Get the takeaways of the week, once a week.  Everything you love, everything you missed, and all the stuff you need to see again… in agile news:

For some reason lists seemed to be quite popular this past week.

Can You Count to 3?
Robert Kelly shares his experiences as an agile development newbie and outlines what he considers the 3 phases of an agile project – and writing requirements documentation isn’t one of them!

Now Can You Count to 6?
If you like alliteration, then you’ll love Ellen Gottesdiener and Mary Gorman’s post on the 6 agile planning and analysis practices to try. From disciplined discovery and delivery to focus on finding and fixing flaws, this post is not only fun to read but actually has some great advice for teams to new agile development.

What the Heck is a Reverse Leader? 5 Tips on How to Spot One
One of the great things about agile development is that it gives everyone the ability to step up in a leadership role. Scott Edinger makes is easier to spot the people who don’t have formal leadership roles but who demonstrate great leadership ability in this post the the 5 things to look for to find your reverse leaders.

Just Shut Up Already!
Most managers play the role of coach at times and it’s hard not to step in and smooth things over when there is conflict in the team. Alan Dayley says that sometimes silence is coaching and points out that really the team needs to talk and not the coach. He even shares a silent group exercise for retrospectives that might lead to some lively discussions.

What else made this past week the best week ever in agile? Let us know about interesting blogs, articles or other stuff going on in Agile/Lean/Scrum/Kanban.

On Yves site, i’m guessing http://www.hanoulle.be/2012/01/who-is-alistair-cockburn/
See also the other interviews with me on this site

1. What is something people usually don’t know about you but has influenced you in who you are?

Living around the world as a visitor in so many different cultures (8 countries and more cultures) makes it nearly impossible for me to impose my own culture on anyone else. Hence, my Crystal Clear work is so culture-accepting and culture-adaptive, as is pretty much all of my advice.

Being continually rejected by schoolmates after moving from Dacca (Bangladesh) to Cincinnati made me trust in myself for my own actions.

As a result of these two, I am almost entirely self-contained in forming my own opinions, and almost never try to convince anyone else to follow my ways.

2. If you would not have been in IT, what would have become of you?

Either a psychologist or a technical salesperson / manager. Understanding how people think is my main interest, so quite possibly there. The technical salesman thing was a likely way for me to get a job, and we all know how easy it is to get stuck in a job. Don’t do it.

3. What is your biggest challenge and why is it a good thing for you?

Challenge in what respect?

At age 3, I was in a fire that nearly killed me, and spent the next year in the hospital, and had skin graft operations for years after. And why was it a good thing for me? My mother says I was a little thug before the fire, and well behaved afterwards. Imagine how I’d be today if I hadn’t become “well behaved” ? !

At age 7, I moved from a British grammar school in Bangladesh to grade school in Cincinnati. I dressed differently, spoke and move differently, had been taught different material up to that point, and was two years younger than my classmates. That was tough. And why was it a good thing for me? Because it taught me it was OK to be different, to trust my own opinion of things.

I twice had to tell my boss or sponsor (when I was a consultant) that he/she was asking for something completely non-sensical, and put my job on the line, once just shortly after I moved my family to Switzerland, once on my first freelance consulting job. Both were career threatening. And why was it a good thing for me? Because it taught me it was OK to be honest about giving my boss bad news.

4. What drives you ?

Curiosity. Why does this work and that doesn’t? Might it be possible to do ? Can it be done better? My first boss said, “If there’s a known way from A to B, Alistair will find another way.”

People. I have a fascination with the way the mind links with reality. It manifests as a person does almost anything. I used to refer to it as the boundary between mind and computer, but it’s more general than that. It is also the boundary between a person’s mind and mathematics, the boundary between rational thinking and emotion, the boundary between a person and a problem the interface between a person and a piece of software, the interface between a person and almost anything.

5. What is your biggest achievement?

Probably helping kick off the Agile movement, which has revolutionized software development around the world; currently, defining the learning roadmap for the International Consortium for Agile, which may have a similar effect for education standards beyond just software development.. I have a hard time imagining achieving anything like that in the first place, so it’s hard to imagine anything bigger.

