On methodologies and people

I’ve lost count of how often I’ve heard people ask whether agile methods or RUP-based methodologies are better. The discussion always takes at least half a day and almost always turns into a proper flame war. It’s a waste of breath because people are nearly always dug into their positions. Have you ever stopped to think about why we introduce methodologies in the first place?

I think the main reason is that we need to manage something as complicated as software development. In most of the cases I’ve seen, the inputs were a final deadline, a list of required features and a number of developers. The difference between methodologies is how they handle those inputs. Many managers and developers fall for the idea that an “agile,” “lazy,” or “purple” methodology can make a difference on its own.

It’s like having a football team. If you’ve got a bunch of people who play for the beer afterward, you’re unlikely to win the Champions League, no matter how brilliant the tactics you hand them. It goes the other way too. Rounding up the best players in the world guarantees nothing. At Chelsea, flush with oligarch Roman Abramovich’s money, they know a thing or two about that. You need the right mix every time. That means top players, the right tactics, often tailored to the next opponent, and of course that little bit of luck everyone calls for.

Overrating or underrating either people or methodologies often ends in what football would call an own goal. To bring a project to a successful finish, you need people who click personally and professionally, and you need a methodology that fits them. Sometimes we get so fixated on one or the other that we forget this. Let’s try to remember.