by logfromblammo on 4/28/2015, 2:47:12 PM
by M8 on 4/28/2015, 12:33:37 PM
by CountHackulus on 4/28/2015, 3:57:21 PM
I worked at IBM for 5 years, and some of the teams I was on used "agile" development methods. In that they used the names, but our "scrums" were an hour long, in a meeting room, with everyone bringing their laptop. Management more than 1 level up expected waterfall-like development, so it all just meshed badly.
I really don't hold out much hope that this is going to work out that well without a whole bunch of training and people actually wanting it.
by tomelders on 4/28/2015, 4:12:12 PM
Ouch. My heart goes out to all those men and women at IBM who are about to get "Agiled".
by jhallenworld on 4/28/2015, 3:19:58 PM
I'm surprised that there is no mention of Rational Team Concert:
http://www-03.ibm.com/software/products/en/rtc
Used in a big way to implement Agile within IBM and provides a nice coherent system for task management.
by chrisbennet on 4/28/2015, 3:20:42 PM
"The mission is to have innovation and the speed of small companies..."
If they keep laying off people, eventually they will be a small company. Problem solved!
by konradb on 4/28/2015, 3:26:31 PM
I'd trust this all more if it was coming from the teams back up, rather than edict going down.
by x0rg on 4/28/2015, 3:59:36 PM
Enterprise companies are all going agile this year, I bet someone from Gartner is suggesting this shift... and the result is clearly not that effective.
by Nursie on 4/28/2015, 4:13:12 PM
(standard disclaimer - I do not speak for IBM. I'm not even a current employee)
We were doing this at big blue seven years ago IIRC, and while it's a large company to transition like this, I don't think it's exactly new.
It's not quite agile as the writers of the agile manifesto would have it, but then most 'agile' seems beset by consultants and process, and IBM probably do it better than a bunch of other places I've worked.
RTC is a bit of a heavyweight and quite unwieldy though. Give me git and a text editor any day of the week....
by krschultz on 4/28/2015, 4:58:20 PM
#1) Nothing says Agile like top down process design!
#2) I didn't quite believe Michael O Church's anti-Agile essay [1], but nothing justifies it more than this quote:
> The system is designed to foster accountability. And with that, finally, comes speed.
[1] https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/06/20/on-programme...
by tomjen3 on 4/28/2015, 3:29:37 PM
That seems unlikely. Big companies like big ships have a lot of inertia. They may adapt "Agile", but almost certainly in name only.
by mrdrozdov on 4/28/2015, 3:19:22 PM
If IBM didn't use Agile, what did they use?
The non-greedy benefit of Agile is that work and how work happens becomes more understandable in a consistent and reasonably-well studied manner.
by metaphorm on 4/28/2015, 4:38:30 PM
if IBM says its "going agile" then its time to start funeral arrangements for agile.
by webaholic on 4/28/2015, 3:23:23 PM
like putting lipstick on a pig...
Alternate headline: "Agile Development Ski-Jumps Over Shark!"
Alternate alternate headline: "Final Nail in Agile Development Coffin is Big and Blue."
Agile is dead. Long live the new development process buzzwords.
It is now time again to rename everything, come up with new jargon and trademarks to describe the patterns and anti-patterns of the development processes that actually work for us, and set those words free. Then they can be co-opted and peddled by consultants. Afterward, they are embraced, extended, and extinguished by management. And then the new words change meaning to describe all the old things, and the circle of business buzzwords turns anew.