I like models. And especially models of the world. Because they are so different. And everyone has their own, based on a lifetime of experiences, values and beliefs. After all, these pigeonholes and simplifications make it much easier for us to get through the complexity of the world. To penetrate everything in epic depth over and over again leads to stagnation.
And all models have one thing in common: Everyone is right in his. Everything is logical and explainable, why it is like this or like that - until two world models collide. In the best case, both come out of the discourse smarter, have adjusted their models and happily go their way. In the worst case - and the media and Facebook feeds are full of them right now - there is hating, ranting and hitstorming. You're stupid, I'm right.
Common perceptions
And sometimes the experiences and world models fit well together. We are in agreement. At least some of them. We agree on these commonalities and make standards and frameworks out of them. We put timeboxing, planning and retros into Scrum - that has proven itself. We like to paint a horizontal figure eight in DevOps - this shows the flow. The ISTQB test process gets seven activity groups. And we typecast our employees as sharks or dolphins or put them in colorful pigeonholes.
But not everyone likes that either. Some want to adapt models and try out new things. Are they allowed to do that? Is that agile or can it go away?
No rules
Reed Hastings, founder and CEO of Netflix, writes in his book "No Rules Why Netflix is So Successful" about how his company has successively abolished all internal rules. In combination with a high talent density and an intensive feedback culture, Netflix is in top form. If you read it, you'll notice there's agility all over the place, too. But my software QA heart is a bit triggered: So, no rules at all? Nothing at all? Pfff ... In the end, Reed unties the knot in my head: If the focus is on innovation, that means: no rules, leading by context, a lot of freedom, self-responsibility, feedback, making mistakes.
On the other hand, if the focus is on preventing mistakes, it means: processes and rules, leading by control, a lot of guidelines.
Another model that I will think about for a few more loops.
Acceptance and diversity
I wonder if Reed Hastings is right. For Netflix, maybe. Is agile something for every company and every troop? Probably not. Is it okay to do things differently? Absolutely.
Instead of believing that we've learned our lesson by the spoonful, and then loudly reciting it to ourselves, it would sometimes do us good to listen more carefully and just be quiet for a while.
Allowing everyone to have their own model of the world helps me personally and helps the companies I work with. I can tolerate much more quickly and in a more relaxed way when the other person doesn't want what I want. I often succeed. But not always by a long shot - I'm only human.
But instead of swinging the "that's the way it's done" advice club, we can start looking for suitable solutions.
But that is also just my model ...