6. What is the last book you have read?

“Care of the Soul” by Thomas Moore

7. What question do you think I should also ask and what is the answer?

“Choose one word to describe people.”

Rubber-band: it’s not being itself unless it’s being stretched. (Ditto people; ditto rubber-bands)

8. Who do you think I should ask next?

Jeff Patton

• ICAgile data business model (discussion: Re: ICAgile data business model)
• Interview with Alistair 2002 for Cutter IT
• Interview with Alistair 2002 in Produktiver Programmieren
• Interview with Alistair 2004 2006 on ITConversations
• Interview with Alistair 2004 on ITConversations transcript
• Interview with Alistair 2004 using the Proust questionnaire
• Interview with Alistair 2006 at Agile2006
• Interview with Alistair 2008 by Jurgen Appelo
• Interview with Alistair 2008 on Strength Finder
• Interview with Alistair 2009 before keynote at Agile Development Practices 2009
• Interview with Alistair 2009 on InformIT (discussion: Re: Interview with Alistair on InformIT 2009)
• Interview with Alistair 2010 by Steve Rosenbaum
• Interview with Alistair 2011 for Nicolas Lochet (discussion: Re: Interview with Alistair 2011 for Nicolas Lochet)
• Interview with Alistair 2012 for Yves Hanouille

A colleague of mine at VersionOne, Dan Naden who works to support the agile community, delivered several open questions from a recent Agilepalooza and asked for help answering. The one that jumped out at me and my experiences was, “How do we change from individuals in workgroups to effective, self-organizing agile teams?”

When I first started looking at this question, I was keying in on the word “individuals” and how individual team members impact our ability to come together and self-organize. The more ideas I got down on paper, the more I came to the conclusion that it is generally not the individual team members who prevent teams from self-organizing and becoming effective. It is usually everything but the individuals that prevent teams from self-organizing. Based on my experience where I’ve lived through an inability to self-organize to efficient self-organization — the individuals are usually never the primary blockers. The things that I’ve seen prevent teams from becoming effective and self-organized are:

• Agile Teams Are Too Large. Teams that are too big will not self-organize; the team members are made insignificant because their contributions may or may not impact the overall product delivery… not to mention that when teams are too large you will usually see the Alpha team members overpower and control the non-Alpha team members. This is why the recommended team size is in the single digits (I’ve seen the range of 5-8) thrown out there. Not only does right-sizing the team make planning more efficient, but it also reduces the discussion circle, thus making it easier to share information and shorten the time to make and react to decisions that impact the team and the projects.
• Workspace Challenges. Studies have shown that the right workspace leads to highly productive teams. In talking with many agile teams, it’s obvious that the wrong workspace fosters silos, as well as the perception of meetings purgatory. Ideally teams are co-located and share a workspace that is conducive to easy chair-spinning conversation. A workspace with plenty of whiteboards, private zones, and an information radiator will ensure a well informed, collaborative team. When this cannot be achieved, the use of rapid and personal communication tools can help teams. IRC chat, video chat and online collaboration tools are good ways for team members to collaborate.
• No Vision. There are multiple layers of vision: company, product, project and team. Obviously a team can control their vision; however, it’s usually a product of the upstream visions. So if the leadership and stakeholders are not sharing the vision – and more specifically, if the team does not have a shared vision of what they are working toward – then there is nothing to bring the team together to achieve. A clearly communicated and shared provision gives a group of individuals a common goal to achieve; this improves focus on decision-making and a clear definition of what it means to be done.
• The 3 Cs. And I’m not talking about Ron Jeffries’ Card, Conversation and Confirmation. I’m referring to a Command-and-Control Culture. It seems that even once a leadership team decides to adopt agile and they genuinely buy into agile values and principles, the individuals on the teams are still reluctant to take ownership for how to win (a.k.a. achieve). It’s not until the the team is forced to make decisions do they actually make decisions. Team members who have worked in a culture that’s historically command-and-control tend to have either a victim mentality in that they simply don’t believe change is happening, or they are simply scared to put their necks out there in fear of reprisal, even when there has never been a history of this kind of action. The only way that I’ve experienced changing this culture is to have the leadership share the vision and then leave the room (a.k.a. get out of the way). When the team has success, leadership shouts it from the rooftops. And when failure occurs, leadership should ensure that learning and accountability ensues — however, doing so from a distance.
• Lack of Shared Trust. A core challenge that organizations (the whole organization) have is the inability to trust others to make decisions. This usually stems from two factors: (1) a command-and-control culture that is a result of traditional project/product failures, and/or (2) management team members who have been key to the organization over a period of years and have lived the battles — thus, they feel that because of their experiences they must be a part of the decision. Remember that trust can go both ways; if the teams don’t have that shared vision, then trust of those making decisions is surely lacking.

