Agile- AME-111 - History

Agile- AME-111 - History



(AMe-111: dp. 215; 1. 96'0"; b. 24'0"; dr. 7'; s. 10.0 k.; a. 2 .50-eal. mg., 2 .30-eal. ma. )

The first Agile (AMe-lll)-a wooden-hulled coastal minesweeper—was purchased by the Navy from Mr. John Breskovich of Taeoma, Wash., on 10 April 1941 while she was still under construction at the Petersen Shipbuilding Co. in Tacoma, Wash. delivered to the Navy on 26 November 1941, and placed in service on 12 December 1941, Lt. (jg.) John G. Turbitt, USNR, in charge.

Agile reported for duty with the 13th Naval District Inshore Patrol on 23 December. Based at the Naval Station Seattle Wash., she patrolled the waters of Puget Sound until April of 1942 when she entered the yard for repairs and alterations. Agile completed repairs and returned to duty soon thereafter. In October 1943, she moved to Kodiak, Alaska, where she resumed patrols under the auspices of the Commander, Northwest Sea F rontier. After 15 April 1944, she was assigned to the newly established Alaskan Sea Frontier.

Agile returned to Seattle on 4 October 1944. She entered the yard at Winslow Marine Railway where her minesweeping gear was removed. On 20 December 1944, she reported to the Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island, and began duty loading and delivering torpedoes at bases along the coast of Washington. On 30 December 1944, she was redesignated IX-203. That duty kept her busy until she was placed out of service on 14 December 1945. Her name was struck from the Navy list on 8 Januarv 1946, and she was turned over to the Maritime Commission for disposal on 14 March 1946.

Agile Manifesto

The Agile Manifesto is a document that sets out the key values and principles behind the Agile philosophy and serves to help development teams work more efficiently and sustainably.

Known officially as ‘The Manifesto for Agile Software Development’, the manifesto detailing 4 Values and 12 Principles.

Acting as a proclamation, it is designed to improve software development methodologies, and directly responds to the inefficiency of traditional development processes. Namely, their reliance on weighty documentation and opportunity for oversight.

While the original document specifically set out to help software developers build business solutions in a faster and more efficient way, it has had a huge impact on the wider development industry and beyond.

Today, groups as diverse as PR and marketing departments, coders, restaurateurs, and even The Boy Scouts of America use the manifesto in one way or another, and its influence only continues to expand.

So, what are the core values and principles of the Agile Manifesto?

Individuals and interactions over processes and tools.

Working software over comprehensive documentation.

Customer collaboration over contract negotiation.

Responding to change over following a plan.

The highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early, and continuous, delivery of valuable software.

Welcome changing requirements, even late in development. Agile processes harness change for the customer's competitive advantage.

Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale.

Clients and developers must work together daily throughout the project.

Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and support they need, and trust them to get the job done.

The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to, and within a development team, is face-to-face conversation.

Working software is the primary measure of progress.

Agile processes promote sustainable development — the sponsors, developers, and users should be able to maintain a constant pace indefinitely.

Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility.

Simplicity — the art of maximizing the amount of work not done — is essential.

The best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-organizing teams.

At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly.

Although various agile principles have been around since the 1970s, the manifesto itself — and the full definition of the agile philosophy — was created at the dawn of the new millennium.

In early 2001, a group of 17 developers held two meetings — the first in Oregon, the second in Snowbird, Utah — to discuss issues and solutions in software development, which is how the manifesto was firstborn.

Put simply, the manifesto was written as a response to major frustration with the traditional development processes of the 1990s.

The explosion of personal computing meant that product and software development had undergone significant changes, and developers at the meetings — and indeed, across the wider industry — felt that the status quo was no longer working.

The lag time between business needs and solutions being developed as an average of three years, and the standard processes at this point were unwieldy, unsatisfactory and overburdened with documentation and oversight.

The 17 developers who met in Oregon and Utah named themselves ‘The Agile Alliance’, and proposed a new way of working based around a set of values and principles that would “restore credibility to the word ‘methodology’”.

The manifesto was designed to empower developers, to speed up processes and to help encourage working practices that focus more directly on the user.

The values and principles allow teams to be adaptive, to respond quickly and effectively to change, and to be in a state of constant reimagination underpinned by frequent customer feedback.

Published in February 2001, the manifesto has since formed the basis of a vast array of frameworks, methodologies and different ways of working.

The original signatories to the Agile Manifesto were a group of 17 developers, scientists, programmers and authors who came together to find a solution to the perceived ills of the software development industry.

Agile philosophy pre-dated the Agile Manifesto, and the group included a number of inventors and creators of earlier agile frameworks. Kent Back of extreme programming, Jim Highsmith of adaptive software development, and Jeff Sutherland of scrum, to name a few.

