Jim Highsmith. Show more authors. Hide. Abstract. Introducing agile practices into software organizations impacts how projects are planned, coordinated and. PDF | The fundamentals of good project management remain the same Jim Highsmith presents this as six principles, under two categories. NOTE: This chapter is from the book Agile Project Management: Creating Innovative Products, by Jim Highsmith. Product development teams are facing a quiet.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Arabic|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
Project Management. Jim Highsmith. Chapter 5. An Agile Project Management Model coordination among multiple feature teams, and managing the project. Highsmith, J. A. (). Agile project management: Creating innovative products. .. Created by Jim Highsmith at Cutter in □ Focus on strategic plans and. Are you searching for [PDF] By Jim Highsmith Agile Project Management Creating Innovative Products 2nd Books? Finally [PDF] By Jim.
Many technical and management abilities are necessary to deliver results. Ultimately, however, success rests on creating an innovative culture, one that can respond quickly as the unknown morphs into the partially known. Command-Control versus Leadership-Collaboration Cultures A second major reason that ASDEs are being implemented in organizations is to forge the workforce culture of the future.
Management practices have also experienced the bubble-versus-trend dichotomy. The bubble seemed to indicate that traditional business precepts could be ignored in the digital world of tomorrow, and that the key to success was finding managers under 30 years old who were not burdened by the lessons of the old economy and traditional management knowledge.
But just as companies are learning that success at eBusiness depends on the integration of Internet technology and existing business models, they are discovering that they need to blend management styles, and in particular, to draw on elements of the Internet culture—fast response, agility, adaptability, improvisation, reliance on emergent results, and recognition of unpredictability.
How does a ship, tossed by waves and wind, keep from sinking? How does a company, tossed by dizzying new technology and a rapidly evolving business, sustain itself for the long term? Sailing ships have a heavily weighted keel, tons of lead that counterbalance the winds and waves, which rights the ship again and again.
I think that the heavily weighted keel for organizations lies in their people, in an adaptive culture that can bind people together in effective collaborative relationships, and in leadership that understands that traveling broadside toward raging seas is a poor strategy. Interest in ASDEs has mushroomed not because of pair programming or customer focus groups, but because, taken as a whole, their principles and practices define a developer community freed from the baggage of Dilbertesque corporations.
Agile cultures are more attuned to the Information Age and have 8 created ground swells at the developer level that organizations are being forced to deal with—at least those that want to retain talented staff.
ASDEs reflect how software really gets developed, and this appeals to developers. One of the most significant data points from that survey was that project teams employing ASDEs rated 22 percent higher on employee morale than teams using RSMs.
The real challenge for organizations is not blending bricks-and-clicks technology, but knowing how to build a blended culture, incorporating the best of dotcom and traditional qualities. Many IT organizations have created fledgling Web development groups and separated them from the traditional organizations or outsourced Web development completely.
Although this approach may, in fact, get projects delivered quickly initially, it does nothing to address the longer-term issue of evolving a culture attuned to constant turbulence.
Setting up separate organizations skunk works has long been an accepted strategy for isolating new initiatives from the ponderousness of existing organizations, but it does nothing to change the existing organization. Is it enough, long term, to create a person Internet project group that is fast, Agile, and innovative, but relegate the remaining 2,person IT organization to its traditional culture?
Managers in the process-centric community value people, but they still consider process more important. Agilists totally reject this viewpoint. Although this may not reflect the view of all Control-Culture managers, this process-centric, mechanical view of people remains a bias in many organizations. It is easy to see that implementing an Agile approach in Deutsche Software India would be an impossible task given the cultural norms expressed in this statement. Without first acknowledging that an exploratory process is required for a particular problem set, companies such as this one will have a very difficult time breaking new ground, although they will continue do well with traditional optimization projects.
