I think one's assessment of the manifesto is largely dependent on how generously you read it.
> Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
needs to be read in conjunction with:
> while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more
Which means I can interpret it a way that is true, but not that interesting.
That is, I believe that a great developer with crappy tools will produce better software than a crappy developer with great tools
But I'm not sure what that really tells me other than "hire great people".
I guess, to some extent, it means "if the process says I should do X, but the team thinks it's a bad idea, then I should listen to them", but even that's is not a necessary conclusion from the statement.
In the non-software world, you only need to spend a little bit of time looking at workplace deaths to see that many of them are caused by teams that decided to ignore safety protocols.
Ultimately the only thing I really take from the agile manifesto is that doing the exact opposite is bad, but so what?
I don't want to ever work in development team that:
- Thinks that "following a process" trumps "investing in good people"
- Prioritizes writing documentation for software rather than making it work
- Has watertight contracts but ultimately disappoints the customer
- Sticks to "the plan" even when it's obvious that the circumstances have changed.
"Individuals and interactions" is not saying "hire good people", although I can see why you could read it that way. I've always understood it to be saying, "Get people together in a room and talk and figure out what to do", instead of "rigidly follow an arbitrary process".
For example, let's say that we did some project planning a month back, which says that we should start on a certain new project tomorrow. Everyone on the team is grumbling and no longer feels like that's a wise expenditure of resources. What should we do? Stick to our goal and follow the process, or get people together, work it out, and set new goals? Agile is saying, especially when you consider other bullets like "Responding to change over following a plan", that people subscribing to the Agile Manifesto value getting individuals together, collaborating, and responding to change more than following their plan.
> Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
needs to be read in conjunction with:
> while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more
Which means I can interpret it a way that is true, but not that interesting.
That is, I believe that a great developer with crappy tools will produce better software than a crappy developer with great tools
But I'm not sure what that really tells me other than "hire great people".
I guess, to some extent, it means "if the process says I should do X, but the team thinks it's a bad idea, then I should listen to them", but even that's is not a necessary conclusion from the statement. In the non-software world, you only need to spend a little bit of time looking at workplace deaths to see that many of them are caused by teams that decided to ignore safety protocols.
Ultimately the only thing I really take from the agile manifesto is that doing the exact opposite is bad, but so what?
I don't want to ever work in development team that:
- Thinks that "following a process" trumps "investing in good people"
- Prioritizes writing documentation for software rather than making it work
- Has watertight contracts but ultimately disappoints the customer
- Sticks to "the plan" even when it's obvious that the circumstances have changed.
But I didn't need a manifesto to tell me that.