The full list of signatories is:

Kent Beck, Mike Beedle, Arie van Bennekum, Alistair Cockburn, Ward Cunningham, Martin Fowler, James Grenning, Jim Highsmith, Andrew Hunt, Ron Jeffries, Jon Kern, Brian Marick, Robert C. Martin, Steve Mellor, Ken Schwaber, Jeff Sutherland, and Dave Thomas.

The beauty of the Agile Manifesto is that despite changes the industry has seen, despite the passage of time, and despite the fact that it has been applied to sectors and organizations far and beyond its original scope — the manifesto’s flexibility and adaptive nature mean that it continues to be relevant today.

Agile is a mentality — a philosophy — and the manifesto sets out principles and values, rather than prescribing certain processes. This means that plenty of developers work with an agile mindset without even realizing it. The manifesto merely formalizes how many successful teams have always worked.

The real problem with the manifesto today is not whether it is relevant, but how it is applied — or rather how it is applied incorrectly.

In part due to its flexibility, one of the biggest problems with agile is that some teams describe themselves as such without properly applying or understanding the underlying principles.

Plenty of ‘agile’ teams, for example, sometimes use the manifesto as an ‘excuse’ to abandon traditional development processes and to reject rigor, without ever really considering the fundamentals behind an agile mindset.

When used correctly, though, the manifesto remains as relevant today as it did when it was written, and can be a hugely valuable tool for developers, teams and even entire organizations.

‘Botanical Sexism’ Could Be Behind Your Seasonal Allergies


One day this past April, the residents of Durham, North Carolina, saw the sky turn a peculiar but familiar shade of chartreuse. Enormous clouds of a fine, yellow-green powder engulfed the city. It looked, and felt, like the end of the world. “Your car was suddenly yellow, the sidewalk was yellow, the roof of your house was yellow,” says Kevin Lilley, assistant director of the city’s landscape services. Residents, quite fittingly, called it a “pollenpocalypse.”

Male trees are one of the most significant reasons why allergies have gotten so bad for citydwellers in recent decades. They’re indiscriminate, spewing their gametes in every direction. They can’t help it—it’s what evolution built them for. This is fine in the wild, where female trees trap pollen to fertilize their seeds. But urban forestry is dominated by male trees, so cities are coated in their pollen. Tom Ogren, horticulturalist and author of Allergy-Free Gardening: The Revolutionary Guide to Healthy Landscaping, was the first to link exacerbated allergies with urban planting policy, which he calls “botanical sexism.”

In trees, sex exists beyond the binary of female and male. Some, such as cedar, mulberry, and ash trees, are dioecious, meaning each plant is distinctly female or male. Others, such as oak, pine, and fig trees are monoecious, meaning they have male and female flowers on the same plant. It’s easy to identify female trees or parts—they’re the ones with seeds. And yet more, such as hazelnut and apple trees, produce “perfect” flowers that contain male and female parts within a single blossom. But while both monoecious and male dioecious trees produce pollen, Ogren claims the latter are primarily to blame for our sneezes and watery eyes.

Pollen swirling in a puddle. Eli Christman/Flickr

Ogren has been talking about this botanical misogyny for over 30 years. After buying a house in San Luis Obispo with his wife, who suffers from allergies and asthma, Ogren wanted to get rid of anything on his property that might trigger an attack. He began examining the neighborhood, plant by plant, when he noticed something unusual: All the trees were male.

At first, he thought this pattern may just have been a strange quirk of one city. But when he studied frequently landscaped plants in other cities, he noticed the same thing: males, all the way down. “Right away I started realizing there was something weird going on,” he says. While tracking down the origin of this trend, Ogren stumbled upon perhaps the first trace of sexism in urban landscaping in a 1949 USDA Yearbook of Agriculture. The book advised: “When used for street plantings, only male trees should be selected, to avoid the nuisance from the seed.”

Urban forestry’s apparent sexism seems to boil down to our distaste for litter. The USDA reasoned that tiny allergenic spores are likely to be blown away by wind or washed away by rain, making pollen an easier civic task to manage than, say, overripe fruit or heavy seed pods that would need to be cleaned up by actual humans.

The preference indicated by the USDA recommendation is one element of the story—the other is something more tragic, from an arborial perspective. In the first half of the 20th century, lush, hermaphroditic, not-so-allergenic elm trees towered over many American streets. But in the 1960s, a virulent strain of Dutch elm disease, a fungal illness spread by the bark beetle, stowed away on a shipment of logs from Britain. The fungus wiped out some of American cities’ longest-lived trees and left many streets almost entirely devoid of green or shade. By 1989, an estimated 75 percent of North America’s 77 million elms were dead, according to The New York Times.

A trunk ravaged by the beetle-borne Dutch elm disease. Dr. Mary Gillham Archive Project/Flickr

City planners and landscapers repopulated the nation’s barren, sun-scoured streets, according to USDA guidelines, with more than 100 new varieties of maple clones, Ogren says, all male. Over the years, male willow, poplar, ash, mulberry, aspen, and pepper trees joined them. As these trees matured, they shed increasing quantities of pollen. Nurseries began selling more male plants, too, in part because it is easier to clone an existing tree than to wait for males and females to pollinate each other naturally. Now, it’s not just trees and shrubs, but ornamental plants sold in urban nurseries that skew male. “Botanical sexism runs deep,” Ogren says.

