Facilitating the Spread of Knowledge and Innovation in Professional Software Development

Write for InfoQ


Choose your language

InfoQ Homepage News Is Post-Agile Just Agile?

Is Post-Agile Just Agile?


There's been some discussion lately about Post-Agile.

For some people this is simply the inevitable "What's Next" that follows adoption. This is the same urge that causes people to ask what will come after Java, or what comes after usability.

For others, Post-Agile means following the base principles of agile methods without following any one method to the letter, adopting those practices that work for you and your team and leaving the rest behind. This is what Jonathan Kohl, Tim Beck and Jason Gorman are talking about. And, in fact, it's not far off from some of the concepts that Michael Hugos is talking about in the 30-Day Blitz

After digesting some of the post-agile commentary, J. B. Rainsberger questions whether Post-Agile, as described above, is simply Agile:

Being agile requires adapting the process to local conditions, so I can't understand why adapting the process to local conditions would be something other than agile. I hope stating it that way makes the fallacy apparent.

He argues that Agile is not one, or a set of dogmatic processes:

What I dislike about Kohl's post-agile formulation is that it assumes that agile is the worst way it's practiced: thoughtlessly. That is not agile; and Kohl's conception is not post-agile. It might be post-bad-agile or post-dogmatic-agile, but what he calls post-agile is really just agile.

So, does Post-Agile mean anything to you, or does it just sound like Agile? For more coverage of either, stay tuned to InfoQ.

Rate this Article