> My top theory is just that it's convenient for management purposes. That company's are bad at assessing progress, that we're afraid of situations that aren't

> My top theory is just that it's convenient for management purposes. That company's are bad at assessing progress, that we're afraid of situations that aren't ultra-well scheduled & predictable, and that we treat programmers like cogs in a machine because we're too afraid to try for better. This is because the classical consecrated need for project management. Back in the day, you would have factory workers overseen by managers to a) establish a process for the work to be done which is easy and precise - "plan the work" and b) oversee it - "work the plan". The process is, in their view, necessary so why question it? SW development is a creative process which doesn't really lend itself to rigid guard railing of classical project management. Some advocates outright speak against managers because of the penalty the rigid process has on creative throughput. Quote from https://www.simplethread.com/agile-at-20-the-failed-rebellion/ https://www.simplethread.com/agile-at-20-the-failed-rebellio... : > The important piece that gets forgotten is that Agile was openly, militantly anti-management in the beginning. For example, Ken Schwaber was vocal and explicit about his goal to get rid of all project managers – not just get the people off his projects, eradicate the profession from our industry.