Agile Otter Blog

The question asked was "how do we know we need a coach?" The more general question is "how do we know if we need help?" The question seems to assume that the goal of coaching and training are rescue; that the team is in trouble or incapable of success. That's horsefeathers. I think that the more valid question is "are we working as well as we can?" Here are my criteria for teams that don't need anything: We deliver Delivering software keeps getting easier We are always learning We have fun If all four of those are true for a team, then that team probably doesn't need help. Of course if those are true, then the team is poised to provide a lot of help to other teams by describing how they work.

For all the 'take back agile" and "agile smagile" and "apologizing for agile" and all the other post-agilists and so-called post-agilists in the world, I give you Otter's law: Any methodology followed via obligation and knowledge-avoidance cannot produce positive change.  I've ranted about change gone wrong and methodologies followed badly and horrible oversales and undersales and all, but it comes down to otter's law ultimately. Too many companies have huge gains from using XP and Scrum and what-have-you. Too many others tried "the same thing" with entirely different results. Some teams are whole-heartedly into the whole agile thing, and they seem to have pretty good. Others don't seem very excited and don't get much out of it. Is it excitement that they need? I don't think so. I think that the lack of excitement and the lack of progress have the same root. I think it's a lack of profluence in agile-a...

I know it's going to sound like I'm trying to talk my boss and yours out of giving us both raises, and of course I'm not, but I keep hearing people tell me they're worried that they can't work in teams because their system pits them against one another. Usually it's an excuse or reason for not pairing. "If I improve my colleague, he will beat me to the incentives" or "if we do his work first, then there's a chance I'll fall behind."  I'm not a fan of individual work assignments , and I'm not a fan of competitive incentives . Rather than rant about it, I'd like to point you to some other authors and how they feel about the topic: Daniel Pink suggests killing your performance ratings . InfoQ balanced comments pro and con individual rewards. Peter Scholtes says reviews are  ineffective, even harmful  and performance appraisal are incompatible . Esther Derby suggests ways to support team-based work  and  performance ...