4 ms·
I'm not sure about that - a methodology necessarily makes assumptions about what is important in running a software project. If a methodology says that you mus
by singular 16y ago
I'm not sure about that - a methodology necessarily makes assumptions about what is important in running a software project.
If a methodology says that you must write everything down on cards and pair program, etc. etc. as the fundamental basis of the approach, and that is really ultimately counter-productive to the efficient running of a project, then you could quite fairly describe the approach as 'bad', or at least faulted.
It's a question of whether it helps or gets in the way.
Also, you can really only take good parts of it if the people executing it don't start themselves seeing it as somewhat religious - if they feel we should 'do agile' and that means following it as written down, then they're unlikely to be open to cropping bad pieces off.
- jacquesm 16y agoIt sounds as though you've already made up your mind ;)
- singular 16y agoWell, I'm certainly biased to think it a fad, yes, thanks to Stevey's post! But I do wish to contend that a methodology is not just a tool and inevitably has some sort of a dogma attached to it, well it seems that way to me anyway :-)
- jacquesm 16y agoIt seems to me that way too. But I think that there are shops that get good mileage out of agile, even if not for the reasons they think they are. For the most part, agile shines if you had no organization in place at all, then it is easy (low entry barrier) to get going and to see an immediate improvement. But when comparing agile to any other SDM it's just another tool in the box and not spectacularly better or worse than any other.