Responding To Change

The Confederation of computing illuminaries have issued a statement. It seems they got their heads together about what they valued in the AgileRevolution and among other things, they declared:

Responding to change over following a plan

This seems reasonable, but what does it mean? Responding to change in what? It would seem that in order to respond to change, one must have already established a direction or goal, whether stated or not, whether formal or informal, whether documented or not.

How does one begin to respond to change without a plan? The statement is one of preferences, of valuing one approach over another, not the replacement of planning or documentation. After all, if anyone can be described as a follower of a plan, it is a programmer or an architect. Knuth and Alexander being premier examples of each. What is common in both? They set down in writing in the form of books just what it is that makes up their profession and some structure and sense to it.

Responding to change is not anarchy, the following of some mystic sense of what is best or right, absent any guidance or schedule, but rather the recognition that factors not foreseen justify a departure and adaptation of the FirstPrinciples? to accommodate and work around the factors which have altered the working scenario. The recognition that the idea of WhatIsNeeded? and HowToPerform? has changed and that the ApproachToSolution? and ProcedureToCompletion? has changed, and that one must respond.

It is not blind, unswerving devotion to a mantra that is needed, but thoughtful, decisive and deliberate attention to the matters at hand. Something has changed in the Need and one must respond with changed Performance, differing approach and focus on successful completion.

One responds to change by altering the organizational approach, not by throwing out the approach (aka the plan). To take a RandomWalk towards a solution without RulesOfOrder and effective SoftwareChangeManagement is ProjectSuicide?. Particularly in the case of large, interdependent human endeavors. Not having a SingleThreadOfGuidance? other than Salutations, EmptyHeadedRepetitions?, and following of the FadOfThePresent? will probably lead to disaster when one attempts to invent the NextBigThing, the AllInOneSolution?, WishfullyOrJointlyAgreedUpon? even when it is understood to be a NearlyImpossibleGoal?. Goals are achieved by mindful selection and application of people, resources and rational approaches which measure success in increments. When changes occur which can not be anticipated and when the change has more than a local impact, the change (response) one takes must account for and be communicated among and coordinated with AllWhoAreAffected?. One cannot take the NotInventedHere approach and deal only with MattersAtHand?, especially if WhatsDoneHere? has an ImpactOnOthers?. -- AnonymousOnPurpose

Yeah, they should use some sort of, I don't know, game. Where they do planning, like a PlanningGame or somesuch. Maybe even do a little design on cards before they sit down and code. But only crazy people would do that.

RespondingToChange in my mind is not a conflict over values so much as a statement of principles. In other words, the plan is there to serve me; I am not here to serve the plan. I believe in planning. And when something unexpected happens, or when a contingency occurs that does not fit the plan, then the plan needs to change. I do not change reality in order to fit the plan. Rather, I rethink and recast the plan in order to fit reality.

Eisenhower: "In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable."

CategoryConcurrencyPatterns CategoryMethodology