We intentionally did not conduct this effort as an Open Space or other format that would favor certain personality types. Instead, we used a range of collaboration methods, so that we could accommodate everyone’s style.
Participants were selected: participation was not open. A LinkedIn post solicited participation, but people were selected based on specific criteria. The primary criteria for inclusion were,
- One must not be heavily invested in the status quo.
- One must have demonstrated independent thinking.
Additional important considerations were that we wanted to have,
- Diversity – of culture and gender.
- A range of skills and experience, covering the important issues that organizations face when they attempt to use Agile methods.
Our experience categories were, Leadership, Org change, Behavioral psychology, Lean product design, Engineering, Programming, DevOps, and Agile. We also sought to have representation from the disciplines of program management, in both an Agile and traditional context, and also professional coaching.
Our work is not an academic or scientific effort. We did not employ experiments or controls. Like the original Agile Manifesto, our effort is a practitioner-based attempt to leverage our combined experience and range of skills. Thus, our results are based on our professional experience and judgment, and reflect a group consensus – one that is informed by extensive experience applying Agile methods in a range of contexts.
Our process was to first discuss the state of Agile. This resulted in a set of “key ideas,” which are labeled as retrospective “problems” or “insights” depending on the nature of the insight. These key ideas led to discussions on these problems, and we identified additional insights. The problems and insights led to a set of principles. In the description of each principle, the retrospective “problems” and “insights” that led to the principle are listed under the principle.