I would characterize the phenomenon I experienced in NYC as differentiating between two levels in which Agile can be applied. Some folks/organizations apply it strictly as a set of best practices for developing software. Others have figured out the connection between Agile and innovation and are intentional about encouraging affordable experiementation for innovation. Over time many of the “strictly best practices for software development” folks are likely to re-discover the power of affordable experimentation and migrate toward the {experimentation –> innovation–> business value} approach.

My impressions from talking with various media folks is that they most definitely bridge the gap between the editorial process and the technical/Agile process. Their synthesis of these two processes has various attributes particular to the media business. However, it is not different in essence from reconciling Agile with established portfolio management or life-cycle management processes in software companies.

Israel

These are very interesting observations from your experience with that group; thank you for sharing.

My interpretation is that for these organizations there is a divide between projects whose experimentation is allowed for cost-cutting purposes v. those whose experimentation cannot occur for governance reasons. Is that how you understood their adoption of Agile?

Did you get a sense that there was a faction represented at the event which felt that their organization’s adoption of Agile could organically bridge this divide through progressively successful adoption of Agile on more and more of their activities?

Or, did you sense that the most energetic members of their organizations – those attending this event – do not believe that their organization could ever bridge this divide?