tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5166487924843918388.post8247999462005988900..comments2023-10-24T09:17:42.258-04:00Comments on Peak Performance: Thoughts on Agile & Agile TestingAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11678206907629678117noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5166487924843918388.post-455162636494667822011-09-29T19:56:44.378-04:002011-09-29T19:56:44.378-04:00Never be sorry for sharing an experience. We all ...Never be sorry for sharing an experience. We all have experiences and they are not right or wrong, they simply are. And they *are* part of how we view & interact with the world.<br /><br />So, I start with a positive view of "agile" because the manifesto (not the marketing usurped terminology for decidedly "non-manifesto-compliant" practices) embodies what "we" were having success with.<br /><br />Since then, I've had many, shall we say, less positive experiences -- and in each case I've had to ask myself "What is this thing that's going on here, 'cause calling it Agile don't make it so."<br /><br />So, I think our points are really pretty similar -- which boil down to "If there weren't so many people doing such a bad job of embracing principles, in favor of embracing unvalidated marketing crap, there would probably be no need for the book. And there would *certainly* be no need for the first two chapters!"<br /><br />Which is why I'm disappointed in the first place. Agile is something I *know* can be good, but it often isn't because far too many folks with far too many marketing dollars have have sacrificed the beauty and elegance for the rest of us in pursuit of the almighty dollar. That disappoints me greatly.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11678206907629678117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5166487924843918388.post-24648463289428885802011-09-29T19:07:33.973-04:002011-09-29T19:07:33.973-04:00Scott, my friend, I have had a different experienc...Scott, my friend, I have had a different experience.<br /><br />I actually found that my experiences testing in the beginning, using waterfall/SDLC type methodologies was actually more respectful of the people doing the development and testing than the new "agile" methods. <br />Here's 3 reasons why:<br /><br />1 - the contemporary understanding of the agile manifesto equates "traditional" methods with incompatible of the agile manifesto. That's just not true in my experience, but perhaps the guys that wrote the agile manifesto were making a political statement in rebellion against BAD waterfall or SDLC practices. As you state, perhaps they threw the whole thing out the door accidentally.<br /><br />2. Developers aren't having a better time or more successful using agile - any more than before. Since they sort of left out testing (assuming it wasn't that hard), I saw many developers struggling to learn how to replace their testing teams. They struggled. They failed. They pushed bugs into Operations. They got pulled out of development and into operations to fix bugs full time. We used to prevent that by doing testing.<br /><br />3. The agile testers I do speak with are being forced to become developers (with tools and profiling code) and they are prevented more and more from practicing good testing/critical thinking and analysis of the greater context for the effort. Being a good tester in agile should not mean you are just an entry-level developer.<br /><br />That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.m3tomlinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15930484383235071234noreply@blogger.com