Comments on: How quickly can you evolve?

By: George Rudolph

George Rudolph — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:02:41 +0000

I have have heard of projects that started out trying to figure out what they should do, went through rigorous design phases and implementation phases and were quite successful–even as long as 2 years after I had left the project. I know, because
I have led them, and been on them, and done those things.

If, by major software project vs niche project you intend to say something about the size of the project, I think you ought to be more specific.

And what is a “nice lifecycle”? We all know that lifecycle models are an abstraction, and that abstractions are inherently wrong, if you are expecting one to be correct at every level of detail.

You are correct–software isn’t designed.
GOOD software is designed, and redesigned, and redesigned…

By: Brugge Blog » Blog Archive » Evolvability

Brugge Blog » Blog Archive » Evolvability — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 02:43:09 +0000

[...] A blog post by Dan North has some great bits on agile software processes, using the analogy of evolution. the various flavours of agile development, such as XP, Crystal, Scrum, Lean and DSDM, are all trying to solve the same problem, … they are trying to make software delivery evolvable. This ensures that delivery isn’t wrong-footed by a change in the project’s ecosystem or environment. [...]

By: silk and spinach

silk and spinach — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:53:47 +0000

evolvability…

When an organisation needs to acquire adaptability, the best strategy is to evolve towards it…

By: silk and spinach

silk and spinach — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:19:16 +0000

post-agilism…

Recently more and more people are reporting unease at what appears to be the entrenched dogmatism of Agile (with a capital ‘a’)…

By: Colonel Nikolai

Colonel Nikolai — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 03:36:35 +0000

Linus Torvalds weighs in on Agility, too (without his using the term)

> The question is whether Linux can still be designed at
> current scale.

Trust me, it never was.

And I will go further and claim that no major software project that has
been successful in a general marketplace (as opposed to niches) has ever
gone through those nice lifecycles they tell you about in CompSci classes.
Have you ever heard of a project that actually started off with trying
to figure out what it should do, a rigorous design phase, and a
implementation phase?

Dream on.

Software evolves. It isn’t designed. The only question is how strictly you
control the evolution, and how open you are to external sources of
mutations.

And too much control of the evolution will kill you. Inevitably, and
without fail. Always. In biology, and in software.

Amen.

-Linus Torvalds (from http://kerneltrap.org/node/11)

By: Dan North

Dan North — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 01:42:51 +0000

Definitely. Some practices work together to be greater than the sum of the parts, so for instance tracking is far more effective if you have a good definition of "done", in the form of automated acceptance tests. But any tracking is better than no tracking, so you can start with the obvious stuff and introduce the more advanced techniques once the team gains trust in the process.

By: Philip Nelson

Philip Nelson — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:32:47 +0000

Nicely said Dan! As a lot of talk, sometimes under the heading of “fragilist” has been taking place lately, I wonder if you see a conflict that I have been noticing. Many agile aficionados tell those resistant or unsuccessful at adopting agile techniques that you must adopt all of them and “do them right”, whatever that means, to be successful. I think reality is that organizations need to evolve as you point out here. So do leaders need to find a way to define success differently so they can see progress as they evolve toward agile methods?

By: pliantalliance.org » Pliancy is Another Word for Evolvibility

pliantalliance.org » Pliancy is Another Word for Evolvibility — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 23:03:25 +0000

[...] Dan North has a post about how agility is about coming up with a “repeatable, predictable way to adapt to change”. First of all, as we’ve discovered, “Agility” is about marketing, so in a sense, Dan is wrong. However, getting better at software development is about evolvibilty. Adapting to a changing context and working in a way that best suits ythat context is the path to better software development. [...]

By: Dan North

Dan North — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 20:55:15 +0000

That’s because you’ve watched the Blues Brothers too many times :)

By: Jason Yip

Jason Yip — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:55:35 +0000

I’d replace “repeatable, predictable way to adapt to change” with “reliable way to survive and thrive in an environment that changes”