3 ms·

At this point we should probably agree to disagree on some of these finer points. But I do think that you are tending to blame agile for what really sounds lik

At this point we should probably agree to disagree on some of these finer points. But I do think that you are tending to blame agile for what really sounds like poor management. Management wants to see what progress is being made, so they use burndown graphs. Development, as you point out goes through spurts, except for the most basic tasks. So to management it can look like there is no progress being made. What I'm trying to point out is that trying to divide the problems into as small of a set of isolated components as possible may help get to a solution. But that doesn't say your wrong. It might take months of time to find that solution, the problem is you need to explain to someone over that time what you're doing, otherwise the money and project will be cut. This is where it can be good to try things out and show what you've learned over that time, this is important for managing up.

p4wnc6 11y ago
I agree with this, except that I think in the presence of Agile what you are calling "poor management" is the norm, largely because of Agile and the way it structures thought and planning. I think it's very important to make that distinction, so that people stop defending Agile as if it wasn't to blame. When a tool is politically subverted by management and results in this problem over and over almost everywhere it is used, it's time to just admit it's mostly the tool's fault for not having codified ways of avoiding that management subversion. Basically, what I'm looking for in an engineering process is one that raises engineering concerns above manager and executive political concerns. In any organization you always have a struggle over who gets to use the phrase "business priority" -- do engineers get to say that the engineering work is the priority, or do managers get to say that political circumstances are the priority? Agile makes it easier for managers to promote political concerns while at the same time acting and talking as if they promote engineering concerns more. I'm perfectly happy being shown real business evidence about the cases when the engineering concerns are not primary -- but Agile offers ways for managers to never provide such evidence, to keep people busy generating more and more progress metrics that give them more political surface area with which to manipulate. I guess you could say this is just "poor management" but then I think we'd have to agree that 99.9%+ of management is "poor management" because this all repeats itself constantly in organizations of all ages, sizes, and stripes. And Agile is a hallmark indicator of such a dysfunctional engineering culture.
- bluejekyll 11y ago
  Politics... is there anything that prevents that other than working at a company that is too small for them to exist? For me Agile is the least bad solution, it's definitely not ideal, and it's a million times better than Waterfall. > agree that 99.9%+ of management is "poor management" I'm not sure about the percentage, but good managers are rare.

p4wnc6 11y ago

I agree with this, except that I think in the presence of Agile what you are calling "poor management" is the norm, largely because of Agile and the way it structures thought and planning. I think it's very important to make that distinction, so that people stop defending Agile as if it wasn't to blame. When a tool is politically subverted by management and results in this problem over and over almost everywhere it is used, it's time to just admit it's mostly the tool's fault for not having codified ways of avoiding that management subversion. Basically, what I'm looking for in an engineering process is one that raises engineering concerns above manager and executive political concerns. In any organization you always have a struggle over who gets to use the phrase "business priority" -- do engineers get to say that the engineering work is the priority, or do managers get to say that political circumstances are the priority? Agile makes it easier for managers to promote political concerns while at the same time acting and talking as if they promote engineering concerns more. I'm perfectly happy being shown real business evidence about the cases when the engineering concerns are not primary -- but Agile offers ways for managers to never provide such evidence, to keep people busy generating more and more progress metrics that give them more political surface area with which to manipulate. I guess you could say this is just "poor management" but then I think we'd have to agree that 99.9%+ of management is "poor management" because this all repeats itself constantly in organizations of all ages, sizes, and stripes. And Agile is a hallmark indicator of such a dysfunctional engineering culture.

bluejekyll 11y ago
Politics... is there anything that prevents that other than working at a company that is too small for them to exist? For me Agile is the least bad solution, it's definitely not ideal, and it's a million times better than Waterfall. > agree that 99.9%+ of management is "poor management" I'm not sure about the percentage, but good managers are rare.