This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from http://jaftalks.com/. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under both the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license and the GNU Free Documentation License. You may use either or both licenses. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by OTRS volunteers, under ticket number 2010051210011893. Note: Permission has been granted to incorporate content from this website under these licenses, but contributors to the article may determine through consensus whether content so incorporated is appropriate for inclusion. This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia Open Ticket Request System (OTRS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-enwikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission.
This article is too unscientific. It mostly regurgitates non-scientific professional literature, while ignoring relevant research. I'm going to add some research. If any agilisits out there take offence at my changes, please read the research before reverting anything.Paul Ralph (University of Auckland) (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Please note that this content has been moved (rather than deleted); it is not significant enough in its own right to warrant being in the lead / lede paragraph. Also, the link you posted is to content behind a paywall; it's a bit hard if other editors are challenged to read this before they can challenge this edit. As it happens, my masters research topic was whether Agile Transformation worked or not, in which I referenced a paper by Dingsøyr which argued that agile practices do in fact help. I will reach out to you offline to suggest meeting up to discuss (as we know each other). Davidjcmorris Talk 02:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I never said that agile practices were devoid of benefits. There is, for example, evidence that Scrum increases productivity. I said there's no evidence that they increase agility. There are no validated measures of team agility, and you can't demonstrate a causal relationship on a dependent variable you can't measure. The fact that all these practices are called "agile" without anyone ever demonstrating that they increase agility is possibly the most important thing you could know about agile. It's like pfizer selling "cancer drugs" that don't fight cancer, or "anti-virals" that don't kill viruses. It's a "productivity practice" that doesn't increase productivity. It is very common on Wikipedia to point out the lack of scientific evidence supporting a thing in the introduction. And you don't get to discount research that's published behind a paywall. Paul Ralph (University of Auckland) (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Can you clarify:
* What are you meaning by agility? Common uses included: Hypothesis driven experimentation, trying out ideas on a small scale. Early delivery of value (whether to customers / end-users or to the product owner / development team). Fast feedback to uncover change early and avoid too much investment in scope not required. The ability to absorb change without causing additional cost, by dropping lower priority scope. Etc. There is evidence that this happens.
* What you mean by scientific evidence? As Popper and others have said, it is hard to scientifically prove a hypothesis; so a theory should stand until there is evidence that disproves it. There is, however, an abundance of research in this field, following a wide range of research methodologies. Which methodologies would you regard as scientific and which not?
Incidentally, the research was not questioned, but rather the insistence that people read it before challenging the edit. The offer to discus the article and points raised in person still stands (I have emailed you separately about this). Davidjcmorris Talk 01:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)