In a cruel kind of irony, if urban landscapers had prioritized female trees in the same way, neither pollen nor unsightly seeds or fruit would be much of an issue. “If they had done it the opposite and planted hundreds of female trees with no males, it would have been just as sterile and tidy, without any pollen,” Ogren says. “Female trees don’t make fruits or seeds if there are no males around.” A large tree will scatter the majority of its pollen within 20 or 30 feet from its roots, Ogren says, so relatively isolated female trees simply wouldn’t bear much fruit.

Another argument proffered against female trees is that certain ones can produce an unpleasant odor. For example, when a lady gingko tree is in heat, it produces an odor not dissimilar to rotting fish or vomit. Ogren cedes this point. But if a city planted only female gingkos, decreasing the chance of fertilization, there would be neither pollen nor its infamously noxious postcoital odor, he says.

Ogren sees gingko gametes as the far greater threat. Unlike almost every other plant, gingko trees produce motile sperm, capable of swimming in pursuit of germination. Where human sperm each have a single tail, or flagellum, gingko sperm have around a thousand. “Once the pollen gets in your nose, it will germinate and start swimming up there to get to where it’s going,” Ogren says. “It’s pretty invasive.”

The fan-shaped leaves of a male gingko tree. Not pictured: its motile sperm. Lotus Johnson/Flickr

To guide cities to plant less allergenic trees, Ogren developed the Ogren Plant Allergy Scale (OPALS). The scale rates plants from 1󈝶 based on their allergy potential. But while certain institutions, such as Ogren’s hometown of San Luis Obispo and the California Public Health Department, have consulted OPALS while landscaping new developments, cities have been generally slow on the uptake. “It’s much harder to make changes when everything is already planted,” Ogren says. “Nobody wants to cut down trees.” Instead, Ogren wants cities to replace dead or dying trees with low-allergy options, such as hawthorn, mountain ash, and serviceberry trees. In certain cases, such as around daycares and hospitals, Ogren advocates actively removing extraordinarily allergenic species such as male elder, yew, and mulberry trees. (For most people, urban allergies are a seasonal nuisance. But for vulnerable populations, such as children or adults with respiratory conditions, they can be much more serious—even deadly.)

Most of Ogren’s current battles are hyper-local. He recently walked by a children’s center in Santa Barbara where a massive Podocarpus tree (a 10 on OPALS) was planted by the entrance. “It had so much pollen that if you flicked your finger on a leaf, a huge cloud would spurt out,” Ogren says. “So now I’m in a fight with the city of Santa Barbara.” Ogren’s proposal isn’t to chop down the tree but to have it regularly cut back, which would slow pollen production. In comparison, female Podocarpus trees produce a fruit around the size of an olive—and are a 1 on OPALS.

Though the biology behind Ogren’s idea passes muster in the field of urban forestry, many experts shy away from his terminology. Paul Ries, the director Oregon State University’s College of Forestry, sees botanical sexism as just one arm of the larger, historical problem of lack of diversity in urban forests. “Anytime we plant an overabundance of one type of tree, whether it is a single species, a genus, or, in the case of so-called ‘botanical sexism,’ male trees, there are bound to be problems,” Ries says. He cites the downfall of species that were widely and homogeneously planted, such as Bradford pear and ash trees, the latter of which are fighting a losing battle against an invasive, wood-chomping beetle called the emerald ash borer.

Still, Ries believes Ogren is on to something, adding that he’d like to see more research on the unintended effects of over-planting male trees. “I just wouldn’t call it sexism. Ascribing a real-life human problem to the botanical world might seem like we’re trivializing what humans, particularly women, face,” he says.

Climate change will likely conjure more pollen clouds, more frequently. Jeremy Gilchrist

Terminology aside, the problem shows no signs of getting better. Unsurprisingly, climate change isn’t helping. According to a recent study in Lancet Planetary Health, the increase in extreme temperatures contributes to more potent allergy seasons. Summers come earlier and last longer, and certain species, such as cypress and juniper, have begun blooming again in the fall, Ogren says. In Durham, Lilley says he’s never seen anything as monumental as April’s pollen clouds in the city before. While it’s hard to say if the yellow sky was directly linked to climate change, pollenpocalypses will only become more and more common. It’s easy to see these clouds as freak occurrences—like a megadrought or superstorm—but they may be a sign of things to come.

