3 ms·

" Agile, it seems like their real problem is with software development at scale, or really, any production process at scale." I think it's more unique to softw

by pcurve 7y ago

" Agile, it seems like their real problem is with software development at scale, or really, any production process at scale." I think it's more unique to software development. You don't see this kind of approach in large scale construction project with layers of contractors and subcontractors covering dozens of disciplines. You don't see this in car industry where they can do design, engineering, testing, factory tooling in 3 years. I really believe the only reason why we do it in software is because we can. And we can get away with it. I also think the proliferation of outsourcing and offshoring was a strong catalyst for various reasons, though I'm sure that's a sensitive topic. When industries that cannot get away with doing so tries, plane falls out of sky. I think Agile can be great, but having been in the industry for 20 years and being put to practice, I see more reluctant Agile than true Agile. Meaning, people don't like it, but it has perception of working, so they go along with it, because there doesn't appear to be impetus to move away from it.

kthejoker2 7y ago
First, construction and automotve have been around for over a century, and they definitely suffered through growing pains in their discipline - there are boondoggles galore in the engineering and infrastructure space, and for the same reasons as bad software - a lack of clear vision and product fit. And of course secondly they are subject to a much more rigid set of constraints to define success - primarily the hard laws of physics, chemistry, and human physiology. But the key difference hands down is the raison d'etre - the demand for cars, buildings, bridges, roads, airplanes is self-evident. Almost no software rises to such an elemental need in our world. The ones that do (Linux, avionics firmware, etc) don't run on Agile. The rest: who really (really) cares?
vannevar 7y ago
You don't see this kind of approach in large scale construction project with layers of contractors and subcontractors covering dozens of disciplines. You don't see this in car industry where they can do design, engineering, testing, factory tooling in 3 years. I think you do see it in construction and automotive assembly: the project is decomposed into small pieces and tackled by large numbers of specialists, who are individually regarded as interchangeable. Or when you say "this kind of approach" are you thinking of something else?

by pcurve 7y ago

kthejoker2 7y ago

First, construction and automotve have been around for over a century, and they definitely suffered through growing pains in their discipline - there are boondoggles galore in the engineering and infrastructure space, and for the same reasons as bad software - a lack of clear vision and product fit. And of course secondly they are subject to a much more rigid set of constraints to define success - primarily the hard laws of physics, chemistry, and human physiology. But the key difference hands down is the raison d'etre - the demand for cars, buildings, bridges, roads, airplanes is self-evident. Almost no software rises to such an elemental need in our world. The ones that do (Linux, avionics firmware, etc) don't run on Agile. The rest: who really (really) cares?

vannevar 7y ago

You don't see this kind of approach in large scale construction project with layers of contractors and subcontractors covering dozens of disciplines. You don't see this in car industry where they can do design, engineering, testing, factory tooling in 3 years. I think you do see it in construction and automotive assembly: the project is decomposed into small pieces and tackled by large numbers of specialists, who are individually regarded as interchangeable. Or when you say "this kind of approach" are you thinking of something else?