It is one thing to say that engagement needs to be engaging. It’s quite another thing to try and manage an engagement process in the middle of a pandemic.
So many engagement events start the same way. A circle of chairs in the room. A couple of flip charts in the front. At the back, a couple of anxious managers, wondering if anyone will come. It doesn’t have to be this way.
Agile started with principles that emphasized collaboration and interaction, experimentation and change, and the delivery of solutions that worked. But we are risking losing sight of these principles.
We keep positioning agile as an either/or proposition. And we do that in particular when we think about agile as compared to waterfall. There is an assumption that not only is agile different, but that agile has to be different. And that’s a problem.
We want to do quality work. We want our results to be seen as being quality. But what does that actually mean? And how do we test for it? How can we satisfy for ourselves—and demonstrate to others—that we’ve delivered on expectations in terms of quality?
Consistency often provides a common language and terminology. So where does the concern about consistency come from? What are the issues, cautions and questions about consistency? Why might consistency in fact be overrated?