Durham is far from the most pollen-polluted city in America. That superlative belongs to Tulsa, Oklahoma. (Durham ranks 67th, according to a 2018 report from the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America.). But Durham now has the unusual potential to radically diversify the makeup of its botanical residents, as the majority of its trees are approaching their twilight years. In the 1930s and 1940s, the city’s public works department oversaw a massive urban forestation effort that saw thousands of willow oaks planted within the city limits. Though they thrived for nearly a century, the oaks are reaching senescence. Under Lilley’s guidance, Durham has begun to reforest with a more diverse array of trees, including pines, maples, elms, dogwoods, and cherries.

Durham has no official guidelines for what kinds of trees can or will be planted, though the city does ban female gingkos. “The sex of the tree isn’t something we pay attention to,” Lilley says, adding that he hadn’t heard of the concept of botanical sexism. But he says Durham makes an effort to plant mostly monoecious trees, or ones with both male and female parts.

Ogren sexes trees wherever he goes he can’t help it. He recently visited Sacramento for a conference and saw a dozen cedar trees planted by the capitol building—all males. On a recent trip to London, he spotted a veritable forest of male sweet bay trees. He was asked to give a lecture on botanical sexism in Christchurch, New Zealand, where he spent the entire day hunting around the city for a single female Podacarpus totara tree (spoiler alert: males, the lot of them). “A big part of the problem is most people don’t know much about trees, and think, well, trees are good and no trees are bad,” he says. “But trees are just like people, they have a multitude of differences. Some trees are human-friendly, and some are just the opposite.”

Agile- AME-111 - History

Количество зарегистрированных учащихся: 20 тыс.

Участвовать бесплатно

This is the fifth course in the Google Project Management Certificate program. This course will explore the history, approach, and philosophy of Agile project management, including the Scrum framework. You will learn how to differentiate and blend Agile and other project management approaches. As you progress through the course, you will learn more about Scrum, exploring its pillars and values and comparing essential Scrum team roles. You will discover how to build, manage, and refine a product backlog, implement Agile’s value-driven delivery strategies, and define a value roadmap. You will also learn strategies to effectively organize the five important Scrum events for a Scrum team, introduce an Agile or Scrum approach to an organization, and coach an Agile team. Finally, you will learn how to search for and land opportunities in Agile roles. Current Google project managers will continue to instruct and provide you with the hands-on approaches, tools, and resources to meet your goals. Learners who complete this program should be equipped to apply for introductory-level jobs as project managers. No previous experience is necessary. By the end of this course, you will be able to: - Explain the Agile project management approach and philosophy, including values and principles. - Explain the pillars of Scrum and how they support Scrum values. - Identify and compare the essential roles in a Scrum team and what makes them effective. - Build and manage a Product Backlog and perform Backlog Refinement. - Describe the five important Scrum events and how to set up each event for a Scrum team. - Implement Agile’s value-driven delivery strategies and define a value roadmap. - Explain how to coach an Agile team and help them overcome challenges. - Conduct a job search for an Agile role and learn how to succeed in your interview.

Получаемые навыки

Coaching, Influencing, Agile Management, Problem Solving, Scrum


Agile methodologies especially Scrum are essential in tech and modern, big 'startup' like minded companies like Google, AMD, etc. This course lays down the foundation in an excellent way.

Learning agile project management has been a whole new learning experience for me. the opportunity provided by Google to get this knowledge is most appreciated.

The fundamentals of Agile

You will learn how the course is structured and explore the history, approach, and philosophy of Agile project management and Scrum theory. You will also learn why Agile is best suited to industries that are susceptible to change and how to differentiate and blend Agile approaches.


