4 ms·
Nope, don't understand the trade offs if you're suggesting scrum is slower than waterfall. That just doesn't line up with my experience. "Results may vary," tho
by nickelcitymario 8y ago
Nope, don't understand the trade offs if you're suggesting scrum is slower than waterfall. That just doesn't line up with my experience. "Results may vary," though.
The issue I've had with every other project management approach is the illusion of structure. I'm not an expert on all or any approach. But my experience is that everyone wants me to be able to project, since absolute certainty, what my team can get done in 12, 24, 36 months. And I can't. No one can. It's all bull shiitake.
Scrum does not solve this problem. But it's honest about it.
It says: "We can't tell you what could be done in 2 years. But we can probably tell you fairly accurately what we can do in the next 2 weeks. And if you let us proceed in these honest 2 week intervals, we'll probably get way more done than if we all agreed to the collective insanity of the waterfall lie."
If you've done waterfall successfully, meaning you delivered a project on time, on budget, and on scope based on your original estimates for all three, then congratulations, you're a mythical beast.
I, for one, cannot do that. I've failed every time. Every team I've worked with has failed every time. I've never seen it work.
- AllegedAlec 8y ago> Nope, don't understand the trade offs if you're suggesting scrum is slower than waterfall. That just doesn't line up with my experience. "Results may vary," though. The idea is that if you have a well defined problem domain and you know exactly what the software is that you have to deliver, you don't need the short cycles, and all the meetings and pokering and whatnot would just be a waste of time. You know what you need to make, so you can just continue working.
- nickelcitymario 8y agoI suppose that makes sense "if you have a well defined problem domain and you know exactly what the software is that you have to deliver". I don't have a lot of experience in such areas though, and i can't help but wonder how often that's the case. If my problem domain was well defined, the problem would probably already be solved by someone and I'd use their code. Why reinvent? Am I being too simplistic?
- AllegedAlec 8y ago> If my problem domain was well defined, the problem would probably already be solved by someone and I'd use their code. Not necessarily. Look for example at the team that made the code for the central computers of the Space Shuttle. They knew exactly what their code had to do, how fast, etc et.
- magduf 8y agoI don't think he was saying that waterfall is faster; I've never heard anyone say that. But WF is more rigorous and probably better suited for safety-critical software like avionics; the trade-off is that it lacks speed and flexibility.