Formal vs Agile?

I have been reviewing the MSF lately, and it would seem that the MSF distinguishes non-Agile processes as "formal" processes. I am wondering out loud whether that is a good choice of terms? It seems to imply, by comparison that an Agile process is an informal approach to software development. If that is an intended distinction, then I think that the MSF is missing the point.

Stealing the following definitions from answers.com (via google, tyvm),

1. 1. Relating to or involving outward form or structure.
   2. Being or relating to essential form or constitution: a formal principle.
2. 1. Following or being in accord with accepted forms, conventions, or regulations: had little formal education; went to a formal party.
   2. Executed, carried out, or done in proper or regular form: a formal reprimand; a formal document.
3. 1. Characterized by strict or meticulous observation of forms; methodical: very formal in their business transactions.
   2. Stiffly ceremonious: a formal manner; a formal greeting; a formal bow to the monarch.
4. Having the outward appearance but lacking in substance: a formal requirement that is usually ignored

I think that 1, 2, and 3a can all apply equally well to Agile methods. You might agree if you have ever:

• had a scrum master that calls you into line for straying from the daily scrum format
• executed (or tried to execute) test-driven design
• refactored in the way that Martin Fowler suggests -- baby steps, always getting back to a working system as soon as possible.

I cynically think of waterfall as 3b or 4.

If I were trying to distinguish, I would choose agile vs. rigid.

Comments

[Greg Vaughn]

Just today I blogged (first time in a long time) about a fundamental principle of Agile methods. I definitely agree that formal isn't the term to contrast it with. To put it in those sorts of terms, it seems agile is best contrasted with "delayed validation".