If your organization is fundamentally top-down and hierarchical, then a rigorous approach may fit better. Similarly, XP, Scrum, or Crystal will fit well in a naturally collaborative culture. So, while either Agile or rigorous approaches work for certain problem domains, as turbulence and uncertainty heat up, as the competitive cauldron that your company must compete in bubbles hotter and hotter, RSMs rapidly deteriorate in effectiveness.
When the water boils, you must be Agile enough to keep from scalding. And there are times, of course, when the water becomes so superheated that nothing works. We all sympathize with Dilbert and silently rant against his pointy-haired boss. However, Dilbert is part of the problem—and the solution. The Dilberts of our world and there must be millions of them, based on the number of cartoons on office walls have an obligation to push back, to change our mindless corporate bureaucracy and, where it exists, the people-as-machine-parts culture.
In the final analysis, this is the core of Agile Software Development Ecosystems. IDX Systems Corporation The turbulent nature of the worldwide economy, technology, and new product development plays out in field after field—from telecommunications to insurance. Other case stories are embedded in chapters on ASDE principles, but the IDX case story so richly illustrated these challenges, and how an ASDE helped the company overcome them, that it deserved its own chapter. This case story also provides a bridge from the explanation of the problem, speed and constant change, in Chapter 1, to an explanation of the solution, agility, in Chapter 3.
She was talking about how IDX transformed its strategic vision into reality using Scrum. It has usually been an ugly struggle, often lasting years longer than originally intended, and not infrequently ending in failure. IDX not only made the transition, but has emerged with a much stronger product line to carry the company into the future.
This case story shows both an Agile approach to software development and an Agile approach to the business itself. Ultimately, if Agile engineering processes are to be useful and widely applied, they must be tied to business goals that stretch the boundaries of tradition and therefore require agility, rapid response, and innovation.
In , IDX began a five-year transition from vision to reality, using the Scrum development methodology jointly developed by Ken Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland. The company had a very successful product but an aging technology platform.
The company needed a strategic product vision that included both new technology and an integrated product vision, and it was overwhelmed at the prospect of implementing both concurrently.
At the time, IDX had a comprehensive, enterprise-wide set of applications for person indexing, scheduling, maintaining electronic medical records for clinical results, and more, but radiology, pharmacy, and pathology were viewed as ancillary systems. The folks at IDX needed to come up with a synergistic strategy that made sense when viewing both their enterprise and radiology systems.
In January , they started the strategic planning process for radiology, made extensive customer visits, and asked their customers three key questions: Since it was so costly to move the data around on demand, especially for referring physicians, facilities had to produce film as well as store the images—thus eliminating the anticipated cost savings.
Customers told the staff at IDX that they were in a good position to solve these problems. This strategy would enable IDX to integrate its enterprise applications with a new set of radiology applications and move into the rapidly expanding imaging market.
But the transition would not be easy, as it required three parallel but integrated projects. This type of transition can flounder badly, taking years longer than originally planned usually based on hopes rather than realistic plans.
The second project would build a suite of modules to interface with all the imaging equipment in the market—equipment from companies that had a major market presence, such as GE and Siemens. Here again, new technologies emerged for the team members to learn. While the information processing parts of their applications used an industry standard protocol called HL7, the imaging market used DICOM digital imaging, communications, and medicine , an OO-based standard. The third project would build the workflow engine, allowing for user-defined staging rules for imaging information.
The plan was approved in August , but we still had to wrap up existing projects and start staffing and training for the new projects. So when Ken got involved in December , I was sitting there sort of wide-eyed with this great vision and opportunity, trying to figure out how to bring in key technical resources, how to wrap up our existing projects, and how to get on with the new projects.
We identified some clear goals and deliverables so we could get the development group out of the beta-support mode that it had been in for nearly nine months. In September , it got started on the three new vision projects.
Stenner recognized that the team was having a difficult time translating the vision into requirements and then into what to do first. IDX needed to address how its customers could become not only filmless, but paperless. The development group—consisting of functional experts, software engineers, and documentation staff—was split into two subteams, each visiting three customers.
