-
The more you try and practice Agile the less agile you become. And vice versa
This Agile has a capital A. It can also have a lower case a, in which case it is an adjective, to be lean/nimble but that’s not what I’m talking about. Agile with a capital A is a noun, a name used for the philosophy described in the the Manifesto for Agile Software Development and the suite of methodologies primarily used for software development such as SCRUM and Extreme Programming.
Tim’s post on Agile as a ‘Cargo Cult’ highlights a problem in the adoption of Agile, not only for software development but for creative and business processes. Everyone is trying to adapt to a rapid and disruptive world screwing with business models in every category. Organisations are looking to close the gap with nimble digital start-ups who are out-innovating them at a fraction of the cost-base. Agile seems to offer a well-packaged magic ability to compete in a new way.
Unfortunately, a lot of confusion happens between being Agile as an adjective and a noun. Without understanding both, without the philosophy of being nimble and the processes of an Agile methodology, failure is assured.
At it’s best Agile is fluid and rigorous, it can be more controlled and structured than a waterfall project but open to adaption and change. There is a necessary tension between the rigour on one side and it’s resistance to codification on the other so the more you try and practice Agile the less agile you become.
When it comes to adoption lots of people suffer from the McLuhanesque mistake of appropriating the shape of the previous medium as the content for the next (props to Scott McCloud). In this I mean that they try to fit some of the rhetoric of agile around their existing people, culture, process and tools. This normally happens in one of two ways:
-
Tear down this wall! Crowdsourcing comes of age
Hello. I’m Sara and I joined Made by Many last month. My forte is content, so it seems appropriate that my first post should be all about conversation… specifically the two conversations that go with just about every digital project.
Never simple, is it?
The first of these is all about the customers, the people for whom we’re building this product or service. This conversation is pretty user-centric: essentially, what do they need? What are their problems, and how can we help solve — or at least minimise — them?
Then there’s a second conversation — the behind-the-scenes, creative-type stuff about how things actually work. What functionality do we offer? Do our user stories tell the whole story, and does it have a happy ending? What about typeface and layout? And finally, how the hell do we iterate this beast? Read full post
-
“Get Excited And Make Things”
That’s the line that unpacks ‘Planning-ness‘ – an ‘un-planning’ conference held recently in San Francisco.
The idea of “making” things as a way of exploring ideas and developing and articulating strategy is close to our hearts at Made by Many and Planning-ness sounds like a veritable Festival of Awesomeness. I’d love to go next time.
But it was this provocative deck by Jason Oke and Gareth Kay that got us really excited. It’s about the failure of ‘Connections Planning’, the discipline’s historical context, and what it seems to be mutating into – or at least needs to turn into in order to continue mutating.
As someone who is not a planner of any description and doesn’t even work in advertising, I’m not sure I am that entitled to talk about it – although that’s never stopped me before.
It feels like we (the MxM ‘we’) have lots in common with the kind of problems Jason and Gareth are trying to solve, and with the agenda of Planning-ness in general. We come at these problems from a slightly different set of perspectives: Interaction Design, Service Design and Agile Methodologies, but everything is converging – seemingly even our job titles, what we do, and certainly the industries we work in.
Here’s the deck, below. I’ve also picked out some of the highlights (from our MxM perspective). I’m hoping it will provoke a debate inside our company about what we do and how we talk about it – and so, I’m not going to comment too much right now.
I’m also hoping to write something more about the ways we’ve been working experimentally with BBH in very integrated teams on some projects. Mixing what BBH call Engagement Planning up with Interaction Design and Software Development, all within a broadly Agile process, has been really rewarding – and is very relevant to ideas Jason and Gareth set up in Connections Planningness.





-
Pulling Off The Optimal Platform Job
Another week, another blog post on the subject of “why creative advertising folk need to embrace ‘technologists and their geeky ways’” once again ignites vigorous debate.
The post in question is by Joe Mele, VP Client Partner at Razorfish, and received a great many comments and a huge number of re-tweets of the @BBHLabs‘ tweet that contained a link to it. The citizens of Twitter seem to react with a combination of self-loathing and schadenfreudian glee to the disruption that social technologies are wreaking on advertising. It’s a little bit dull and frankly misses the point – and it wasn’t quite (I don’t think) what Joe was saying.
Of course, how advertising responds to the digital challenge is a roasting hot topic. Joe’s blog post quotes a recent article from Ad Age provocatively titled ‘Agencies Need To Start Thinking Like Software Companies’ that talks about hybrid creative techies bringing digital know-how to Madison Avenue. If only it were that easy. It seems overly simplistic to claim that everything will be okay if they hire in some digital savvy, perhaps even ‘developers’ – let them attend client meetings and, you know, even help out with creative ideas and stuff.
Unfortunately, I think it’s a lot more complex than that – and whilst I totally agree with everything Barbarian Group Co-founder Rick Webb, says in the Ad Age article, I’m not convinced he *totally* nails it either:
What they should have been taking away all of this time — and have increasingly begun to — are the concepts of the constant beta and agile development. Marketers need to abandon the time-limited campaign online and start to think of it as a constant application of a rigorous discipline.
Rick’s completely right about needing an agile, adaptive, evolutionary approach, but I’m starting to believe that you need more than that to deliver the kind of long-term living platforms and platform-campaigns – and value – that clients need and agencies must get better at creating. I’m starting to believe you need four things, the first two of which are well-known and increasingly often quoted:
