Johnathan Kohl last Tuesday wrote on his blog about the word “Agile”. He compiled a ton of different but related ideas: all about the word “Agile” and what it might mean. What I think he’s saying — and, in fact, showing — is that “Agile” (capital “A” or not) is like a box of chocolates: (at this point) you never know what you’re gonna get.

My friend, Christian Baudin and I are working on a project together, and I would admit that “it’s cool” to call our project agile (we, at this point, have no idea whether we’re calling it capital “A” Agile, just agile, or anything at all). Looking at our de-facto process — the possibly-unamed thing we simply fell into to — may just be called chaos. However, I would admit that, from a student’s perspective, being able to have “agile” as an experience — and possibly as a resume builder — is pretty alluring.

On the other end, Christian and I continually argue, hammering out whatever kinks stand in our way. We see these arguments as good things and we value them. However, I’m finding that, when relating our concerns to the Agile Manifesto, mine are more to the left where his are more to the right (read this as different; not degrading). I think, if I were to make some intuitive guess, we’re both arguing for a middle ground — to allay both concerns — and to come out with a project that satisfies all involved. If that happens — if our chaos actually works — then is there a need to coin it some way?

I’m sure that, because the programming team, the testing team, the marketing team, the sysadmin team, and the (you name it) team, are just Christian and I, our concerns can be ironed out in a short amount of time. This is how we manage it. I’d guess that a larger project with more people may need a totally different type of choas, because the project in itself is different. This is what I’d call context-driven (which I think might become the next “Agile”).

Although I’d hate to admit that a term with so much spotlight — that is so dear to people’s professional hearts — may be a marketing term, I don’t see any other reason to make a name for it. Yes, we need a word we can all use in our professional lingo — in order to communicate — but as Jonathan’s post makes clear (at least, makes clear to me; I’m inferring), any word that could have money behind it will. It’s like looking through a phone book and seeing “Reliable, Dependable, and Trustworthy.” Or, maybe, pulling a card from a hat. Or eating a chocolate.

An ending question: Could “Agile” be a description given to a process (or group) by a third-party, or a very large mass of people? For instance, take the word humble: I can never trust a humble man who states to others, “Yes, I am a humble man,” just as I can’t trust a company who states to customers, “Yes, we’re agile.”