The teams then convened each night to compare notes. Within a week after the customer visits were completed, the combined team had finished a requirements document. From beginning to end, the requirements process took about a month. The first team then started on a series of Sprints to deliver functionality. Members of the second team, which was called the The imaging and When I asked Stenner how the developers felt about Scrum, her reply was emphatic: They really, really love Scrum.
Stenner said that everyone felt they got to concentrate, and they really worked as a team and had good synergy. Constantly pulling people away from the level of detail they are working with can be exhausting for them. But beyond Scrum, IDX also put into place a very interesting bonus system for these projects. We hear all the time about fostering teamwork and collaboration, but very seldom is that message enhanced with compensation geared to support these principles. IDX instituted a two-tier bonus system designed to balance cooperative and individual efforts.
However, the catch was that everyone had to meet their assigned task plan; if a single person came up short, no team member got the bonus. We had developers helping QA finish up work and so on. While the first-tier bonus focused on teamwork and getting the basics finished, the second tier focused on individuals and getting extra work accomplished, such as new items or backlog items left over. Individuals could sign up to work on extra backlog items.
Overtime work became much more palatable. During this time, the bonus program had to be abandoned because interruptions were causing the team to miss Sprint goals.
The program had begun to demotivate rather than motivate. But all the turmoil was for a good reason—increased sales. By early , new sales continued to destabilize development efforts. So the vision has been incredibly, phenomenally successful. But those sales raise new pressures. As of spring , the Agile practices can often help companies be successful, but sometimes that success brings its own new set of problems. Stenner thought this was a valid concern, but she also thought that most of the problems occurred near the end of the project, when time pressures were so great.
One, the short cycle time fed the pressure to get planned tasks done, particularly as other features arose over the life of the project. Two, we made a decision to do this project in the summer of , and we all know how much Microsoft technology has evolved since then. You have a ten-year-old waterfall mindset in which you think through all the issues on paper before you do any coding. She related the story of another project she had been involved with that spent six years getting the first version of a product out, only to find the competition already ahead.
She and architect Ron Keen vowed not to make the same mistake, committing instead to getting something out the door. Finally, one of the most difficult things in most organizations is to propagate good practices, or sometimes even any practices, to other groups within the company. IDX seems to have encountered such barriers to the wider use of Scrum. IDX had to explore in two different ways. First, there was a complete technology platform transition with all the issues of learning not one, but multiple new technologies.
I dwell on the difficulty of this type of project, which usually faces incredible management and sales organization pressure, because it indicates just how unusual the IDX project success was—technology 13 conversion plus major new functionality.
IDX did it! Agility Agility does not come in a can. One size does not fit all. There are no five common steps to achievement. We software developers and high-tech managers often look at ourselves as being in the forefront of innovation. Agile approaches appear, from inside our profession, to be the cutting edge. But if we look across the aisle into the realm of manufacturing, we might be considered on the trailing edge rather than the cutting edge.
Witness, for example, the rise of lean manufacturing practices ignited by the Japanese automobile manufacturers and well documented in The Machine That Changed the World: Looking back nearly ten years, the foundation of what it means to be agile was described in Agile Competitors and Virtual Organizations, by Steven Goldman, Roger Nagel, and Kenneth Preiss—published in ! Even though this book addresses manufacturing the foreword is written by former Chrysler chairman Lee Iacocca , the agility issues it addresses are the same today as they were then.
Bob Charette, originator of Lean Development, stresses that the original concepts behind lean production in Japan have been somewhat blurred in the North American and European implementations, which focus on streamlining and cost control. The Japanese origins of lean production stressed the human and philosophical aspects of the approach. The definition of agility offered in Agile Competitors remains as valid today for software development as it was ten years ago for manufacturing: Look at the following list, compiled by the authors, of forces that threaten companies: Not by much.
The Information Age economy has increased the pressures on these issues, but they are still critical to business success. And according to Agile Competitors, agility is the critical characteristic, the overarching skill required—of both corporations and individuals— to address these issues. If software development organizations—internal IT groups, systems integration consultants, and software product companies—are to fulfill their vision of helping business thrive in this Information Age, they must determine how to transform this vision of agility into reality.
