5 ms·

> Being "around the block" is no excuse for not keeping up to date in your profession. I work in the public sector where we both develop and buy software, and

by moksly 7y ago

> Being "around the block" is no excuse for not keeping up to date in your profession. I work in the public sector where we both develop and buy software, and because of this I get to sit at both ends of the negotiation table. Agile dies the moment contract negotiations begin, because no one is actually going to give you money to start building a house and see how much you finish before you run out. Maybe agile actually works somewhere in academia, a start up or deep inside giant tech, but it sure isn’t how most of us buy software. We setup requirements, detailed project plans, risk analysis and all those other things the agile manifesto tells you not to. Sure we’ll call it agile, but it’s agile in name only and by then we would probably have been better off if no one ever read the damn thing.

speedplane 7y ago
> I work in the public sector where we both develop and buy software ... Agile dies the moment contract negotiations begin There's a pretty famous public sector counter example: the initial ObamaCare website. The initial site was contracted out using traditional waterfall development methodology and was a complete disaster. The rebuild was done with a far smaller team, at a far lower budget using agile methodologies. Things move pretty slowly in government, and I entirely understand that the existing government processes with big lump sum payments and rigorous accountability are not very conducive to agile development. However, it's not impossible (as with ObamaCare, it has been done before). The next time you have control over these negotiations, maybe push a bit harder for a more agile approach and see if it works.
- BeetleB 7y ago
  >There's a pretty famous public sector counter example: the initial ObamaCare website. It's not a counterexample. Just because this method failed doesn't mean agile would have been better. And GP wasn't saying that the alternative to agile is better. He was saying that in such environments, the key stakeholders do not agree with agile (regardless of what they claim). Their demands and actions demonstrate this. People will not provide money for funding without guarantees that agile says not to provide.
- brandonb 7y ago
  (I worked on the HealthCare.gov rescue team.) You have it right. We didn't explicitly follow the agile manifesto (or any other manifesto), but we did focus on shipping working software incrementally. There are successor organizations, like Nava and US Digital Service, that have encoded principals and playbooks: https://playbook.cio.gov/ https://playbook.cio.gov/
burntoutfire 7y ago
I've worked in government as well as multiple companies (from startups to huge multinationals). So, far only the government was adamant about speccing the requirements up front, waterfall-style. The commercial enterprises, even including an old and large bank, are much more open to agility and "not knowing exactly where the road takes us". Also, like you said, the government is much more into buying software - either COTS products or something tailor made to a spec - than developing it. It's mostly because the govt just cannot hire and retain good enough developers. The commercial side of the world is fine with developing in house, and most large companies have at least hundreds of developers on payroll. As for the waterfall in govt vs agile in commercial world, I think it's about difference in core principles - the govt is very much about accountability (being able to account for every dolar spend, not wasting taxpayers money no matter what), while businesses are ok with some waste as long as the end result is still worth it.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  That sounds like the government is all about accounting, not accountability.
  - burntoutfire 7y ago
    It's more than just accounting - everything needs to be pre-planned, there's no spontaineity or thinking as you go allowed. It's probably closer to medical devices software that to a typical BigCo web/backend software.
  - speedplane 7y ago
    > That sounds like the government is all about accounting, not accountability. It's sad but true. Many government projects happily spend 2X or more just to know exactly where all that wasted money is going. This is likely a result of the fact that taxation is mandatory, whereas investing in a company is not. If you are forced to pay for something, you're more likely to scrutinize how that money is being spent. If it's optional, there's a much greater degree of trust.

by moksly 7y ago

speedplane 7y ago

> I work in the public sector where we both develop and buy software ... Agile dies the moment contract negotiations begin There's a pretty famous public sector counter example: the initial ObamaCare website. The initial site was contracted out using traditional waterfall development methodology and was a complete disaster. The rebuild was done with a far smaller team, at a far lower budget using agile methodologies. Things move pretty slowly in government, and I entirely understand that the existing government processes with big lump sum payments and rigorous accountability are not very conducive to agile development. However, it's not impossible (as with ObamaCare, it has been done before). The next time you have control over these negotiations, maybe push a bit harder for a more agile approach and see if it works.

BeetleB 7y ago
>There's a pretty famous public sector counter example: the initial ObamaCare website. It's not a counterexample. Just because this method failed doesn't mean agile would have been better. And GP wasn't saying that the alternative to agile is better. He was saying that in such environments, the key stakeholders do not agree with agile (regardless of what they claim). Their demands and actions demonstrate this. People will not provide money for funding without guarantees that agile says not to provide.
brandonb 7y ago
(I worked on the HealthCare.gov rescue team.) You have it right. We didn't explicitly follow the agile manifesto (or any other manifesto), but we did focus on shipping working software incrementally. There are successor organizations, like Nava and US Digital Service, that have encoded principals and playbooks: https://playbook.cio.gov/ https://playbook.cio.gov/

burntoutfire 7y ago

I've worked in government as well as multiple companies (from startups to huge multinationals). So, far only the government was adamant about speccing the requirements up front, waterfall-style. The commercial enterprises, even including an old and large bank, are much more open to agility and "not knowing exactly where the road takes us". Also, like you said, the government is much more into buying software - either COTS products or something tailor made to a spec - than developing it. It's mostly because the govt just cannot hire and retain good enough developers. The commercial side of the world is fine with developing in house, and most large companies have at least hundreds of developers on payroll. As for the waterfall in govt vs agile in commercial world, I think it's about difference in core principles - the govt is very much about accountability (being able to account for every dolar spend, not wasting taxpayers money no matter what), while businesses are ok with some waste as long as the end result is still worth it.

gridlockd 7y ago
That sounds like the government is all about accounting, not accountability.
- burntoutfire 7y ago
  It's more than just accounting - everything needs to be pre-planned, there's no spontaineity or thinking as you go allowed. It's probably closer to medical devices software that to a typical BigCo web/backend software.
- speedplane 7y ago
  > That sounds like the government is all about accounting, not accountability. It's sad but true. Many government projects happily spend 2X or more just to know exactly where all that wasted money is going. This is likely a result of the fact that taxation is mandatory, whereas investing in a company is not. If you are forced to pay for something, you're more likely to scrutinize how that money is being spent. If it's optional, there's a much greater degree of trust.