The Rise of Scientific Management 2.0
On how good intentions can backfire and the dark side of Agile
In the beginning, the Agile movement was mostly about a set of values and disciplines aiming to help software development teams to build small to mid-sized products. The focus was on craftsmanship, close customer collaboration, and to bridge the gap between developers and management.
The primary measure of success? Working software. And the ability to keep a sustainable pace to keep delivering.
To boil it down to a single word: Trust.
Today, most managers and developers still subscribe to the ideas in the manifesto, at least in theory. But in real life, when the rubber hits the road, I often encounter a completely different reality.
The agile implementations prevalent in the enterprise world today almost inevitably end up being more about control and micro-management than building sustainable products.
Somewhere along the way, the original Agile movement morphed into the people-and-project management methodology that I like to call Business Agile.
And, in the process, it more or less became what it initially set out to be an alternative to — a rigid control structure.