Most of our assumptions about business, about technology and organizations are at least 50 years old. They have outlived their time. As a result, we are preaching, teaching, and practicing policies that are increasingly at odds with reality and therefore counterproductive Drucker Agility is a way of life, a constantly emerging and changing response to business turbulence. It is a fancy name for lack of planning and ad hoc-ism. Although the defining issue of agility involves creating and responding to change, there are three other components that help define agility: Creating and Responding to Change Is agility merely a matter of reacting to stimuli, like an amoeba, or is it something more?
My preferred definition of agility has two aspects: Agility is the ability to both create and respond to change in order to profit in a turbulent business environment. Agility is not merely reaction, but also action. First and foremost, Agile organizations create change, change that causes intense pressure on competitors.
Creating change requires innovation, the ability to create new knowledge that provides business value. Second, Agile organizations have an ability to react, to respond quickly and effectively to both anticipated and unanticipated changes in the business environment. Agility means being responsive or flexible within a defined context. Part of the innovative, or proactive, piece involves creating the right context—an adaptable business organization or an adaptable technology architecture, for example.
Innovation is understanding that defined context and anticipating when it needs to be altered. Some undoubtedly are, while a few have created the necessary infrastructure to exploit the change. If we could wait to make product development decisions, they might be better ones; however, the delay could well obviate the need for the decision at all, because aggressive competitors may get their product to market while we dither.
Good explorers are Agile explorers—they know how to juggle and improvise. Indiana Jones was a good explorer, somehow living through every outlandish adventure. Agility means quickness, lightness, and nimbleness—the ability to act rapidly, the ability to do the minimum necessary to get a job done, and the ability to adapt to changing conditions.
Agility also requires innovation and creativity—the ability to envision new products and new ways of doing business.
In particular, IT organizations have not done an adequate job of balancing the needs of exploration and optimization. The actors in the movie Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon display incredible agility—running lightly along the tiniest tree branches and showing extraordinary dexterity in sword fighting. Beginning martial arts students are clumsy, not Agile. They become skilled, and Agile, from long hours of training and effective mentoring.
Sometimes their drills are repetitive and prescriptive, but only as part of learning. Agility also requires discipline and skill. A skilled software designer can be more Agile than a beginner because he or she has a better sense of quality. Beginners, with little sense of what is good and what is not, can just revolve in circles—lots of change but not much progress.
He had to be skilled before he could be Agile. Agile individuals can improvise, they know the rules and boundaries, but they also know when the problem at hand has moved into uncharted areas. They know how to extend their knowledge into unforeseen realms, to experiment, and to learn.
When critical things need to get done, call on the great improvisers. Improvisation makes great jazz bands. From a few key structural rules, jazz bands improvise extensively. Having a solid foundation enables their tremendous flexibility without allowing the music to degenerate into chaos.
The proponents of business process reengineering and software engineering methodologies probably blanch at the thought that improvisation, rather than carefully articulated processes, is key to success. First, control focuses on boundaries and simple rules rather than prescriptive, detailed procedures and processes.
The second aspect of control, though simple in concept, is completely foreign to many managers. Agile projects are not controlled by conformance to plan but by conformance to business value. In high-change environments, plans—and the traditional contracts that are derived from plans—are worse than useless as control mechanisms because they tend to punish correct actions.
If we deliver a working software product, with features our customers accept, at a high level of quality, within acceptable cost constraints, during the specified time-box, then we have delivered business value.
Every three to six weeks, customers tell developers that acceptable business value has been delivered—or not. If it has, the project continues for another iterative cycle. When we started the project three months ago, we planned only 18 features for this last cycle, and half the features we did deliver were different than the ones in the original plan. We accept that talented people, who are internally motivated, who must work in a volatile environment, who understand the product vision, will do the best they can do.
