Agile Manifesto - Part 3

Note that this is a third installment of a 4-part discussion of the Agile Manifesto.  I recommend that you read Part 1 and Part 2 before reading this post.

The third value of Agile is: "Customer collaboration over contract negotiation".  This value gets to the core of the relationship between customer and vendor and is in my experience one of the hardest hurdles to overcome.  It is difficult because in order for Agile to be successful, the parties involved must genuinely trust each other.  While clearly there must be some sort of contractual document that spells out expectations, most traditional statements of work are so couched in protective language and so definitive in every specification that there is no room for innovation, creativity, or responsiveness to the legitimate evolution in the understanding of the overall software solution.  Much of this is fear-based.  Vendors fear that without iron-clad definitions around scope, requirements, and assumptions, the customer will force the vendor to do more work than was planned without cost or schedule concessions.  Customers, on the other hand, fear that these same definitions are tactics by the vendors to only do the minimum amount of work, regardless of whether the solution will meet the customer's business needs.  So, in the end, the contract negotiation process becomes a battle to assuage mutual fear and distrust by relying on the complexities of designing what is not yet understood and establishing delivery expectations that ultimately do not serve either party's interests.

So how does this apply to the process of doing theology?  One answer to this question is to view the "contract" as a metaphor for the heavy-handed use of dogmatics as a tool to protect orthodoxy.  While none of us can come to theology with a blank slate (nor would that be desired if it were a possibility), it is important to always check the impulse to reject out of hand a proposition simply because it strikes us as foreign, contradictory, or even heretical.  People engaged in refactoring theology must have the freedom to explore any thoughts brought to the table without the fear of being shut down by arguments that appeal to either authority or tradition in a fallacious manner.  This can be a difficult thing to put into practice, especially if discussing closely held beliefs, but it is essential if we are to separate the myth from the kerygma.

Another application of this value is by interpreting "contract" as social contract.  Any practice, even refactoring theology, runs the risk of morphing from a means of change to an intransigent dogma.  Those of us working in a refactoring theology model must be open to the evolution and adaptation of this very model as its process and practices mature and grow.  If a strong social contract develops that constrains people from fully engaging in the questions before them, if sacred cows block the asking of any question, then the value of refactoring theology has been removed.

Refactoring theology must always feel a bit dangerous.  If any of us become too comfortable with the process, then we're probably not doing it right!  But to engage with others in such a "dangerous" activity, there must be an atmosphere of collaboration and trust between those engaged in the discussion.  Even where there is disagreement, the welfare and value of the person, the preservation of the bonds of trust, must always be maintained.  If any "contract" disenfranchises one or more members of the refactoring theology discussion, the discussion should stop and the group should reflect on what caused the breakdown of community and trust.  Once this is resolved, the work can then begin again.