Google Career Certificates

Текст видео

Hi again. You may remember earlier courses in this program that provided an introduction to Waterfall and Agile project management methodologies. Now, we're going to get more in-depth and really expand your understanding of these popular approaches. In this video, I'm going to give you a brief history of Agile and introduce you to the Agile values and principles. And you'll learn that Agile can be and is used in lots of different industries. Ready? Let's get started. To quickly review, Waterfall is a popular project management methodology that refers to the sequential or linear ordering of phases. You complete one phase at a time, not proceeding to the next until it is done. Then you move down the line like a waterfall, starting at the top of the mountain and traveling to the bottom. The term "agile" refers to being able to move quickly and easily. It also refers to flexibility and the willingness and ability to change and adapt. Projects that adopt an Agile project management take an iterative approach, which means the project processes are repeated often many times during the life cycle of the project. In this case, the team operates within many shorter blocks of time, called iterations. Individual iterations might get repeated depending on the feedback received. During each iteration, the team takes a subset of all the project's activities and does all the work required to complete that subset of activities. You can think of it as a lot of mini waterfalls for each activity. This iterative approach enables the project to move quickly, as well as making it much more adaptive to change. So the term "agile" means flexibility, repetition, and openness to change, but what do we mean by Agile project management? Agile project management is an approach to project and team management based on the Agile Manifesto. The manifesto is a collection of four values and 12 principles that define the mindset that all Agile teams should strive for. So in very basic terms, Waterfall is linear and sequential and does not encourage changing up the process once it is started. Agile, on the other hand, is iterative, flexible, and incorporates necessary changes throughout the process. Now, a bit of a history lesson so you can have a better sense of how and why Agile has become such a popular approach to project management. Agile methodologies emerged organically during the 1990s as the software industry was booming. Software startups like Google were blazing a trail to get more software products built in less time. Meanwhile, the tech giants of the time were experimenting with faster ways to build better software and stay competitive. And, by the way, software isn't just the apps and websites that we all use every day. Software also includes the code behind innovations in agriculture, medical devices, manufacturing, and more. So in this competitive growing environment, companies couldn't just create new, innovative products. They also needed to innovate the very processes they were using to develop these new products. In 2001, the thought leaders and creators of some of these new processes, also called methodologies, came together to find common ground between their methods and solve a problem. The problem, they agreed, was that companies were so focused on planning and documenting their project that they lost sight of what really mattered: pleasing their customers. So these leaders came up with the Agile Manifesto to guide others on what they believe really matters when developing software, which is keeping the process flexible and focusing on people—both the team and the users—over the end products or deliverables. Now, here's where Agile gets even more interesting. You can still use Agile, even if you're not planning to work on software projects. Agile has been so successful in the software industry that its values, principles, and frameworks have been applied to nearly every industry. In fact, the Agile methods that you're going to learn also draw heavily on Lean manufacturing principles that originated in Toyota's car factories in the 1930s. You'll also find Agile methods being adopted in the aeronautical, healthcare, education, finance industries, and even more. Cool, right? Agile is everywhere. Now you know a little bit about the history of Agile, the origin of the Agile Manifesto, and some of the industries that use Agile for project management. Coming up next, we'll compare more of the differences between Waterfall and Agile to really familiarize yourself with these project management styles.

Lean Software Development

Lean Software Development method was originally created by Mary and Tom Poppendicks but is heavily based on Lean Manufacturing mainly by Japanese company Toyota. It focuses on lean, or simple and efficient methods, to deliver value to the customer and continuously improving the “value stream”.

Lean Software Development Principles

  • Eliminate Waste
  • Empower the team
  • Deliver fast
  • Optimize the whole
  • Build quality in
  • Defer decisions
  • Amplify Learning

More information on Mary and Tom Poppendicks website The Lean Mindset.

Kanban methodology promotes continuous collaboration within the team and continuous improving the workflow. Kanban originally came from the concept of Lean and is best known for the Kanban board which can be seen below.

Kanban 3 Principles

Rule #1: Visual Workflow
Rule #2: Limit Work in Process (WIP)
Rule #3: Measure and Improve
More information can be found on our post about Kanban and Leans relationship and history.

Agile Development: A Brief History

To understand Agile Development, you may have to go back to the 1950’s and Toyota’s lean manufacturing. Without going into a lot of detail, the basic idea of lean, kaizen, etc. is the idea of continual, iterative improvement. That’s really what Agile software development is all about. More about this later. Let’s start from almost ancient history – at least where software development is concerned.

Admittedly, I am a child of the 80’s when we were taught the basics of SDLC or the Software Development Life Cycle. As a computer science student and a young whippersnapper just coming up, I was intrigued and excited about a well-defined process that I could follow to develop software and deliver to my customer’s requirements and expectations. How could this go wrong? It was perfect. On paper that is.

Following the SDLC process, you meet with the customer (business users/stakeholders) and gather requirements and enter into a back and forth analysis of said requirements until you come to agreement with them, and the requirements are documented and written into a document that you can both assent to. Nicely outlined, annotated with supporting diagrams (entity-relationship, state, data flow, CRUD, etc.). Again, what could possibly go wrong? We all have our acts together. We have just spent 2-3 months meeting, documenting requirements, sweating over a hot terminal or workstation in Word, Visio, maybe ERWin, making sure that everything is sufficiently analyzed, diagrammed, outlined, and ultimately approved.

Mr. Business User is going to sign on the bottom line saying that this document represents what he wants. It’s a complete specification.

Let’s pause here for a sec.

Does anyone believe that the document under consideration specifies in its entirety and without reservation, the system the user wants to solve his business problem? Remember, this is not our first rodeo. We’ve been down this path before. Is there a clause in the document for change requests? Of course there is. Why are we already anticipating changes to a document and requirements that we have just spent 2-3 months laboring over to make sure we have covered all the bases and gotten everything just right?

Because it’s simply impossible to get it exactly right the first time. Change is inevitable. Sometimes it is because the business changes. This happens constantly. Sometimes it is because, even with great care being taken, the analysts may not get the requirements and specifications just right the first time.

This Waterfall methodology of requirements gathering and analysis, design, coding, testing, and implementation has proven to be ineffective in my own experience and to many others as well.

By the time you get to implementation several months or even years after beginning, the system may not be what the business expected, or the business has probably changed and the system needs to change with it.