So how do we change from individuals in workgroups to effective, self-organizing agile teams? We give our teams the environment they need to be productive, provide a clear and shared vision, have leadership get out of the way (yet be there when needed) and finally, we celebrate our small wins and ensure that we learn from our failures. I’ll assume that this stuff sounds familiar; however, if it doesn’t, give the Agile Manifesto a read: www.agilemanifesto.org. I’m sure there are more organizational behaviors, and I’m certain that individuals impact our ability to self-organize. But I firmly believe that everyone has the ability to work as a self-organized team, and if they are empowered to do so, they will do it effectively.

Please let me know what you think. What are some organizational challenges you’ve experienced which have prevented teams of individuals from becoming effective, self-organizing teams? Or do you think the organization has nothing to do with it; it’s the individual team members?

André Boonzaaijer’s blog "While True" discusses an application using the Hexagonal architecture (discussion: Re: Hexagonal architecture) and also has a cool picture of the architecture.

Kevin Rutherford has started several notes and discussions around it:

http://silkandspinach.net/2005/11/28/gravity-and-software-adaptability
http://wordpress.com/tag/hexagonalarchitecture
http://silkandspinach.net/2005/05/23/databases-as-life-support-for-domain-objects
http://silkandspinach.net/2004/07/16/hexagonal-soup

Timo wrote a piece called http://ng-embedded.blogspot.com/2007/07/wrap-it-thinly.html about its use with TDD.

Gerard Meszaros in his book on Xunit patterns wrote http://xunitpatterns.com/Hexagonal%20Architecture.html

Brian Anderson spent several blog entries noodling over it:

http://www.brianmandersen.com/blog/2005/03/29/success/
"Problems with Smart Clients today"
"compile time vs runtime views"
"the use of symmetry in the hexagonal approach"
"Back to Hexagonal Architecture"
"some thoughts on the 'Design Pattern' pattern"
http://www.brianmandersen.com/blog/page/2/

The original page was on Ward’s wiki at http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HexagonalArchitecture

-by Alistair on 10/05/2008 at 3:00 PM

I’d like to add the Naked Objects pattern to the list of known uses.

The (open-source) Naked Objects framework is most well-known for its ability to automatically build an object-oriented user interface for domain objects at runtime, the two main implementations being a rich-client, and an HTML viewer. All the developer writes is the domain objects (POJOs), and the user interface “comes for free”.

The latest version, NO 4.0, also adds in the ability to exercise and interact with the domain model using generic FitNesse fixtures. So one can modify state, invoke actions, assert business rules and so on. Again, no custom FitNesse coding is required.

For the persistence layer, NO has long had the ability to switch between in-memory object store and other object stores (such as a Hibernate-based one). We’ve found this immensely useful, especially combined with the FitNesse stuff.

If you’re interested in learning more, [and I hope a tiny bit of self-promotion here isn’t inappropriate] I write about NO and its implementation to the hexagonal architecture in my pragprog book, Domain-Driven Design using Naked Objects (http://www.pragprog.com/titles/dhnako).

Cheers
Dan

-by Dan Haywood on 5/15/2009 at 8:06 AM

(Thanks Dan … Looking forward to your book. Alistair)

Matteo Vaccari shared his programming kata on hexagonal architecture at http://matteo.vaccari.name/blog/archives/154. Thanks, Matteo!

