On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:01, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >But what I mean is that all of the Toxic TLAs > and FLAs were very "agile" products, they were created specifically > because there was flexibility where there shouldn't be.
I understand where you're going with this, I really do, but I think your use of "agility" in this context is just wrong, as I don't subscribe to "agile" being the same as "flexible." Just like SOA is a complex entity, so is Agility; it's not project management, it's not software development, it's not a testing framework, it's not a business model ... it's all of them, wrapped up in one. Just like if you think SOA is a "large network of webservices", you're equally screwed up about Agile being "flexible around schedules and less meetings." > Put it this way. A train isn't agile, it goes from A to B. Adding > "Agility" by letting it leave the rails and go onto the road (while > not actually changing the train so its just an unguided missile) is a > different example of adding Agility to "rapidly" cope with the > competition from the roads. The end result is a massive train wreck > that is explicitly caused by the breakdown of oversight and governance > and the unchecked addition of "agility" to the system. Wow! A train made entirely out of straw! :) > This is exactly what has happened with the credit crunch. Banks > rapidly added more "agile" products that responded quickly to market > demands and enabled them to deal more flexibility with things like > lending money to people who couldn't pay it back (What else are those > CDO things?). Bzzzt! Sorry, but this is not "being agile" as much as "being stupid." This is Banking 101; don't lend money to people who can't pay it back. They can call it "being flexible" all they want, but it's just plain stupid, nothing more. > The stimulus was both market demand and the perception > that property prices would continue to rise, the reaction was very > agile and very rapid. Again, there's nothing agile about greed and stupidity. Sorry mate, but you just can't convince me that what they were doing in any way was agile; 1. This was investing in a poorly held assumption about what the future holds (market values) long term, while agility talks about adapting to the Now. 2. The "flexibility" only went one way (the banks were flexible to *give* the loan, but not flexible when the loan didn't get paid back). 3. This is not so much a financial breakdown as it is a banking sector breakdown foremost. Unfortunately we're all tied into that sector, showing us again how we need to be decoupled and not rely on proprietary channels. :) > So in summary: Agility isn't always a good thing. Actually, I'll go the other way and claim that Agility is always a good thing, except for certain people types. And, of course, you need to know what Agile means outside of "flexible." :) > Making things be > agile that shouldn't be causes problems and risk and is a stupid thing > to do. Sometimes rigidity is the right way to go about it and saying > no and having a set way to work is the right thing. No one should claim to be Agile when they don't know what it means. I think we can say the same about SOA, that if you don't know what it entails, please don't do it as you will get your ass burned. Just like the financial markets, don't agree to a sub-prime loan if you don't know what it is. (And knowing what something is = being smart) regards, Alex -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps ------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------
