3 ms·
Has anyone ever tested whether Scrum or Agile actually work better than "Waterfall" for software development?
by ravenstine 7y ago
Has anyone ever tested whether Scrum or Agile actually work better than "Waterfall" for software development?
- Aeolun 7y agoI dunno, by now I would actually be really happy with a waterfall requirements document.
- sidlls 7y agoWaterfall was terrible in many ways but it seems to me for all the problems with that methodology that "agile" has fixed it has created at least one new one, and often more.
- ddebernardy 7y agoAgile works fine, if you ignore the Scrum hocus pocus. Stick to basic project management principles (work on one project at the time, wrap things up before moving on to the next project, set aside a bit of time for unrelated work) with the stakeholder put at the center of what you're up to. The problem with Scrum is that it's usually (always?) implemented as serialized waterfall projects with completely arbitrary looking deadlines (i.e. the sprint's length). All too often things get sort of done but not done quite as well as everybody would be happy with. It's stressful for everyone involved and, insofar as I've seen it used, it makes accumulating technical debt even more likely than more traditional waterfall projects.