Agile ManifestoThe meeting

Utah 2001

WhoThe 17 people in attendance were Kent Beck, Mike Beedle, Arie van Bennekum, Alistair Cockburn, Ward Cunningham, Martin Fowler, James Grenning, Jim Highsmith, Andrew Hunt, Ron Jeffries, Jon Kern, Brian Marick, Robert C. Martin, Stephen J. Mellor, Ken Schwaber, Jeff Sutherland, and Dave "Pragmatic" Thomas.

MotiveThe reason we met was to see whether there was anything in common between the various light methodologies: Adaptive Software Development, XP, Scrum, Crystal, Feature Driven Development, Dynamic System Development Method (DSDM), and "pragmatic programming.” None of us was interested in merging the practices to create a "Unified Light Methodology (ULM)."

We Agreed On 4 Things1. We agreed at the first level, on the need to respond to change. We agreed that agile reflected our intent, and permits discussion of heavier-agile methodologies for larger and life- critical projects. 2. We agreed at the second level, on four core values, as described in the manifesto. 3. We agreed at the third level (just barely), on twelve more detailed statements consistent with those four values. It was clear we would not agree on the fourth level, detailed project tactics. 4. We agreed it was healthy for the industry, and to continue to innovate and compete in the world of ideas, to discover a larger set of agile software practices.

Agile Alliance Is BornWith the new agreements in place and the adoption of the term agile, the 17 member Agile Alliance was officially born.

Successful Software Development

* The industry largely disagrees on the determinants of success.

* Best Approach = Say What You Stand For

4 Choices* Attend to people on team as individuals. Avoid talking to roles in the process chart.* Attend to interactions between individuals. New solutions come to life in discussions between people. The quality of the interaction matters.* We prefer to use an undocumented process with good interactions than a documented process with hostile interactions.* "Working software over comprehensive documentation."The working system is the only thing that tells you what the team has built. Running code is ruthlessly honest.

-Documents showing the requirements, analysis, design, screen flows, object interaction sequences charts are handy as hints. The team uses them as aids in reflecting on their own experience, to guess what the future will look like. The documents serve as markers in the game, used to build an image of the unreliable future.

-The result of gathering requirements, designing, coding, and debugging the software, reveals information about the development team, the development process, and the nature of the problem to be solved.

-Those things together with the running final result provide the only reliable measure of the speed of the team, the shortcomings of the group, and a glimpse into what the team really should be building. -"Customer collaboration over contract negotiation."

NOTEThe third value describes the relationship between the people who want the software built and those building the software.

The distinction is that in properly formed agile development, there is no "us" and "them," there is only "us."

Saying, "there is only us" refers to the fact that both are needed to produce good software.

Collaboration

-Community-Amicability-Joint decision making -Rapidity of communication.

Pays To Collaborate

-Good collaboration can save a contract situation when it is in jeopardy.

-Good collaboration can sometimes make a contract unnecessary. Either way, collaboration is the winning element.

Agile Planning

“Building a plan is useful. Referring to the plan is useful until it gets too far from the current situation. Hanging onto an outdated plan is not useful.”

* "Responding to change over following a plan."

* The final value is about adjusting to fast-breaking project changes.

* Building a plan is useful, and each of the agile methodologies contains specific planning Scrum, DSDM and Adaptive Software Development call for time boxed development with reprioritization after (not within) each timebox (XP allows reprioritization within the timebox). The timeboxed periods are in the 2 - 4 week range. The timeboxing guarantees that the team has the time and peace of mind to develop working software. The relatively short development phases, what Scrum calls "sprints," allow the project sponsors to change priorities to match their needs.

Being Agile

The 100-Person Project Vs. The 10-Person Project

* Agile 100-person project uses a heavier methodology than the agile 10-person project.

* It might be possible to drop 90 people from the 100-person project, keep the 10 best people, and then run an agile 10-person project that delivers the same system in the same time frame.

* The point is that we agree that methodologies do not come in ones or twos, but in dozens, each tuned to the situation and project at hand, and each agile. This thought is not captured in the Manifesto.

* Some of the people in the room recommend agile methodologies primarily for high-flux situations. My experience is that rude surprises pop up on even supposedly stable projects.

“These are the sentences we agreed on, and my commentary on each.” Alistair Cockburn

1. Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and frequent delivery of valuable software.

…We are interested in delivering software that is fit for purpose.

Agile development is focused on delivering-Delivering early allows for quick wins and early feedback about the requirements, the team, the process, as we have seen throughout this book.

-Delivering frequently allows for continued wins for the team, rapid feedback, and mid-project changes in project direction and priorities.

-Duration used for deliveries needs to be negotiated on a project-by-project basis, because delivering updates on a daily or weekly basis can cause more disturbances to the users than it is worth.

