If your problem's complexity is big enough, you can't get good solutions without an explicit architecture step. I've seen quite a few bad ad-hoc architectures b

If your problem's complexity is big enough, you can't get good solutions without an explicit architecture step. I've seen quite a few bad ad-hoc architectures being created trying to break down epics that were too big. Your team needs a lot of discipline to come up with a good plan/architecture (per story/epic at least) first. Scrum did not help here, to me it seems it legalized hacking away the day... In some domains you can't pay back that kind of dept easily... The article may have a clickbait headline, but „have an overview and use JIRA in addition to track the leafs of the work hierarchy“ is true. What I found is that almost all projects try to organize as tree but they should organize as matrix, at least if there are many cross-cutting components.