-by Alistair on 2/20/2010 at 7:25 PM

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Rickard Öberg wrote at http://www.mail-archive.com/qi4j-dev@lists.ops4j.org/msg02835.html

Hey,

So, yesterday I tried reworking my StreamFlow workflow app into using the hexagonal architecture. So far I am extremely happy with the results. One of the things I have had big trouble with before is to implement the “TellDontAsk” principle. It seemed like no matter what I did I had to, in the end, ask for model information in various ways, thus showing all the inner details that I had been trying to encapsulate with my private mixins etc.

With the hexagonal architecture, where UI can be “at the bottom”, and considered “output”, this problem went away. Let me give you an example. In the app there is a search field and a search result view. In a normal layered app there would be a UI component that takes the search string and sends it to the application layer, and then presents the results. The app layer would have a method like this:

SearchResult search(String query);

This is very problematic though: first of all the search field has to know about the search result view, so they are coupled. If I then also want to update some other part in the UI the search field has to know about this too. Also, it is highly likely that once I get the result, I have to query the application for other things in order to present the result.

With hexagonal architecture this mess goes away. Since the flow is only “in-out” rather than “up-down-up”, the application layer method becomes:

void search(String query)

The application layer performs the query. When it is done it then simply looks up all services that implement SearchObserver, iterates over them, and pass the result to them. This can be easily done with a SideEffect of the search method, and gives a good example of when to use SideEffects. The code is something like this in the SideEffect:

Since the app layer uses() the UI layer, one of the observers just happens to be the search result view, which presents the results. If there had been a status bar it could have also consumed the results and showed a message like “Found 14 matches”. Or more like, a SearchStatus service would have Observed the search results, which would have produced the string, which is then in turn sent to StatusObservers, one of which happens to be the status bar.

If the search takes a long time, the UI would be in trouble with the first method, as it would essentially freeze when calling search. With hexagonal architecture the search(string) method can accept the string, return immediately, and then spawn off an asynchronous search that only when completed notifies the observers. The time between search and result can be quite long, but the UI will still be responsive in between, without the UI having to do the thread trickery. When consuming the results the UI does, however, have to ensure that it is on the Swing thread.

In any case, a key point is that the search field does not have to know how to present the results. All it does is take the string and send it to the application for querying. What happens then is up to the application and observers of the model that the processing changes. Input and output are separated in code, but still both are presented on the UI screen.

In this way there is only TELL, no ask. All events come from the outside, goes to the inside (through app-domain), and then goes out again. And sometimes the initiator (UI) just happens to be the output too.

This would also simplify testing, as the call to the app and introspection of the resulting model using a mock observer is quite easy to do.

NEAT!

Rickard

-by Alistair on 2/20/2010 at 8:01 PM

Hi Alistair,

It is mentioned in this article that with mvc ports and adapter are present for primary ports and not for secondary ports! how? Is it like we have api’s for view in mvc. I am not getting this statement. Is it possible to elaborate here with detail of your thoughts on this?

Thanks,
Ak

-by Ak on 4/9/2010 at 2:10 AM

Thanks, Dan, for the Naked Objects use of this pattern; I particularly liked your comment about the RESTful API at http://danhaywood.com/2009/07/24/hexagonal-architecture-for-naked-objects/comment-page-1/#comment-710

cheers, Alistair

-by Alistair on 4/12/2010 at 1:02 AM

Hi Ak

I think that the point about MVC not really being a ports & adapter pattern comes down to the fact that may implementations of MVC allow a “fast-path” from the View to the Model, typically for bulk data retrieval during population of of controls like lists and trees. If you force all communication from the View to go to the Controller and use the Controller as the single point of access to the Model then I think you can argue that MVC can be a variation on the ports & adapters pattern.

-by Jonathan on 4/14/2010 at 9:09 AM

Good read. I have nothing further of interest to add. Thank you.

-by Jacolyte on 7/13/2010 at 7:38 PM

Just saw http://hendryluk.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/software-development-fundamentals-part-2-layered-architecture/ in which Hendry Luk derives the same architecture (without the hexagonal shape) from dependency considerations. Nicely done, nice read. —Alistair

-by Alistair on 8/1/2010 at 11:27 PM

Dear Mr. Cockburn,

I’ve read your post on hexagonal architecture. I think you’ve made clear where enterprise software development should be going. I’ve been working on adapter-based standalone Java enterprise (web)applications for the last 7 years. The largest online supermarket in the Netherlands (http://albert.nl) is based on an adapter-based architecture. The architecture enabled us to cut costs of development, maintenance and administration tremendously.

