition for ‘software engineering”. I am happy to see that you are also asking for it. On SEMAT blog, I gave a definition of “software engineering” for discussion but it was not discussed.

SEMAT or not, a definition for ‘software engineering” and “software development” are needed by the industry. In fact a taxonomy for software industry needs to be drafted and finalized. if such a document is made available, the industry and in turn the general public would benefit significantly. i would be glad to assist you in that endeavor.

Murali

-by Murali Chemuturi on 4/24/2010 at 4:33 PM

Hi Alistair,

Re “what a theory of Project Management would look like”, Hal Macomber has written some interesting articles on this – see e.g.
“Notes on The Underlying Theory of Project Management Is Obsolete” which I think responds to the article that Bob Corrick links to, and “Securing Reliable Promises on Projects”, both on www dot reformingprojectmanagement dot com

Luke.

-by Luke Schubert on 5/5/2010 at 12:49 AM

Thanks, Luke —- I read that article when it came out… correct me if I’m wrong but my recollection is that it doesn’t say what a theory of PM /would/ look like. Am I wrong? Pointer to place or article. (P.s. thanks for re-mentioning that site – I’m back on there now reading good stuff). Alistair

-by Alistair on 5/5/2010 at 7:37 AM

is very good ! thank you!

-by is very good ! on 7/20/2010 at 11:44 PM

Markus Gaertner writes:

Do you plan to follow up on the things that initially struck you on the initiative as it was coined? These terms seem to be attractive to me, despite the efforts put into SEMAT and your mis-interpretation.

In the videos I saw from Robert Martin speaking about craft he uses the ethics and what I understand to be professionalism quite often. Therefore I associate Professional Ethics with craft. In fact, we wrote down the principles statements for the Software Craftsmanship movement as opposed to the twelve Agile principles in terms of the Software Craftman’s Ethics. You can find the most recent version here:

http://groups.google.com/group/software_craftsmanship/web/principles-of-software-craftsmanship

In addition I coined the zeroth law of professionalism to mean that I feel responsible for the actions I take. This means that I have to care about the outcome of my decisions and follow-up on resolving problems as they occur in a professional way. I see you just did that with your detailed critique and your reasons about it.

Markus

Hi, Markus!

I have not lost interest in finding a theory of software engineering, alone and with others (the more I look, the more others I find – Nonaka, Reinertsen, Anderson, Poppendieck, Kruchten, just to name a few). So in that sense I will keep going on the parts of SEMAT that struck me as relevant at the time.

For the rest of SEMAT, we just have to see what they really do, now that they’ve built up all their hype about their efforts – only when they publish something usable will we know what they were/are really up to.

The ethics question is quite interesting : I was asked at a dinner what is the difference between being professional and being engineering, and I couldn’t find an answer.

I applaud the Software Craftsmanship movement. Pete McBreen deserves continuing credit for writing the book before the topic was popular. I have it in my theory of designing-in-teams-talks; Bob Martin has it in his talks; the software craftsmanship site is strong. All of this will in lots of little ways.

So far, that has little to do with SEMAT – the craftsmanship movement is running separately and in parallel. I don’t consider that particularly bad; I’m mostly happy the craftsmanship movement is running at all.

Does that answer your question?
Alistair

-by Alistair on 7/23/2010 at 12:25 PM

Thanks, absolutely. Hoping to see some new ground on software engineering, but maybe it’s time to just call it “development”, and go on. Haven’t made up my mind on these metaphors completely, yet.

-by Markus Gärtner on 7/23/2010 at 5:12 PM

Check out my short PPT Alistairs talk not given at TEDxUoU 2010.pps (discussion: Re: A short theory of designing in teams.pps) for the (now) 5 chapters of team design (with SE and general sw dev included).

-by Alistair on 7/23/2010 at 11:11 PM

Thanks for the corrections, Bill.

-by Alistair on 8/17/2010 at 7:06 PM

Hi Alistair,

I justed wanted to thank you for your thoughts on SEMAT. I attended a lecture by Dr. Jacobson and spent some time reading the material on their website. The only conclusion I could draw was the one I did not know was already formulated, i.e. “We can only define software processes at two levels: too vague and too confining”. I believe they are heading for the latter.

Best regards,
Erik

-by Erik Brännström on 10/24/2010 at 7:34 AM

This is embarrassing ;) I did not mean the latter, instead I meant that the project will most likely become vague and watered down due to all the compromise that is inevitable if they want to reach a broad agreement. I actually wrote a short paper on the subject.

Sorry for not getting things right at first!
Erik

-by Erik Brännström on 10/24/2010 at 9:32 AM

Thanks for this critique!
Although this is already an old topic, we continued the discussion within SEMAT. You can find our discussion paper in (unfortunately I cannot put the link here, but you can find it by googling “Forming Theories of Practices for Software Engineering” and selecting the pdf).

-by Kari Smolander on 5/14/2013 at 5:42 AM

When you're about to engage in a risky activity, such as flying an airplane, it's wise to be prepared. The cost of a mistake may be measured in lives. Thankfully, aviators have figured out a simple but effective means to keep planes flying safely....

Gil Zilberfeld recounts his experience with collocation during his time at Typemock, and explains how collocation can benefit your team. In modern agile discussions, we struggle with how to work with distributed teams around the globe. The truth is that it’s easy to break stuff just by moving part of the team to the next room.