3 ms·
The gaping vulnerability in the traditional ad-hoc waterfall approach is management is constantly interrupting work in progress and changing the priorities, the
by snorkel 16y ago
The gaping vulnerability in the traditional ad-hoc waterfall approach is management is constantly interrupting work in progress and changing the priorities, then wondering aloud why nothing ever seems to get done.
Agile is certainly worth the bureaucratic hassles it adds because agile protects developers from the tyranny of ever-changing priorities. At the start of each iteration (every 4 weeks or so) the management team must agree that these issues, and only these issues, will be the entirety of what the team works on for that iteration, no exceptions, no additions, no interruptions. A good management team will respect that agreement and protect the team from interruptions.
- PotatoEngineer 16y agoThis can be solved simply by explaining to your management that Change == Things Will Be Late. If your management can't understand this, then it's unlikely that they'll be able to commit to Agile, anyway.
- loewenskind 16y agoBut using Agile allows you to show this in concrete terms. Waterfall uses the "man hours/months/years" metric which is useless given the difference in productivity between developers. Agile, on the other hand, shows the output that is occurring on average, i.e. what you're realistically going to get. What I tell people is: what do you want? Do you want to never be told no, but never get what you were promised? Then use waterfall. Do you want to usually get what was promised, but be told you can't have what ever you want? Then use Scrum.