The solution to this Waterfall problem is a set of software development methodologies that emphasize quick iterative development, working software, and frequent feedback from the customer and incorporation of change in the process. These methodologies are collectively called Agile software methodologies.

Although the roots of Agile may go back to the 50’s with Toyota and Test Driven Development with Project Mercury, things really began to pickup in the early 90’s with James Martin’s RAD (Rapid Application Development). Martin was well known for Information Engineering in the 80’s and 90’s. The idea of RAD was to reduce pre-planning and to quickly get into development, so the business could begin to collaborate right away with the development team by seeing a working prototype in just a few days or a couple of weeks.

Then things picked up in the mid-90’s with the advent of RUP (Rational Unified Process) and Scrum, followed by XP (Extreme Programming) in the late 90’s.

And then in 2001, the Agile Manifesto was written. From the Agile Manifesto website:

Manifesto for Agile Software Development

We are uncovering better ways of developing
software by doing it and helping others do it.
Through this work we have come to value:

Individuals and interactionsover processes and tools
Working softwareover comprehensive documentation
Customer collaborationover contract negotiation
Responding to changeover following a plan

That is, while there is value in the items on
the right, we value the items on the left more.

  • Kent Beck
  • Mike Beedle
  • Arie van Bennekum
  • Alistair Cockburn
  • Ward Cunningham
  • Martin Fowler
  • James Grenning
  • Jim Highsmith
  • Andrew Hunt
  • Ron Jeffries
  • Jon Kern
  • Brian Marick
  • Robert C. Martin
  • Steve Mellor
  • Ken Schwaber
  • Jeff Sutherland
  • Dave Thomas

© 2001, the above authors
this declaration may be freely copied in any form,
but only in its entirety through this notice.

Finally, even though Agile has its critics and is not a good fit for all software development projects, the methodologies have gained a strong hold in recent years. Agile has also been further legitimized with certifications from the PMI (Project Management Institute), the Agile Certified Practitioner (PMI-ACP)in 2011 and Scrum Alliance certifications like Certified ScrumMaster (CSM).

Pastor's Welcome Message

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of GOD, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to GOD, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of yor mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of GOD. Romans 12 NKJV

For our corporate worship, First AME Church: Bethel uses the Revised Common Lectionary as the scriptural basis for weekly worship. Please visit the link below to read the passages for the week.

18 Years of Agile Manifesto for Software Development #1: History by Jim Highsmith

In honor of the 18th anniversary of the Agile Manifesto for Software Development, where 17 amazing guys meet (now 16 alive, Salud to Mike Beedle) Agile Lounge™ want to mark this week with a blog or a vlog a day has the meeting happen back between February 11th to the 13th 2001. Alexandre Frederic, founder of Agile Lounge and author of the ScrumMaster Lounge Blog want to pay tribute by also asking the question : 18 years old – does that make agility mature enough in our world of work ? What is the state of the mindset. How much evolution or devolution happen since then.

Are Agilistas really agile in the culture of transformation ? How much of the people are creative vs reactive ? You will also see the begging of the Vlog series Agility GaGa to sarcastically and musically addressing those question and reflection that WE need as transformation agent with agility and agile culture and soi-disant practices.

Today, I would like to start the 18th anniversary with some history by reproducing the article of Jim Highsmith in English. Tomorrow will have the French version of this History of Agile, if our translators meet the sprint goal and will have some surprises along the week. So sit back, relaxe and enjoy the Agile Manifesto 18th anniversary Week on The Agile Lounge!

On February 11-13, 2001, at The Lodge at Snowbird ski resort in the Wasatch mountains of Utah, seventeen people met to talk, ski, relax, and try to find common ground—and of course, to eat. What emerged was the Agile ‘Software Development’ Manifesto. Representatives from Extreme Programming, SCRUM, DSDM, Adaptive Software Development, Crystal, Feature-Driven Development, Pragmatic Programming, and others sympathetic to the need for an alternative to documentation driven, heavyweight software development processes convened.

Now, a bigger gathering of organizational anarchists would be hard to find, so what emerged from this meeting was symbolic—a Manifesto for Agile Software Development—signed by all participants. The only concern with the term agilecame from Martin Fowler (a Brit for those who don’t know him) who allowed that most Americans didn’t know how to pronounce the word ‘agile’.

Alistair Cockburn’s initial concerns reflected the early thoughts of many participants. “I personally didn’t expect that this particular group of agilites to ever agree on anything substantive.” But his post-meeting feelings were also shared, “Speaking for myself, I am delighted by the final phrasing [of the Manifesto]. I was surprised that the others appeared equally delighted by the final phrasing. So we did agree on something substantive.”

Naming ourselves “The Agile Alliance,” this group of independent thinkers about software development, and sometimes competitors to each other, agreed on the Manifesto for Agile Software Developmentdisplayed on the title page of this web site.

