6 ms·

Show HN: An addendum to the Agile Manifesto for the AI era

7 points by brackishman 6mo ago

I'm a VP of Engineering with 20 years in the field. I've been thinking deeply on why AI is breaking every engineering practice, and it led me to the conclusion that the Agile Manifesto's values need updating. The core argument: AI made producing software cheap, but understanding it is still expensive. The Manifesto optimizes for the former. This addendum shifts the emphasis toward the latter. Four updated values, three refined principles, with reasoning for each. Happy to discuss and defend any of it.

stevenalowe 6mo ago
The proposal elevates team learning above delivering working software, which is contrary to the point of any programming job. Expect to be fired, a lot.
9rx 6mo ago
> I'm a VP of Engineering ... Happy to discuss and defend any of it. The original Agile Manifesto abolishes VP roles. Are these amendments an effort to try and save your job?
- zufallsheld 6mo ago
  I'm curious: where exactly does it abolish VP roles? I don't see it.
  - 9rx 6mo ago
    The whole thing? That is what Agile Manifesto, and the associated 12 principles, is about: A thought experiment about flat organizational structures. Each of the 12 principles outline the things one needs to consider when they don't have a manager taking watch. Where you find a VP, Agile isn't applicable. At least not in its entirety. It it is likely that you can still cherry-pick some ideas from it to apply to your non-Agile situation. "Do your manager's job for them" is often considered common wisdom after all.
    - brackishman 6mo ago
      You must have worked in some very unhealthy teams where psychological safety wasn't present. I'm sorry that happened. But don't confuse your experiences with that of everyone else's. There are lots of teams that are agile from the top down, including those that happen to hold a title with VP in the name.
      - 9rx 6mo ago
        No, words in a document do not change by an unrelated party having living some kind of experience. Not even if that experience is negative.
- brackishman 6mo ago
  Don't distract. I'm genuinely trying to help us figure out how to build quality software, using AI, while avoiding all the problems we're seeing on so many teams.
  - 9rx 6mo ago
    No distraction. Genuine question. The whole point of the Agile Manifesto is to encourage removal of VP and similar roles from an organization; turning to a flat organizational structure. What motivates you, a VP, to latch onto that? How do you think that will help (with or without amendments)? Do you, perhaps, think in the age of AI your org will be better off if you 'step down' into a development/AI steerer role?
    - brackishman 6mo ago
      I was around when the agile manifesto was drafted. It wasn't about eliminating hierarchy in organizations. That's something that started happening later, around and after 2010. The agile manifesto was singularly focused at helping people see how to deliver software without leaning on the old waterfall methodologies.
      - win311fwg 6mo ago
        The Agile Manifesto was published in 2001. You asserted earlier your software career began in 2006. What brought you to the Wasatch Mountains at that time when you had no ties to the industry? Winston Royce, in his book, invented the waterfall methodology as a hypothetical of what not to do in order to help explain his core thesis. It is not a real thing. Why do you suggest the Agile Manifesto was created to help avoid leaning on a strawman?
smackeyacky 6mo ago
It’s pretty obvious that Agile as practiced in most places is a failure, only highlighted by how fast coding has become. The problem it tries to solve was always the wrong one. It has become obvious that it isn’t the speed of iteration it’s the crappy requirements most organisations generate. This is because your average BA or project manager have long gotten away with blaming programmers for missed deadlines. If you’ve worked both sides of the fence you know the users only vaguely know what they want, the BA role is essentially an incredibly lazy one (I made a wrong ticket but nobody knows it’s wrong until UAT so who gives a fuck about making them right). No matter how your sprint is organised or how many stupid ceremonies you insist on, if you can’t be arsed doing the hard work of specification the whole process is pointless. I truly hope AI starts doing 100% of the coding so that the tide properly goes out on this farce.
- Kim_Bruning 6mo ago
  Oh, my impression is that there's many iterative approaches to writing code (and doing other things besides). All of them work for a while, and then either someone "simplifies" out the iteration part, or in some way they render the iterative part toothless. Basically you end up with something resembling a cargo cult, with all the rituals still there, but the tightly coupled feedback loop is missing. Quick question: There's some sort of minor UAT ~once a week (or per whatever your cycle is), RIGHT? And then you find out umpteen things wrong (with the software and with the specs) , and you fix them; RIGHT? If you have an actual commissioning or final UAT at the end of your project, it's just a formality with cake RIGHT? Else how is that even agile? :-P
  - smackeyacky 6mo ago
    I yeah, I’m holding it wrong that’s the problem. Agile suffers from the “no true Scotsman” fallacy to a massive extent. If the methodology was any good nobody would be arguing whether they were doing it wrong or not. My contention is not “holding it wrong”, my contention is that it’s irredeemably flawed because the nature of it puts 99% of the actual (not fabricated) work and responsibility solely on developers, making the project manages and BA useless noise you have to fight just to get anything finished.
disrael 6mo ago
I like what you've done but doesn't Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software. need changing also? I think the software needs to be delivered early and continuously, but not necessarily to the customer in production. Delivering directly to the customer made sense when there was much less software in the world and nearly anything you made was useful. These days the last thing customers need is more half baked software to have to evaluate.
jamiemallers 6mo ago
[dead]
svilen_dobrev 6mo ago
this new "understanding" priority reminds me of : "... This means the speed of the project is proportional to the speed at which information moves between people's heads. Every obstacle to detecting and moving information between heads slows the project. Understanding and attending to this issue is essential to playing the game effectively. ..." from Alistair.Cockburn's 2004 "The end of software engineering and the start of economic-cooperative gaming " - https://web.archive.org/web/20140329202313/http://alistair.cockburn.us/The+end+of+software+engineering+and+the+start+of+economic-cooperative+gaming https://web.archive.org/web/20140329202313/http://alistair.c... Even then , coding is not mentioned.. What do you think of it?

