6 ms·

IME the most common cause for waterfall sneaking back into agile is when agile experiences some kind of failure - like the project delivered late and over budge

IME the most common cause for waterfall sneaking back into agile is when agile experiences some kind of failure - like the project delivered late and over budget. The response to this is often to revert to waterfall methods and means. This frequently makes things worse. There's a common misperception in the industry that agile is 'fast' but waterfall is better at handling risky situations.

NikolaNovak 7y ago
>> [perception that] waterfall is better at handling risky situations. Subtle difference I think: Waterfall is perceived as being more predictable, which is why it would seem desirable when stability is needed. Fully agreed that while Agile is meant to deal with change better, it's perceived as being a silver bullet to "Speed things up". I have yet to meet a enterprise manager who uses the word correctly :(
- beat 7y ago
  I once wrote a blog article ranting about how we shouldn't use the word "sprint", because it focuses on speed. Rather, we should say "iteration", which focuses on change. Pushing agile as faster rather than better is the biggest problem agile ever had.
  - NikolaNovak 7y ago
    I absolutely positively could not agree more. Majority of my managers have heard the word somewhere, tried to infer its meaning from dictionary definition, and started using it arbitrarily. Most frequent phrase is "We need to be more AGILE!", which 98.72% of the time simply means "We need to whip the workers more and have them work harder, faster, longer.... somehow".
zaphar 7y ago
That's ironic, because in many cases the reverse is true. Agile can be slower when you are exploring the solution space. It's safer though in that scenario since you are more likely to identify and fix issues as you enter them.
- ljf 7y ago
  The speed in agile should be your speed to fail - to prove an idea does not work while still cheap enough to change tact. The time to build the whole might be no faster or even slower - but then again you might find out that after delivering only half the 'required features' that you have done enough to meet the customer need, and stop there. Big projects rarely want to stop though until the shopping list is complete.
- beat 7y ago
  There's this thing I say a lot... in large organizations, it's more important do appear safe (even if it's risky) than to appear risky (even if it's safe).
pjc50 7y ago
"True agile" can't be past deadline and over budget, because the project should be viable, delivered, and to scope at each sprint. It's just that you start with a tiny scope and expand from there. Where it goes wrong is inflexible scopes. The business obviously wants - needs - to tie down all three parts of the triangle, and the fact that this rarely works isn't going to stop them.

NikolaNovak 7y ago

>> [perception that] waterfall is better at handling risky situations. Subtle difference I think: Waterfall is perceived as being more predictable, which is why it would seem desirable when stability is needed. Fully agreed that while Agile is meant to deal with change better, it's perceived as being a silver bullet to "Speed things up". I have yet to meet a enterprise manager who uses the word correctly :(

beat 7y ago
I once wrote a blog article ranting about how we shouldn't use the word "sprint", because it focuses on speed. Rather, we should say "iteration", which focuses on change. Pushing agile as faster rather than better is the biggest problem agile ever had.
- NikolaNovak 7y ago
  I absolutely positively could not agree more. Majority of my managers have heard the word somewhere, tried to infer its meaning from dictionary definition, and started using it arbitrarily. Most frequent phrase is "We need to be more AGILE!", which 98.72% of the time simply means "We need to whip the workers more and have them work harder, faster, longer.... somehow".

zaphar 7y ago

That's ironic, because in many cases the reverse is true. Agile can be slower when you are exploring the solution space. It's safer though in that scenario since you are more likely to identify and fix issues as you enter them.

ljf 7y ago
The speed in agile should be your speed to fail - to prove an idea does not work while still cheap enough to change tact. The time to build the whole might be no faster or even slower - but then again you might find out that after delivering only half the 'required features' that you have done enough to meet the customer need, and stop there. Big projects rarely want to stop though until the shopping list is complete.
beat 7y ago
There's this thing I say a lot... in large organizations, it's more important do appear safe (even if it's risky) than to appear risky (even if it's safe).

pjc50 7y ago

"True agile" can't be past deadline and over budget, because the project should be viable, delivered, and to scope at each sprint. It's just that you start with a tiny scope and expand from there. Where it goes wrong is inflexible scopes. The business obviously wants - needs - to tie down all three parts of the triangle, and the fact that this rarely works isn't going to stop them.