But while the Manifesto provides some specific ideas, there is a deeper theme that drives many, but not all, to be sure, members of the alliance. At the close of the two-day meeting, Bob Martin joked that he was about to make a “mushy” statement. But while tinged with humor, few disagreed with Bob’s sentiments—that we all felt privileged to work with a group of people who held a set of compatible values, a set of values based on trust and respect for each other and promoting organizational models based on people, collaboration, and building the types of organizational communities in which we would want to work. At the core, I believe Agile Methodologists are really about “mushy” stuff—about delivering good products to customers by operating in an environment that does more than talk about “people as our most important asset” but actually “acts” as if people were the most important, and lose the word “asset”. So in the final analysis, the meteoric rise of interest in—and sometimes tremendous criticism of—Agile Methodologies is about the mushy stuff of values and culture.

For example, I think that ultimately, Extreme Programming has mushroomed in use and interest, not because of pair-programming or refactoring, but because, taken as a whole, the practices define a developer community freed from the baggage of Dilbertesque corporations. Kent Beck tells the story of an early job in which he estimated a programming effort of six weeks for two people. After his manager reassigned the other programmer at the beginning of the project, he completed the project in twelve weeks—and felt terrible about himself! The boss—of course—harangued Kent about how slow he was throughout the second six weeks. Kent, somewhat despondent because he was such a “failure” as a programmer, finally realized that his original estimate of 6 weeks was extremely accurate—for 2 people—and that his “failure” was really the manager’s failure , indeed, the failure of the standard “fixed” process mindset that so frequently plagues our industry.

This type of situation goes on every day—marketing, or management, or external customers, internal customers, and, yes, even developers—don’t want to make hard trade-off decisions, so they impose irrational demands through the imposition of corporate power structures. This isn’t merely a software development problem, it runs throughout Dilbertesque organizations.

In order to succeed in the new economy, to move aggressively into the era of e-business, e-commerce, and the web, companies have to rid themselves of their Dilbert manifestations of make-work and arcane policies. This freedom from the inanities of corporate life attracts proponents of Agile Methodologies, and scares the begeebers (you can’t use the word ‘shit’ in a professional paper) out of traditionalists. Quite frankly, the Agile approaches scare corporate bureaucrats— at least those that are happy pushing process for process’ sake versus trying to do the best for the “customer” and deliver something timely and tangible and “as promised”—because they run out of places to hide.

The Agile movement is not anti-methodology, in fact, many of us want to restore credibility to the word methodology. We want to restore a balance. We embrace modeling, but not in order to file some diagram in a dusty corporate repository. We embrace documentation, but not hundreds of pages of never-maintained and rarely-used tomes. We plan, but recognize the limits of planning in a turbulent environment. Those who would brand proponents of XP or SCRUM or any of the other Agile Methodologies as “hackers” are ignorant of both the methodologies and the original definition of the term hacker.

The meeting at Snowbird was incubated at an earlier get together of Extreme Programming proponents, and a few “outsiders,” organized by Kent Beck at the Rogue River Lodge in Oregon in the spring of 2000. At the Rogue River meeting attendees voiced support for a variety of “Light” methodologies, but nothing formal occurred. During 2000 a number of articles were written that referenced the category of “Light” or “Lightweight” processes. A number these articles referred to “Light methodologies, such as Extreme Programming, Adaptive Software Development, Crystal, and SCRUM”. In conversations, no one really liked the moniker “Light”, but it seemed to stick for the time being.

In September 2000, Bob Martin from Object Mentor in Chicago, started the next meeting ball rolling with an email “I’d like to convene a small (two day) conference in the January to February 2001 timeframe here in Chicago. The purpose of this conference is to get all the lightweight method leaders in one room. All of you are invited and I’d be interested to know who else I should approach.” Bob set up a Wiki site and the discussions raged.

Early on, Alistair Cockburn weighed in with an epistle that identified the general disgruntlement with the word ‘Light’: “I don’t mind the methodology being called light in weight, but I’m not sure I want to be referred to as a lightweight attending a lightweight methodologists meeting. It somehow sounds like a bunch of skinny, feebleminded lightweight people trying to remember what day it is.”

The fiercest debate was over location! There was serious concern about Chicago in wintertime—cold and nothing fun to do Snowbird, Utah—cold, but fun things to do, at least for those who ski on their heads like Martin Fowler tried on day one and Anguilla in the Caribbean—warm and fun, but time consuming to get to. In the end, Snowbird and skiing won out however, a few people—like Ron Jeffries—want a warmer place next time.

We hope that our work together as the Agile Alliance helps others in our profession to think about software development, methodologies, and organizations, in new– more agile – ways. If so, we’ve accomplished our goals.