7 points by brackishman 6mo ago

stevenalowe 6mo ago

The proposal elevates team learning above delivering working software, which is contrary to the point of any programming job. Expect to be fired, a lot.

9rx 6mo ago

> I'm a VP of Engineering ... Happy to discuss and defend any of it. The original Agile Manifesto abolishes VP roles. Are these amendments an effort to try and save your job?

zufallsheld 6mo ago
I'm curious: where exactly does it abolish VP roles? I don't see it.
- 9rx 6mo ago
  The whole thing? That is what Agile Manifesto, and the associated 12 principles, is about: A thought experiment about flat organizational structures. Each of the 12 principles outline the things one needs to consider when they don't have a manager taking watch. Where you find a VP, Agile isn't applicable. At least not in its entirety. It it is likely that you can still cherry-pick some ideas from it to apply to your non-Agile situation. "Do your manager's job for them" is often considered common wisdom after all.
  - brackishman 6mo ago
    You must have worked in some very unhealthy teams where psychological safety wasn't present. I'm sorry that happened. But don't confuse your experiences with that of everyone else's. There are lots of teams that are agile from the top down, including those that happen to hold a title with VP in the name.
    - 9rx 6mo ago
      No, words in a document do not change by an unrelated party having living some kind of experience. Not even if that experience is negative.
brackishman 6mo ago
Don't distract. I'm genuinely trying to help us figure out how to build quality software, using AI, while avoiding all the problems we're seeing on so many teams.
- 9rx 6mo ago
  No distraction. Genuine question. The whole point of the Agile Manifesto is to encourage removal of VP and similar roles from an organization; turning to a flat organizational structure. What motivates you, a VP, to latch onto that? How do you think that will help (with or without amendments)? Do you, perhaps, think in the age of AI your org will be better off if you 'step down' into a development/AI steerer role?
  - brackishman 6mo ago
    I was around when the agile manifesto was drafted. It wasn't about eliminating hierarchy in organizations. That's something that started happening later, around and after 2010. The agile manifesto was singularly focused at helping people see how to deliver software without leaning on the old waterfall methodologies.
    - win311fwg 6mo ago
      The Agile Manifesto was published in 2001. You asserted earlier your software career began in 2006. What brought you to the Wasatch Mountains at that time when you had no ties to the industry? Winston Royce, in his book, invented the waterfall methodology as a hypothetical of what not to do in order to help explain his core thesis. It is not a real thing. Why do you suggest the Agile Manifesto was created to help avoid leaning on a strawman?

smackeyacky 6mo ago

It’s pretty obvious that Agile as practiced in most places is a failure, only highlighted by how fast coding has become. The problem it tries to solve was always the wrong one. It has become obvious that it isn’t the speed of iteration it’s the crappy requirements most organisations generate. This is because your average BA or project manager have long gotten away with blaming programmers for missed deadlines. If you’ve worked both sides of the fence you know the users only vaguely know what they want, the BA role is essentially an incredibly lazy one (I made a wrong ticket but nobody knows it’s wrong until UAT so who gives a fuck about making them right). No matter how your sprint is organised or how many stupid ceremonies you insist on, if you can’t be arsed doing the hard work of specification the whole process is pointless. I truly hope AI starts doing 100% of the coding so that the tide properly goes out on this farce.

Kim_Bruning 6mo ago
Oh, my impression is that there's many iterative approaches to writing code (and doing other things besides). All of them work for a while, and then either someone "simplifies" out the iteration part, or in some way they render the iterative part toothless. Basically you end up with something resembling a cargo cult, with all the rituals still there, but the tightly coupled feedback loop is missing. Quick question: There's some sort of minor UAT ~once a week (or per whatever your cycle is), RIGHT? And then you find out umpteen things wrong (with the software and with the specs) , and you fix them; RIGHT? If you have an actual commissioning or final UAT at the end of your project, it's just a formality with cake RIGHT? Else how is that even agile? :-P
- smackeyacky 6mo ago
  I yeah, I’m holding it wrong that’s the problem. Agile suffers from the “no true Scotsman” fallacy to a massive extent. If the methodology was any good nobody would be arguing whether they were doing it wrong or not. My contention is not “holding it wrong”, my contention is that it’s irredeemably flawed because the nature of it puts 99% of the actual (not fabricated) work and responsibility solely on developers, making the project manages and BA useless noise you have to fight just to get anything finished.

disrael 6mo ago

I like what you've done but doesn't Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software. need changing also? I think the software needs to be delivered early and continuously, but not necessarily to the customer in production. Delivering directly to the customer made sense when there was much less software in the world and nearly anything you made was useful. These days the last thing customers need is more half baked software to have to evaluate.

jamiemallers 6mo ago

[dead]

svilen_dobrev 6mo ago

this new "understanding" priority reminds me of : "... This means the speed of the project is proportional to the speed at which information moves between people's heads. Every obstacle to detecting and moving information between heads slows the project. Understanding and attending to this issue is essential to playing the game effectively. ..." from Alistair.Cockburn's 2004 "The end of software engineering and the start of economic-cooperative gaming " - https://web.archive.org/web/20140329202313/http://alistair.cockburn.us/The+end+of+software+engineering+and+the+start+of+economic-cooperative+gaming https://web.archive.org/web/20140329202313/http://alistair.c... Even then , coding is not mentioned.. What do you think of it?