An entire generation of project managers has been taught, by leading project management authorities, to succeed at project management by conforming to carefully laid out, detailed task plans. Conformance to plan means locking ourselves into a outdated, often irrelevant plan that some project manager cooked up in great haste which, of course, precluded talking to developers 18 months ago, when the world was different.
An exploration perspective contrasts with that of optimization. Take, for example, the use of schedule deadlines. While a schedule may appear to be a schedule, each perspective utilizes dates as a control mechanism in different ways.
Optimization cultures use dates to predict and control—they view schedule as achievable, along with the other objectives, and see deviations from the plan as poor performance. Exploration cultures, however, view dates much differently. They basically see dates as a vehicle for managing uncertainty and thereby helping to make necessary scope, schedule, and cost tradeoffs. Exploration cultures, to be sure, use dates as performance targets, but the primary focus is bounding the uncertainty, not predicting dates.
Aaron Wildavsky, a social scientist, writes about this issue and offers an example of the difference between Silicon Valley and Boston.
Basically, he believes, the reason Silicon Valley is the primary technology center of the world is that it depends on its resilience to be able to respond to rapid change, whereas the Boston crowd leans more heavily toward anticipation Postrel Does that mean no one in Boston ever responds to change and no one in Silicon Valley ever plans?
Good explorers both anticipate when the rules of the game have changed or are about to change —that is, they define the context—and operate flexibly within a given rule set. Obviously, if the rule set itself is too prescriptive, it leaves no room for agility. Without some rule set, however, agility can become rudderless reaction. Visionaries download ideas; pragmatists download proof.
Laurie Williams, an assistant professor at North Carolina State University, wrote her doctoral dissertation on her study of pair programming. Two other studies, both done at Harvard Business School, provide keen insight into the issues surrounding Agile development, although they are not about Agile development per se. Much of the material written on Agile methods, iterative development, and other such practices is based on practical experience about what has worked, but MacCormack provides us with explicit research results.
MacCormack and his Harvard Business School colleague Marco Iansiti have been investigating processes that work best in complex, uncertain environments. The differences in performance are dramatic.
That one parameter explains more than one-third of the variation in product quality across the sample—a remarkable result. As he points out in the article, there are so many variables that impact performance that finding one that has such a striking impact is rare in research circles. MacCormack points to four development practices that spell success: An early release of the evolving product design to customers Daily incorporation of new software code and rapid feedback on design changes A team with broad-based experience of shipping multiple projects Major investments in the design of the product architecture Now, to those who have been practicing Agile techniques for years, these statements may sound ho-hum.
One of the reasons for this finding may be that if a project has very short feedback cycles, the team is led into continuous, automated testing. On the issue of quality versus feedback time, the study found the highest-quality projects cluster around 2- to hour feedback cycles, with only a couple of data points in the to hour range that were above the mean in terms of quality.
MacCormack studied companies operating in complex, uncertain environments—Netscape, Microsoft, Yahoo, and others. To the extent that an organization or a development project operates in a slower-paced, more predic table market, some form of evolutionary development may be less critical. Two other Harvard professors, Rob Austin and Richard Nolan, have been investigating just this issue with respect to major enterprise projects, particularly very large enterprise resource planning ERP systems.
The title of an in-depth report by Austin indicates their emerging conclusions: New and better analogies are based on activities like adaptive software development or new venture investment.
This particular program attracts senior IT and general managers from more than 80 companies worldwide. The survey found that up to 88 percent of the respondents depending upon the year considered their ERP projects to be large or very large, several responding that they were the largest projects that their companies had ever undertaken. Besides size, an overwhelming percentage of respondents considered the projects to have considerable technical, organizational, and business risk.
The categorization of risk was interesting. While technical risk concerns declined from to , concerns over organizational and business risks remained very high.
However, in , the survey indicated that companies were starting to achieve the long-anticipated benefits. This led to the second set of study questions: The second flawed assumption embedded in planning-intensive approaches is that it is possible to protect against late changes to a large system project. The third flawed assumption is that it even makes sense to lock in big project decisions early.
