4 ms·

You're not wrong, but all those software methodologies aren't meant for the teams of very good developers, because they don't need them, but for the large major

• Silhouette 9y ago
  Right, so the effectiveness of any particular methodology when applied by a team of very good developers isn't particularly useful information. What would be more useful is knowing whether the same methodology brings significantly better results when adopted by a team of average developers when compared to whatever they were doing before. I'm agreeing with k__ here.
  • Nuzzerino 9y ago
    It's not so black and white like that. You could have very good developers on a team with a mediocre "scrum master" or manager, who could conceivably become less productive because of it, despite best efforts to make it work. You can disagree, but I've seen it first-hand.
    • Silhouette 9y ago
      A bad manager can typically do far more damage than any individual member of a team, but IME it's unlikely that people who are good are going to stick around for long if they're being managed by a moron, whatever that moron's oh-so-trendy job title may be. A team of developers good enough to figure out a working process for any given job without management holding their hands has plenty of better options. That aside, surely the more interesting scenario is still the reverse of the one you described: can good management leading average developers get better results from those developers by adopting certain working practices?
• k__ 9y ago
  I think the problem is if you got a mixed bag. part of the team needs it, the rest is going crazy because of it...