In recent conversations around governance, I've been challenged to reflect on and refine my own understanding and working definition of the term.
For a long time, my working definition of Governance was something like "Governance is the process of insight and influence for people outside the team". This definition accepts - and builds on - the idea that, in an enterprise adoption of Agile, there are often external stakeholders with authority. But ...
Martina Navratilova was once asked what made a truly great sports person. She pondered for a moment and replied “The difference between being a good sports player and a great one is not how well you play when you are playing well. It is how well you play when you are playing badly.”
The 7th Annual Agile Development Survey from Version One holds few surprises, with the general view that Agile is a good thing. My interest was however drawn by a couple of results.
I get asked the question ‘who is your favourite 19th century Prussian Field Marshal’ quite a lot, as I suspect you do as well. There are of course several great contenders for this title, but my vote has to go Helmuth Von Moltke the Elder. Why? Because of his contribution to the concept of dynamic planning! Trying to convince people that planning is a continuous and never ending process and not something that’s completed at the start of a project is a constant challenge for me and I will grab any support I can get.
I picked up this article - Are you making this mistake at the end of your meetings? - on LinkedIn, via a connection of mine over at Ceridian drawing my attention to it. I have read it a couple of times and it is certainly worth a read.
I read a great blog entry today on The View Inside Me and thought that maybe organisations should have bucket lists too!
While I was working with one of my clients a few years a go, I was given a book to read by the CEO. "The Speed of Trust". I read the book with a healthy dose of scepticism having read many management books in the past. But this book resonated with the core principles of Agile for me.
Earlier this week I read with interest an article via the Flickboard newsfeed on my phone. It highlighted the difficulties that a number of Cloud providers find themselves in. In particular the providers who scaled up quickly with offers of free services and have not successfully converted enough custom to the chargeable model. The conclusion of the article was that this market is about to experience a significant phase of consolidation.
One of the biggest challenges I have is to get people to think incrementally and iteratively when developing software. When you have spent an entire career focusing on end-goal fixed product definitions, its hard to understand it’s all about a vision, the journey and the decisions you make on the way.
Before you start reading please be forewarned that this is not as exciting as some of the previous blogs on this site (in particular the piece about submariners and torpedoes), nor does it offer leading edge insight into anything in particular. Therefore read on at your own risk!
Former American President Calvin Coolidge once remarked, “They criticize me for harping on the obvious; if all the folks would do the few simple things they know they ought to do, most of our problems would take care of themselves.”
Following my recent blog regarding contract negotiations and the retention or otherwise of IP, I thought I'd share some further thoughts.
Why is it so hard for people to accept that projects are subject to constant change and that they should adapt to the evolving environment rather than trying to predict everything and then fighting to defend their position despite reality?
I'm regularly involved in contract negotiations on behalf of my clients and invariably find myself facing the same issue. Why is it that suppliers who are being handsomely paid for bespoke development think it reasonable that they retain the IP?
This can range from the outrageous, "all title and IP will vest with Supplier" to the more benign, "IP will pass to the Client on payment for the full system". The latter may appear reasonable, but the word "full" is the crux. Assuming stage payments, the client will have paid a substantial amount before IP is transferred.