The boss comes into the IT guy's office and says "Hey, Joe, we've got a new line of business starting up and we really need to be able to do this new thing, X."
Joe simply says, "Sorry, Boss, that can't be done."
So, the boss goes down the hall to the development manager and says "Hey, Nancy, we've got a new line of business starting up and we really need to be able to do this new thing, X."
Nancy says, "Absolutely, Boss. We can do anything. It'll take us six months to plan, two years to develop, and another several months of user acceptance testing."
The boss goes back to his office and begins writing his resignation.
the only thing constant is change." I'm a futurist at heart, so there's no deep insight for me in the constancy of change. The best quote I've heard about change is that "change is great because every time something changes it means you're one step closer to getting it right." That's a bit of paraphrasing and it assumes that we're primarily concerned with "good" change, of course. The point stands: if you believe that change is a good thing, then it's natural to embrace it rather than fight it.
Classic waterfall methodologies focus on defining specifications ahead of implementation so that the risk of change can be avoided. That level of contractual thinking drives unnecessary conflict, especially in business intelligence projects. One of the things we've learned through experience is that we can't know what we don't know. Naturally, the needs being addressed by a business intelligence solution will change over time as more insight is delivered to decision makers. If we already knew what the outcome was, then there wouldn't be a need for the project. Business intelligence is about discovery.
One of the core principles from the Agile Manifesto is "customer collaboration over contract negotiation" and "responding to change."
I've worked with a number of teams that grow increasingly frustrated over changes that end users make in business logic. ETL developers sometimes get so fed up with change and being forced to rewrite code over and over that they feel they should stop writing any code until "the users decide what they want!" Those developers haven't recognized that every time they change their code, they're enabling the users to understand what it is that they want. They're facilitators, not just implementers.
So, agile BI is at least as natural a fit as agile application development. Probably even more so. For BI developers to be agile, though, they have to embrace change. They have to facilitate rather than resist change.