3 ms·
It's important to remember the historical context for Agile. Agile grew up and started where there was Waterfall. From that viewpoint of Agile != Waterfall, it
by Glide 11y ago
It's important to remember the historical context for Agile. Agile grew up and started where there was Waterfall. From that viewpoint of Agile != Waterfall, it is a step forward.
There will always be resentment towards agile. There are too many botched attempts at making a methodology work from well-meaning but inept individuals that have effected lives and workplaces.
What's insane is the marketing around Agile and more specifically Scrum.
- zenogais 11y agoThis is just not historically accurate at all. There was a wide variety of methodologies before agile came along - Spiral, Cleanroom, OOP, TSP, RAD, RUP, et al. These are not all waterfall - waterfall was never really a prescribed method of development, see [1]. Many of these methodologies have proven track records and some even have fairly strong empirical support. The resentment isn't resentment - it's people who have actually used something other than Agile listening to this made-up history and the catastrophizing of up-front planning, and seeing it for the nonsense it is. Agile isn't right for many or even most organizations, and it's failure doesn't seem like the problem of a good idea bungled in the wrong hands. Just very inexperienced people suckered in by good marketing into picking an inferior tool. All that being said there are many good things about agile. It's helped bring a human focus into the industry, and introduced some decent ideas. For a fairly balanced look I'd see [2]. [1]: https://leanpub.com/leprechauns https://leanpub.com/leprechauns [2]: http://www.amazon.com/Agile-The-Good-Hype-Ugly/dp/3319051547 http://www.amazon.com/Agile-The-Good-Hype-Ugly/dp/3319051547