Many words have been spoken and written about the comparison between Agile and Agile 2. In my opinion, the most insightful analysis comes from Cliff Berg’s article<\/em><\/a>, which precisely delves into this subject. Berg points out that Agile 2 recognizes the success of Agile in shifting its focus from big plans to small teams. However, he critiques Agile 2 for dismissing leadership, structure, and individual differences while lacking emphasis on data and information. Agile 2 positions itself as a pivot from Agile, drawing insights from two decades of experiences, both successes and shortcomings. Its goal is to contribute positively to Agile thinking and tackle the challenges of Agile transformation, ultimately aiming for organizations to achieve genuine agility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For a quick overview, here are the key points in a nutshell: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Agile<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

\n
• Extreme Thinking:<\/strong> Agile is criticized for having an unidirectional push towards more collaboration and face-to-face interaction, with less focus on individual deep thinking and getting work done.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
• Scrum Dominance:<\/strong> The Agile community is often perceived as a slave to Scrum, with organizations believing they have to start with Scrum, influenced by Scrum training and certification vendors’ marketing.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
• Lack of Judgment:<\/strong> Agile is portrayed as lacking judgment, being a set of ideas rather than a methodology, and sometimes interpreted as dogmatic and extreme.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
• Team-Centric Culture:<\/strong> Agile has developed a culture overly focused on teams, neglecting the importance of individuals in the process.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
• Limited Leadership Styles:<\/strong> The emphasis on self-organizing teams may overlook the need for various forms of leadership, leaving gaps in mentorship, coaching, and professional growth for individuals.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
• Data Oversight:<\/strong> Agile neglects the strategic importance of data, with teams often failing to manage and catalog data for later analysis.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

  Agile 2<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

  \n
  • Balanced Thinking:<\/strong> Agile 2 brings back balance and judgment, advocating for a more nuanced approach rather than extreme thinking. It aims to address the drawbacks of rigidity and extremes present in Agile.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Diverse Leadership:<\/strong> Agile 2 stresses the need for multiple forms of leadership, recognizing the importance of individual attention, growth, mentorship, and opportunities for professional development.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Individual Focus:<\/strong> Agile 2 emphasizes that while teams matter, individuals also matter, bringing back the focus on individual contributions and recognition.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Data Management:<\/strong> Agile 2 acknowledges the strategic importance of data, advocating for its proper management and cataloging to derive insights. It addresses the oversight of data in Agile practices.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Understanding Data Model:<\/strong> Agile 2 suggests that development teams need to understand an organization’s data model before coding, ensuring a comprehensive approach to data in the development process.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Importance of Test Data:<\/strong> Agile 2 recognizes the significance of test data, highlighting the challenges teams face in creating realistic test data and the role of business stakeholders in assembling it.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

    To put it in a more schematic way, an apple to apple comparison table between Agile and Agile 2 based on the essential pieces highlighted in Cliff Berg’s article. (Just to make sure you have quick access to the Agile 2 principles, you can find them here<\/a><\/em>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Aspect<\/th>	Agile<\/th>	Agile 2<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
    Thinking Approach<\/strong><\/td>	Extreme thinking, unidirectional push<\/td>	Balanced thinking, restoration of judgment<\/td><\/tr>
    Relationship with Scrum<\/strong><\/td>	Often perceived as a slave to Scrum<\/td>	Acknowledges the dominance of Scrum, but calls for a nuanced approach<\/td><\/tr>
    Methodology vs. Philosophy<\/strong><\/td>	Regarded as a set of ideas, lacking judgment<\/td>	Recognized as a philosophy, emphasizes judgment and thoughtfulness<\/td><\/tr>
    Focus on Individuals<\/strong><\/td>	Team-centric culture<\/td>	Emphasis on both teams and individuals<\/td><\/tr>
    Leadership Styles<\/strong><\/td>	Emphasis on self-organizing teams, limited leadership styles<\/td>	Stresses the need for diverse leadership, recognizing individual needs<\/td><\/tr>
    Data Oversight<\/strong><\/td>	Neglects the strategic importance of data<\/td>	Acknowledges the strategic value of data, addressing its proper management<\/td><\/tr>
    Understanding Data Model<\/strong><\/td>	Often expects teams to start coding without understanding the data model<\/td>	Advocates for teams to comprehend an organization’s data model before coding<\/td><\/tr>
    Test Data Importance<\/strong><\/td>	Often expects developers to create test data without realistic sets<\/td>	Recognizes the importance of realistic test data, emphasizes business stakeholder responsibility<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>