I’m still used to applying layering to achieve a high-level separation of concerns. In my view, it’s useful to distinguish between infrastructural layering and data access layering, because they imply different sets of abstraction levels. I wrote an article on the subject, meant for the Java community. I’ve noticed already that it’s going to be hard to convince J(2)EE-minded developers.

I’d like to know your thoughts on the subject. If you find the article interesting you can link to it at: http://ijsberg.org/documents/PESA_two_dimensional_layering.pdf

Best regards,
Jeroen Meetsma

Partner IJsberg ICT Architects
http://ijsberg.org
-by Jeroen Meetsma on 9/17/2010 at 1:27 PM

Hi, Jeroen, nice article indeed, careful development. Thanks for the note – it’s good to see all the variants people derive on their own that are similar. I’ll point people to your article. Cheers – Alistair.

This reminds me of classic UNIX software design. For example, one writes a core engine that reads from a command stream and writes to a result stream (could be pipes, console, sockets, files, etc.). The command line is a light wrapper over this. GUIs connect over sockets. The engine has little UI concern, the UIs focus on the user.

In what ways does hexagonal differ from this design?

-by B. K. Oxley (binkley) on 1/24/2012 at 11:50 AM

Unix stdi/o is one implementation of the left-hand side of the standard architectural drawing (user side). There are others (MVC, APIs, web-apps). (2) Unix stdi/o does not cover the infrastructure side of the architecture (db, network, etc). Hexagonal architecture requires both. In principle, hexagonal architecture doesn’t have a left side and a right side, since each facet is only a port; just by habit we tend to draw the driver ports on the left and the infrastructure or service ports on the right. cheers.

I think it is similar to Model View Presenter Pattern in Dolphin Smalltalk where Model and View intercomunicate via the Presenter in a Mediator pattern. The Presentar was the Adapter. An extension to make the Model intercomunicate with a Persistence layer via another Adapter keep the Model in the center of the hexagon. Other concerns should be added as Authenticatin and more. IMHO. What do you think?

-by Francisco Ary Martins on 4/3/2012 at 4:20 PM

I think it is similar to Model View Presenter Pattern in Dolphin Smalltalk where Model and View intercomunicate via the Presenter in a Mediator pattern. The Presentar was the Adapter. An extension to make the Model intercomunicate with a Persistence layer via another Adapter keep the Model in the center of the hexagon. Other concerns should be added as Authenticatin and more. IMHO. What do you think?

-by Francisco Ary Martins on 4/3/2012 at 4:20 PM

Same reply as the one just above to B.K.Oxley

-by Alistair on 4/3/2012 at 7:42 PM

Alistair,

I’m currently engaged in a discussion about how the above does, or does not, relate to Service Oriented Architecture.

Is the following an accurate paraphrase of your concept? (i) a port is a purpose-based “window” into the core of an application (ii) over each port there sits one or more adapters, to adapt the port to the needs of external consumers (be they humans, other apps, and so on).

If that’s right, let’s imagine a case where there are two consumers of an app: (i) a UI, which is “the” UI for the app, and (ii) “other apps in the business”, which will consume it using SOA-style services. We are trying to decide between these two alternatives:

Option A: both external interfaces connect to a common Port. The Port itself is NOT an SOA service, its just an API written in an OO language.
So we get:
UI => Port => App
SOAP Service => Port => App

Option B: the SOAP service IS the Port, and the UI connects to it.
So we get:
UI => SOAP Service => App
SOAP Service => App

It’s my impression that the former comes more naturally to some agile teams, particularly if there is no immediate need for the SOA Service, but rather it is something that might or will be needed “one day”. The first option also seems, to me, to be more in the spirit of the Hexagonal Architecture. However, the latter seems to be the default choice for many SOA practitioners.

Do you see any strong reasons to choose one over the other?

