> "Customer collaboration over contract negotiation"
TLDR: Businesses purchase development effort in terms of contracts, and the contract is almost always "You will deliver $X for $Y amount, in $Z months or less". Agile is the opposite of that as far as business is concerned - "We will pay $A per hour until our money runs out or we are satisfied with what we get".
I've never understood this one, to be honest. Business runs on contracts; in any interaction with the outside world (suppliers, customers, employees, etc) the businesses contract is what makes or breaks that interaction.
In 999 out of 1000 cases, no contract == no interaction.
I mean, look at it this way: when you ask a crew to paint your house, you specify the colors upfront. You don't iterate with them on after every room, or every wall.
You certainly will not engage with any crew who wants to paint your house using the guidance of the Agile Manifesto, because then you'd have little to no upfront indication of the cost, you might have a house not gully painted (because you're paying per hour for their time, and once your money runs out they stop working).
Agile works great for teams internal to the business - the money never runs out unless the business shuts down. But for external developers, the business cannot engage without a contract, and that contract will be "You will deliver $X for $Y in $Z months", and not "We will pay you $A hourly until we are satisfied with the result".
The practical result is that the agile way and the business way are entirely opposites of each other. This explains why dev teams within companies constantly complain "This isn't Agile!" ... because business is trying to enforce some sort of "Deliver $X within $Z months" and the agile team is working with "We'll collaborate until the stakeholders are satisfied"
A good friend of mine worked for HP Consulting, which at the time was using heavyweight waterfall method. Out of curiosity, I asked her how well they hit their schedules and costs.
"Oh, we hit our schedules and costs 100% of the time", she said.
I was incredulous, so I pressed her on the point.
"Well, compared to the contracted schedules and costs, we run 200% over on average by the time we deliver. But what happens is that customers quickly figure out that what they contracted for isn't anything like what they actually need. And every time a requirement changes, we add time and money. A lot of time and money. More than enough to make up for any actual overruns. So we always hit our schedules and costs exactly, by the time we're done."
In short, "We will deliver $X for $Y amount, in $Z months or less" is a total scam.
> And every time a requirement changes, we add time and money. A lot of time and money. More than enough to make up for any actual overruns.
...
> In short, "We will deliver $X for $Y amount, in $Z months or less" is a total scam.
How is that a scam? "We will deliver $X in $Y months for $Z money" is easily predictable by the client when the client wants to change $X.
If the client doesn't change $X, the client can understand what they will pay and when they will get it.
When the client changes $X to $X+a, they still understand that delivery will be "$x+a in $Y+b months for $Z+c money". In fact, the original contract they signed made it clear to them what the cost and time was for changing requirements.
More to the point, when they want to make a change, they can balance the need for the change against the cost and time. Even better, because they know these things upfront, someone at the client will have to approve the cost and delivery time for the new requirements. That person is not going to give the supplier a blank cheque.
It's a good deal better than "We deliver working parts until you are satisfied or until you run out of money. We cannot tell you in advance how much this will cost and how long it will take."
I mean, if experienced developers are unable to get their software development supplier to deliver with only a small margin of money/time overruns, what hops is there for the procurement person at any company?
This is a great piece. My software engineering training just held the assumption that the world runs on agile processes by now. Waterfall-like processes were a historical reference and a failure.
Since external customers and non-swe stakeholders expect binding contracts and even waterfall, I would consider it essential to learn how to interface agile processes with the said contract-driven stakeholders. Telling them that we are trying our best just doesn’t work.
It's why contracted-for software is so awful - contractors do absolutely anything to meet the conditions and then they're gone and not responsible anymore.
> It's why contracted-for software is so awful - contractors do absolutely anything to meet the conditions and then they're gone and not responsible anymore.
What's the alternative? Never have contracted-for software? Only accept contractors who are prepared to do Agile?
How does the procurer then put out bids, without having requirements up front?
How do they evaluate bids from various suppliers without knowing what the final bill is? How do they shortlist the three "best" bids with no costing information? How do they even know if they can afford it?
How are the suppliers supposed to submit bids without knowing what they are going to bill for?
How does audit make sure that the process was fair?
Once you start supplying/developing software for companies that are large enough to have a procurement department, you better believe that the process all runs on paper[1].
> I mean, look at it this way: when you ask a crew to paint your house, you specify the colors upfront. You don't iterate with them on after every room, or every wall.
This isn't a useful analogy - more often, it's like asking a crew how much it would cost and how long it would take to paint your house, except the house isn't built yet, you're not sure what you're going to use it for (or whether you'll actually use it as a house rather than a B&B), plus you reserve the right to change colors at any point in the process.
It's like you reached inside my head, pulled out my crudely formulated thoughts and feelings on why it struck me as ill-advised, and refined and explained everything perfectly.
Internal teams! My work these days is directly with people paying for the thing. That's why Agile gives me the shivers.
It's unfortunate that you haven't understood any of the problems of writing software or buying on contract despite having it laid out for you.
In reality people change their minds - especially when they see the software - so there's a lot to be said for building it incrementally and showing it to them.
The fact that contracts don't suit this behavior might explain why contracts are such an awful way to get software and why they so often go wrong.
> It's unfortunate that you haven't understood any of the problems of writing software or buying on contract despite having it laid out for you.
> In reality people change their minds - especially when they see the software - so there's a lot to be said for building it incrementally and showing it to them.
Doesn't matter - the people paying for the software are not the ones that are going to be using it, so showing it to them is pointless (they just want their bullet points/requirements checked off).
Showing the software to the users is equally pointless, because they don't have the authority to request changes (any change is a bill that has to be approved).
> The fact that contracts don't suit this behavior might explain why contracts are such an awful way to get software and why they so often go wrong.
Maybe, but unless you have an alternative that addresses the problems in not having contracts, there's little point in telling other people that they don't understand the problem.
TLDR: Businesses purchase development effort in terms of contracts, and the contract is almost always "You will deliver $X for $Y amount, in $Z months or less". Agile is the opposite of that as far as business is concerned - "We will pay $A per hour until our money runs out or we are satisfied with what we get".
I've never understood this one, to be honest. Business runs on contracts; in any interaction with the outside world (suppliers, customers, employees, etc) the businesses contract is what makes or breaks that interaction.
In 999 out of 1000 cases, no contract == no interaction.
I mean, look at it this way: when you ask a crew to paint your house, you specify the colors upfront. You don't iterate with them on after every room, or every wall.
You certainly will not engage with any crew who wants to paint your house using the guidance of the Agile Manifesto, because then you'd have little to no upfront indication of the cost, you might have a house not gully painted (because you're paying per hour for their time, and once your money runs out they stop working).
Agile works great for teams internal to the business - the money never runs out unless the business shuts down. But for external developers, the business cannot engage without a contract, and that contract will be "You will deliver $X for $Y in $Z months", and not "We will pay you $A hourly until we are satisfied with the result".
The practical result is that the agile way and the business way are entirely opposites of each other. This explains why dev teams within companies constantly complain "This isn't Agile!" ... because business is trying to enforce some sort of "Deliver $X within $Z months" and the agile team is working with "We'll collaborate until the stakeholders are satisfied"