Do some people translate the Agile Manifesto incorrectly?
Firstly, for clarification the Agile Manifesto promotes,
We value customer collaboration over contract negotiation.
We value individuals and interactions over processes and tools.
We value working software over comprehensive documentation.
We value responding to change over following a plan.
Does this suggest that we do not value what is on the right? Or does it mean that we do indeed value what’s on the right but we just value what’s on the left more. If so, we could rewrite this as follows,
We value contract negotiation but we value customer collaboration more.
We value processes and tools but we value individuals and interactions more.
We value comprehensive documentation but we value working software more.
We value following a plan but we value responding to change more.
With this in mind, is the Agile Manifesto really promoting that we must ensure bureaucracy, bottlenecks, waste, and low business values and activities do not introduce unnecessary compromise?
Here are examples when considering the Agile Manifesto,
"We cannot build a service without processes and tools however, we can ensure that such processes and tools are designed to offer value directly or indirectly for the customer and the provider, and equally designed to ‘cash-in and case-out’ faster, more efficiently, and more dynamically."
"We cannot build a service without documentation however, we can ensure that such documents are designed with simplicity and practicality in mind, ensuring that they are easily accessible, accurate and credible."
"We cannot build a service without a plan however, we can ensure that we are prepared to adjust and/or change such plans in order to respond to changing requirements accordingly."
"We cannot build a service without negotiating contracts/agreements however, we can ensure that such contracts/agreements are designed to promote a culture of working collaboratively without limiting, restricting or suffocating common-sense and not to mention, the application of intelligent disobedience, and identifying innovative solutions."
The ITIL® 4 guiding principle “think and work holistically” also plays a part here, e.g., not just thinking of the parts but the whole, meaning services are end-to-end therefore, we should think and act end-to-end!
In conclusion, we should ensure that we are all working from the same page within the workplace therefore, it is important we define things that are in context and meaning within our organisation.
On a final note, in terms of how we define things in the workplace, are we just copying and pasting the textbook without putting into context and meaning within our workplace? If not, then where is our glossary, in fact, where is our internally branded service management book?