Therefore, he and Nolan recommend a staging model, much like venture capitalists use to fund new ventures: Staging can also produce incremental return on investment ROI. Of the participants surveyed in the executive education group, 75 percent indicated they used some type of staging strategy.
Even more interesting, companies in the planning stage estimated they would need 4 stages; companies in the midst of implementation estimated they would need 7 stages; while companies who had completed implementation said they had taken an average of 12 stages. Tektronix, one of the two in-depth Harvard Business School case studies the other was Cisco , reported 25 stages, or waves, as it called them.
In the report summary, Austin points to four characteristics of these more successful projects which I have paraphrased: They all rely on fast cycles and insist on frequent delivery. They get functionality in some form into business-user hands very early in the project.
They are preceded by little or no traditional ROI-style analysis of the project as a monolithic whole. So, in the end, from a strategic perspective, Agile approaches are not about levels of documentation or not using UML or the discipline of pair programming. In the end, Agile approaches are about delivering working products—packaged software, embedded software in a wide range of products, and internal IT products—in environments characterized by high levels of uncertainty and risk.
Agile Software Development Ecosystems If agility can be characterized as creating and responding to change, nimbleness and improvisation, conformance to actual, and balancing flexibility and structure, then ASDEs should help organizations exhibit these traits. They do so in several ways. First, ASDEs focus on the set of problems described in Chapter 1—problems characterized by uncertainty and change—which require an exploratory approach.
As the degree of uncertainty becomes greater, the probability that an Agile approach will succeed over a Rigorous approach increases dramatically, until at some level an Agile approach becomes the only type with a reasonable chance of success.
As the level of uncertainty increases dramatically, it becomes unlikely that any methodology can help.
No matter how good an exploration geologist you are, no matter how lucky, the inherent risk of exploring uncharted terrain remains. Second, ASDEs are intensely customer driven, which is both a characteristic and a risk factor. That is, no customer involvement, no Agile approach. But ASDEs advocate something even scarier—actually putting the customer in control.
If we drive development from the perspective of value first and traditional scope, schedule, and cost second, then customers must be actively involved. Third, ASDEs focus on people—both in terms of individual skills and in terms of collaboration, conversations, and communications that enhance flexibility and innovation. Agile approaches place 80 percent of their emphasis on ecosystems—people, personalities, collaboration, conversations, and relationships.
Fourth, ASDEs are not about a laundry list of things that development teams should do, they are about the practical things a development team actually needs to do—based on practice. The stories about what methodology manuals contain versus what development teams actually do are legendary. Furthermore, needs change from project to project and from iteration to iteration within a project.
By articulating what ASDEs are and what they are not, people can decide which, if any, of the premises, principles, and practices to use.
This principle can be extended to all Agile approaches. Every approach to a problem carries the risk of loss. One last characteristic of ASDEs—they may be inefficient. Production drilling for oil is about efficiency and cost control. Exploration drilling is about risk management, improvisation, intuition, and occasional lucky guesses. Exploring is often messy, full of fits and starts and rework. Companies that want to explore—to innovate—need to allow for some inefficiency.
Principles and People Chapter 4. Kent Beck Chapter 5. Deliver Something Useful Chapter 6.
Alistair Cockburn Chapter 7. Rely on People Chapter 8. Ken Schwaber Chapter 9. Encourage Collaboration Chapter Martin Fowler Chapter Technical Excellence Chapter Ward Cunningham Chapter Do the Simplest Thing Possible Chapter Jim Highsmith Chapter Be Adaptable Chapter Bob Charette 23 Chapter 4.
Kent Beck Questioner: Extreme Programming has captured the imagination of developers worldwide, often to the chagrin of their managers. XP has a massive following, but it also generates intensely negative responses from a number of people.