-by John Rusk on 5/15/2012 at 10:06 PM

My view is that if no code is needed for the SOA adapter, then the port = the API = the SOAP service. I don’t know enough to know if code is needed between the API and the externally visible SOAP service. i have not seen your option B implemented: I initially imagine that would not be practical in real systems, but allow someone to show me otherwise by describing a real system that does that. Alistair

-by Alistair on 5/18/2012 at 10:56 AM

People interested in agile development gathered from all across the Northwest (Beaverton, Gresham, Hillsboro, King City) to attend AgilePalooza Portland last month.

The attendees were eager to get started. An exceptional collection of agile development experts were poised to share knowledge, excite, inspire and persuade.

After sharing logistics and speaker introductions, it was time to get out of the way and let the learning begin.

Before the stage was yielded to the keynote speaker, Santeon Group’s Ahmed Sidky, I asked the Portland audience a question:

“How many in the audience had participated in an Open Space?”

The Portland Agile Community was eager to participate in Open Space.

A stark silence gripped the room as two lonely hands reached up.

With the Open Space comprising the entire afternoon schedule, I was concerned:

• Would the attendees all leave after lunch?
• Would a lack of familiarity hinder the effectiveness of the Open Space sessions?
• Would the morning session feedback be negatively impacted by the inexperienced ‘Open Spacers?’

The morning prepared speech portion of AgilePalooza Portland began to be delivered. Ahmed Sidky, Diana Larsen, Dave Sharrock, Michael Tardiff and Steve Ropa connected effectively with the eager minds who had taken time out of their busy lives to learn agile for the first time or to ‘sharpen the saw.’

As the attendees finished lunch, we put the finishing touches on the Open Space preparations and gave control of the event to Diana Larsen, the Open Space facilitator for AgilePalooza Portland.

While Diana Larsen briefed the group about Open Space, I glanced around the room and observed one thing:  a full house!! The inexperienced ‘Open Spacers’ were willing to give it a shot. And I am glad they did.

The topics were selected and the discussions spread freely and easily:

• Testing in agile
• Where do technical writers fit in the world of agile?
• ScrumMaster struggles

For the next two-and-a-half hours, project managers, developers, testers, development directors and product managers learned, pushed, pulled and debated the issues that mattered to them most.

A beginner ScrumMaster asked, “How do I get better engagement for the Scrum Team?”

An even more inexperienced ScrumMaster gave a suggestion that was insightful and gave the questioner just what she wanted…

Try the Temperature Reading game or ‘strongly encourage’ all Retrospective attendees to place a sticky note on the wall that cites ‘what went well?’ and one sticky note that cites ‘what can we do better?’

It was a great AgilePalooza Portland and a buzz-worthy Open Space. Thanks to the Portland community for embracing the event and expanding the collaborative power of Open Space.

Dan Naden
VersionOne

Get the takeaways of the week, once a week.  Everything you love, everything you missed, and all the stuff you need to see again… in agile news:

Controversy Over Story Points Reaches Fevered Pitch
No two agile teams use story points the exact same way and according to Mike Cohn many teams don’t really understand them either. Christopher Goldsbury followed up with Mike about his recent blog on story points to find out if some agile development teams are really that clueless.

Are You on the List? Probably NOT!
Get the scoop on the who’s who of agile development in Peter Saddington’s post on the history of agile. Flash back to 1992 with Alistair Cockburn through 2003 with Mary and Tom Poppendieck.

Pretty Pictures Can Turn Your Retrospectives into Rainbows and Unicorns
Retrospectives can often be contentious at best and worthless at worst but sometimes a sunny picture can actually make them productive. Diana Larsen introduces the concept of drawing a “Project Weather” picture in retrospectives to gauge the climate of the team. Good idea or too touchy feely for your team?

What else made this week the best week ever in agile? Let us know about interesting blogs, articles or other stuff going on in Agile/Lean/Scrum/Kaban.

Totally agree, the phases in RUP ensures focus, and the work performed in the Inception phase, for example Vision is often overlooked when using Scrum, although the first book on Scrum by Ken Schwaber and Mike Beedle mentionaed this.

At the end of the Agile 2008 keynote “The Wisdom of Experience”, Alan Cooper mention two Agile and two Fragile phases.

-by OleK on 4/12/2011 at 3:21 AM

Is RUP considered an Agile methodology?