-This Statement emphasizes delivering those items that have greatest value to the customers. With consumer mood changes, intensive competition, and stock market swings, it is nearly impossible to guarantee a revenue stream for a project that takes a year or longer to deliver.

-This statement indicates that value will be delivered early, so that in case the sponsors lose funding, they will not be left with a pile of promissory notes, but with working software that delivers something of value to the buyers.

2. Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale.

If the users can accept changes every month, and the development team can match the ongoing requests for changes, then the shorter feedback cycle is better.

 3. Working software is the primary measure of progress.This principle puts it firmly-Rely on the honesty that comes with running code rather than on promissory notes in the form of plans and documents. -You are welcome to use other measures of progress as well, but working code is the one to bank on.-Agile methodologies place a premium on getting something up and running early, and evolving it over time.

In Model-Driven Development, two pieces of working code must be demonstrated.

-One is the executable model, which is evaluated for fitness to the user needs.

-The other piece of working code to be demonstrated is the mapping algorithm that generates the final code. This one is more easily overlooked. A number of projects created a gorgeous executable model, and then couldn't get the code-generation algorithm to work properly in time.

4. Welcome changing requirements, even late in development. Agile processes harness change for the customer's competitive advantage.

Agile processes can take on late-changing requirements because-Early and frequent delivery of running software, -Use of iterative and timeboxing techniques, -Continual attention to architecture-Willingness to update the design.

If your company can deliver quickly and respond to late-breaking information, and your competitor's company can't, then your company can out-maneuver your competitors on the software front. This often translates to a major difference in the marketplace.

5. Business people and developers work together daily throughout the project.

5. Business people and developers work together daily throughout the project.

-The industry is littered with projects whose sponsors did not take the time to make sure they got what they needed.

-The word "daily" refers to the sweet spot, where discussions are ongoing and on- demand. Daily discussions are not practical on most projects, which means that the project is not sitting at the sweet spot.

-The statement indicates that the longer the time to get information to and from the developers, the more damage to the project.

6. Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and support they need, and trust them to get the job done.-We would rather see motivated, skilled people communicating well, and no process at all, than a well-defined process and unmotivated individuals.

-Individuals make projects work. Their motivation relates to the pride-in-work, amicability and community on the project.

7. The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation.

8. The best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-organizing teams.

-We insist that the architecture be allowed to adjust over time, just as the requirements and process are. -An architecture locked down too hard, too early, will not be able to adjust to the inevitable surprises that surface during implementation and with changing requirements. -An architecture that grows in steps can follow the changing knowledge of the team and the changing wishes of the user community.

9. Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility.

-A tidy, well-encapsulated design is easier to change, and that means greater agility for the project.

-To remain agile, the designers have to produce good designs to begin with - and -also have to review and improve their design regularly, to deal with the better understanding of their design that comes with time and clean up from when they cut corners to meet a short-term goal.

MANAGING TECHNICAL DEBT-Ward Cunningham sometimes compares cleaning up the design with paying off debts. Going further, he discusses managing the technical debt on the project.

-Making hasty additions to the system corresponds to borrowing against the future, taking on debt. Cleaning up the design corresponds to paying off the debt.

-Sometimes, he points out, it is appropriate to take on deb and make hasty changes, in order to take advantage of an opportunity. Just as debt accumulates interest and grows over time, though, so does the cost to the project of not cleaning up those hasty design changes.

-Cut corners in the design, he suggests, when you are willing to take on the debt, and clean up the design to pay off the debt before the interest grows too high.

10. Agile processes promote sustainable development. The sponsors, developers, and users should be able to maintain a constant pace indefinitely.

There are two sides to this statement.-One relates to social responsibility side, -Second to project effectiveness.

-People tire as they put in long hours. Their rate of progress slows, not just during their overtime hours, but also during their regular hours. They introduce more errors into their work.

-Diminishing returns set in with extra hours. This is part of the non-linearity of the human component.

An alert and engaged staff is more agile than a tired, slogging staff, even leaving aside all of the social responsibility issues.

-Long hours are a symptom that something has gone wrong with the project layout.

11. Simplicity--the art of maximizing the amount of work not done--is essential.

-Simplicity is essential. That much is easy to agree on. The notion of simplicity is so subjective, though, that it is difficult to say anything useful about it. We were therefore pleased to find we could all sign up for this statement.

-In the design of development processes, simplicity has to do with accomplishing while not doing, maximizing the work not done while producing good software.

-Jon Kern reminds us of Pascal's remark: “This letter is longer than I wish, for I had not the time to make it shorter.” That comment reveals the difficulty of making things simple. A cumbersome model is easy to produce. Producing a simple design

“Simple, clear purpose and principles give rise to complex, intelligent behavior.” that can handle change effectively is harder. Complex rules and regulations give rise to simple, stupid behavior.” Dee Hock

12. At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly.

It is fitting to end where we began. How light is right for any one project? Barely sufficient, and probably lighter than you expect.