How to write user stories

Consider the following when writing user stories:

  • Definition of “Done” — The story is generally “done” when the user can complete the outlined task, but make sure to define what that is.
  • Outline subtasks or tasks — Decide which specific steps need to be completed and who is responsible for each of them.
  • User personas — For Whom? If there are multiple end users, consider making multiple stories.
  • Ordered Steps — Write a story for each step in a larger process.
  • Listen to feedback — Talk to your users and capture the problem or need in their words. No need to guess at stories when you can source them from your customers.
  • Time — Time is a touchy subject. Many development teams avoid discussions of time altogether, relying instead on their estimation frameworks. Since stories should be completable in one sprint, stories that might take weeks or months to complete should be broken up into smaller stories or should be considered their own epic.

Once the user stories are clearly defined, make sure they are visible for the entire team.

Other Agile development life cycle approaches

Extreme Programming (XP)

Based on the five values of communication, simplicity, feedback, courage, and respect, XP is a framework that aims to produce a higher quality of life for the development team, as well as a higher quality product, through a collection of engineering practices. These practices are:

  • The Planning Game
  • Small Releases
  • Metaphor
  • Simple Design
  • Testing
  • Refactoring
  • Pair Programming
  • Collective Ownership
  • Continuous Integration
  • 40-hour week
  • On-site Customer
  • Coding Standard


Crystal comprises a family of Agile methodologies that include Crystal Clear, Crystal Yellow, and Crystal Orange. Their unique characteristics are guided by factors such as team size, system criticality, and project priorities. Key components include teamwork, communication and simplicity, as well as reflection to regularly adjust and improve the development process. This Agile framework points out how each project may require a tailored set of policies, practices, and processes to meet the project’s specific characteristics.

Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM)

DSDM is an Agile methodology that focuses on the full project lifecycle. It was created in 1994 after users of the Rapid Application Development (RAD) wanted more governance and discipline to this iterative way of working. Based on eight principles , its philosophy is ‘that any project must be aligned to clearly defined strategic goals and focus upon early delivery of real benefits to the business.’

It promotes the use of the following practices so that it can offer best practice guidance for on-time, in-budget delivery of projects:

  • Facilitated Workshops
  • Modelling and Iterative Development Prioritisation
  • Time boxing

DSDM is designed to be independent of, and can be implemented in conjunction with, other iterative methodologies.

Feature-Driven Development (FDD)

FDD is a lightweight iterative and incremental software development process. With an objective to deliver tangible, working software in a timely manner, it is an Agile methodology that entails specific, very short phases of work, which are to be accomplished separately per feature.

Its development process is established on a set of best practices with a client-value aim. The eight best practices are:

    1. Domain Object Modeling
    2. Developing by Feature
    3. Component/Class Ownership
    4. Feature Teams
    5. Inspections
    6. Configuration Management
    7. Regular Builds
    8. Visibility of progress and results

    Agile methodology best practices

    It’s always handy to know how to do things best. Here are seven things you and your team should be doing when implementing any type of Agile methodology:

    Customer collaboration

    One of the core values stated in the Agile Manifesto, customer collaboration is a vital part of Agile methodology. Through consistent communication with the development team, the customer should always be aware of the progress, and the combined effort will result in a higher quality product.

    User Stories

    A tool used to explain a software feature from an end-user perspective, the purpose of a User Story is to create a simplified description of a requirement. It helps to picture the type of user of the product, what they want, and the reason(s) for it. A common User Story format that is used is:

    As a [role], I want [feature], because [reason].

    Continuous Integration

    Continuous Integration (CI) involves keeping the code up to date by producing a clean build of the system a few times per day. With a rule stating that programmers never leave anything unintegrated at the end of the day, it enables the delivery of a product version suitable for release at any moment. What CI seeks to do is to minimize the time and effort required by each integration.

    Automated tests

    Performing automated tests keeps the team informed about which of the code changes are acceptable, and whether or not a functionality is working as planned. Regression tests are run automatically before work starts.

    Pair programming

    Programming in pairs aims to enhance better designs, less bugs, and a sharing of knowledge across the development team. One of the least-embraced Agile programmer practices, it involves one programmer ‘driving’ (operating the keyboard), while the other ‘navigates’ (watches, learns, provides feedback). The roles can be rotated.

    Test-driven development (TDD)

    TDD aims to foster simple designs and inspire confidence. Instead of a process where software is added that is not proven to meet requirements, it is a method based on the repetition of a very short development cycle where requirements are turned into test cases, and then the software is improved to pass the new tests.

    Burndown charts

    A burndown chart is a graphical representation of the work that is left to do versus the time you have to do it. Using one as part of your Agile project management plan enables you to forecast when all the work will be completed. A detailed burndown chart will also include the amount of User Stories per unit of time.

    Agile methodology is an effective process for teams looking for a flexible approach to product development. No longer exclusive to the software industry, it can be implemented to any business venture that requires a non-linear plan of attack that also needs to value customer collaboration, effective teamwork, responsive changes, and of course, quality results.

    How has agile methodology improved your team’s way of working? Don’t forget to share your tips with us!

    Watch the video: Digital Culture Ame 111 - Final Project Video Documentation