I got the feeling that he was far too emotional about the issue to consider actually trying any of them. Pair programming seemed to be the issue that lit his fire. I sat down to talk with Kent in the lobby of The Lodge hotel at Snowbird ski resort, watching the final skiers of the day cut through two feet of fresh Utah powder.
We chatted about the past, the present, and the future of the XP movement. Kent, who has a long association with the OO community, has been involved with Smalltalk he wrote one book on the subject , the pattern movement, and XP.
He is currently working on a book on leadership. What were the historical threads that came together to create Extreme Programming? We spent thousands of hours learning every nuance of Smalltalk and then created CRC [Class-Responsibility-Collaborator] cards as a way to share some of this experience with less-experienced Smalltalk programmers. Ward and I shared this aesthetic. We just liked writing code. Even if we were in a hurry, we would slow down even more.
When you work like this, with such an emphasis on the quality of design and code, are you going faster and producing higher quality?
No question about it, when you operate like this, you are eking every last lesson out of the experience that you have. So you learn a lot faster. You can only have so many ideas; you want to suck as much juice out of each one as you can. Mastery comes from inside out, like a tree grows. The third thread of XP comes from a feeling of oppression.
Codependence is a great model of the relationship between business and programmers, with programmers playing the part of the alcoholic.
The two just tear each other down and have no idea that they are doing it. The fourth thread of XP comes from helping build software teams at start-ups and their need to maintain flexibility. In one place I worked, there was a compiler writer who wrote five lines of test code for every line of functional code.
He was writing a Data Parallel C compiler, while another team was writing a Fortran compiler. He would just outproduce them.
He showed me that this testing moved the whole curve. I then moved to a project, Well-Fleet, at an employee benefits firm. Very good environment. I came up with three architectures for database mapping, spreadsheet-like calculations, and workflow. I would spend a month developing prototypes and then show them to the client.
At some point I was going to tell them about testing, so before one visit, I realized I needed to do something around testing. I showed them how, and they started this type of testing.
The whole project contained a basic set of practices, but not the detailed planning stuff. We had the testing process, and we continually refined the architecture. So that project was an eye opener. This was in the —94 time frame. There is no centralized explanation of how you ought to behave. CAS [complex adaptive systems] theory has a very simple explanation about how you ought to behave in the world.
Find this set of rules and then act on them, measure the results, and tweak the set of rules. In fact, to the degree to which as a leader you are making technical decisions, you are screwing up the dynamic of the team.
But sometimes people want you to make decisions, and you have to push back. Oh, absolutely! Someone comes into your office and asks you for a decision. Pushing out that decision making helps everyone learn a new way of operating. Then came the C3 project at Chrysler, where I tried to be much more hands off. You were trying to create the right kind of environment? Yes, Ron and I. We were trying to set up the initial conditions and then tweak them. No heroics, no Kent riding in on a white horse, which was quite a switch in value system for me.
I prided myself on being the biggest object guru on the block. The best manager I ever had was at the Stanford linear accelerator lab. I worked in the control room. This guy spent all his time making Heathkits. But everything was always on time; if you needed parts, they were there. Personality clashes got resolved instantly. Please check your email for instructions on resetting your password.
If you do not receive an email within 10 minutes, your email address may not be registered, and you may need to create a new Wiley Online Library account.
If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username. First published: Read the full text. Tools Request permission Export citation Add to favorites Track citation. Share Give access Share full text access.
Share full text access. Published in: Full Name Comment goes here. Are you sure you want to Yes No. Be the first to like this.
No Downloads. Views Total views. Actions Shares. Embeds 0 No embeds. No notes for slide. Book details Author: Jim Highsmith Highsmith Pages: Addison-Wesley Professional Language: English ISBN Description this book Agile Project Management Best practices for managing projects in agile environments- now updated with new techniques for larger projects Today, the pace of project management moves faster.
Full descriptionAgile Project Management: Creating Innovative Products Agile Software Development [PDF] Agile Project Management Best practices for managing projects in agile environments-now updated with new techniques for larger projects Today, the pace of project management moves faster.