-by Carlos F on 5/9/2012 at 10:53 AM

No. That’s why it’s an interesting topic. Alistair

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)

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

This advice comes with a disclaimer… I am a warrior, so my message will be harsh.

Resistance to agile development is futile. I say this to show the ‘Trekkie’ in me and to set the framework for destroying resistance to agile.

Personal Resistance: When faced with, “I don’t see the value of agile,” I remind the troops that management has hired me, the ScrumMaster/Coach, to help them transition to a different way of working. Whether the label for that change is agile, Kanban, whatever, my presence is a signal from management that something was wrong. The strongest resistor to change is my first and favorite target. I take them aside and challenge them respectfully and directly with, “Please don’t tell me that you are resistant to agile; please let me come with you to speak to the agile champion who sits three levels above your manager. I want to hear you tell him you will resist, or bring me a note from the agile champion, excusing you from changing your mind.” That is truly the last resistance I hear from that person. Resistors who turn into ‘Saboteurs’ or ‘Feet Draggers’ are eventually rooted out by the team.

Political Resistance: I gather managers in a room and I ask the following question:  “Who is onboard with this transition to agile, RAISE YOUR HAND?”  I then instruct every manager to look around and see who has not raised their hand. I then say, “I’m going to leave the room now and let you handle this amongst yourselves… I will call this meeting again and I expect every hand to go up next time.” Once the resistance is out in the open, it’s easier to deal with.  I do not interrupt the managers as they deal with each other on a peer-to-peer level.

Cultural Resistance: I gather any managers, team leads and executives I can and expose them to the Schneider Model — Command & Control, Competence, Collaboration and Cultivation. I ask them questions based on the readings right out of the book (Use the Appendix for Strengths and Weaknesses of each culture to create your list) and tell them, “We are marching toward Collaboration, with a dash of Competence.” By forcing executives and managers to discuss, debate and fight about who they are now and what they want to be in the future, is the exact conversation that must take place before ANY transition to ANY process, has ANY chance of taking root or being successful.

As a ScrumMaster, I use persuasion, influence, wisdom, experience, empathy and sympathy to lead and grow my teams. But sometimes I must tap into the strengths of being a New Yorker who was raised by a strict code of ethics, topped off with a dash of service in the military.

Please remember this one thing:  If you speak the truth and you do it with respect, you should be allowed to say anything to anyone.

Questions? I’d like to hear from you at msegarra3@msn.com.

Manny

Guest blogger, Manny Segarra is a ScrumMaster at Intel Corporation in the Greater Denver area. As a Lean/agile coach and developer, Manny is dedicated to the development of teams, individuals and organizations. He is disciplined and compassionate in leading, learning and coaching, and has experience with TDD, paired programming, OO design and continuous integration. Manny’s 10+ years of experience as a developer, tester, UI designer, analyst, trainer and technical support has given him multi-faceted perspectives on the user experience of software.

This game is adapted from one that Larry Constantine used back in the early 1990s. I converted it to highlight Reflective Improvement rather than just communication. The point in my version is for a team to improve in each round – this has become my signature game. A lot of people who have seen my version have constructed their own variants, so you have have been through something similar by now. Even if you have been through one of the variants, my particular version is still interesting and instructive :).

Break into teams of 5-7 people per team. Divide into 2 specialties per team, Specifiers & Artists. A team may have any number of Specifiers and any number of Artists. The Specifiers will describe a drawing for the Artists to draw for them.

Rules:

1. Artists work outside the room.
2. Specifiers write instructions to their Artists.
3. One Specifier is also a Messenger, who carries messages between Specifiers and Artists.
4. The Messenger can watch and listen, but NOT speak or gesture at Artists.
5. Artists may give the Messenger messages back.
6. The only communication between Specifiers and Artists is simple text. (NO speaking, drawing, or gesturing.)

Rounds

Round 1: 10 minutes: Use drawing 1; then 5 minutes to reflect & improve working conventions.
Round 2: 8 minutes: Use drawing 2; then 5 minutes to reflect & improve working conventions.
Round 3 – Allow talking: 5 minute; debrief

Reflection worksheet: fill in 2 columns after each round:

— KEEP THESE — TRY THESE —