I agree. I think the most balanced and healthy relationship between the customer and the vendor is that of friendship and the ensuing trust. The slave/master or master/slave relationship may also work, but cannot be sustained.

While gathering requirements saying “no” is indeed necessary sometimes, while still being something so problematic to say, so “sweeteners” may be useful. A possible low-level idea is to clearly classify priorities as ABC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_management#ABC_analysis) It will put requirements in the A bucket – functionality that must be delivered, B – nice to have or easy to do tasks(colours or other aesthetic changes are usually belittled but have such a deep impact in user experience) and C – items that break the design or the GUI or are not really necessary. In practice releases in agile iterations will naturally be delivered with all As, most Bs and no Cs. The customer will quickly get the message when something is classified as C, still seeing the relationship as honest and assertive but in a non-violent way

In the world of software development if not business in general, there is really no place for religious belief because it conflicts for the need to take a pragmatic approach actually deliver because thedomain is riven with uncertainty and lacking much in the way of scientific laws.

I think if you look again at the Agile manifesto you see a underlying theme of pragmatism, rather than zealotry.

The mere fact you talk about a “crisis of faith” and rely on arguments based on authority (the holy writ of Alistar Cockburn and co) rather than argument based on logical or empirical evidence show that your “crisis of faith” is actually a good thing and derives from your own inate intelligence and common sense.

Sadly the most religious comment in your blog is the reference to canaries,

“Done properly it highlights what a whole organisation needs to change to make itself better. It is “the canary in a coal mine“.

This is so much like the thinking of many religious cults, we are the true believers and the rest of the world doesn’t accept us or works against our true faith because we they are unworthy.

Agreed. For me there is little argument against the benefits of agile. Indeed, as you know, I am one who believes that it can be applied in any situation. The key is to keep ones mind on the ultimate objective, to become more agile. Unfortunately, particularly in large organisations, it would require too great a leap of faith. Therefore a first step approach needs to be considered.

I look to focus on the war, the odd battle lost on the way will seem less significant later on.

Glad I read this :O)

Paul

http://www.scrumalliance.org/articles/41-am-i-or-am-i-not-using-scrum-that-is-the-question

http://www.scrumalliance.org/articles/123-top-ten-organizational-impediments

And some from elsewhere:

http://www.infoq.com/news/2008/07/interruption-driven-development

http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1392832

http://bx.businessweek.com/leading-organizational-change/view?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stickyminds.com%2Fsitewide.asp%3FFunction%3DWEEKLYCOLUMN%26ObjectId%3D15329%26objecttype%3DARTCOL

I hint at “flexibility in approach” where I touched on Agile. I did have a point to make too about “full-spectrum” involvement, assuming you mean getting every stakeholder and contributor in the team from the beginning, rather than something to do with Sir Clive ;)

However, the main point I was driving at is the danger of “Agile beginners” damaging the brand. I agree that one should not be “overly doctrinaire”, there’s a balance, having a structure and benefitting from it. The primary benefit being predictability and a close second visibility, IMHO.