3 ms·

Fair, but sprints are effectively what have forced a lot of software dev organizations into actually thinking about making tasks bite-sized....which was one of

• TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  The lack of feedback breaks classic waterfall. You get a plan, and the plan is assumed to be correct. Of course it never is. As mistakes are revealed, unexpected challenges appear, and requirements are updated or clarified, the plan unravels instead of adapting. The only real benefit of Agile is that it should - in theory - allow the plan to be modified, so projects can be steered towards a target instead of being treated as fire-and-forget. (And miss.) Task granularity should not be a specific benefit - it should fall naturally out of competent goal-based planning in whatever paradigm is being used.
  • walshemj 8y ago
    I've never see a waterfall process that did not have feed back.
• octorian 8y ago
  But not all tasks can be made bite-sized. Or more specifically, sometimes the bite-sized pieces aren't "complete enough" to be a valid unit of work to be nicely wrapped up and finished during a sprint. What happens as a result, is that more major tasks never get sufficient priority to actually happen. This can easily lead to an incremental "refuctoring" of the code base, where you have a lot of individually-nice bite-sized tasks that, in aggregate, turn the source tree into a total mess.