3 ms·
That's called code review, you don't need any "agile" for it. Agile is used to micromanage engineers to push out crap features, optimizing for the two week retu
by ResearchCode 4y ago
That's called code review, you don't need any "agile" for it. Agile is used to micromanage engineers to push out crap features, optimizing for the two week return, with poor results in the longer term. The people running amok are layman "agile coaches", "business analysts" and "product owners". While poor engineers are prevented from doing necessary non-feature work.
- mattbrewsbytes 4y agoYou can get benefits from small-a agile in the sense of organizing the work in small chunks that can be put into production when ready using CI/CD. If done right, you end up not doing work on things that aren't needed vs. in a waterfall model with large specification docs you end up with feature bloat in a product. Forced two-week cadence and preventing non-feature work indicates poor management. I don't like SiverBulletCo coming in with tools and trainings and This Is The Only Way™ bullshit either. Maybe lean development is a better wording than agile? Its more about small work chunks and deploying them when ready vs months long projects with Gantt charts. Kanban seems to be the best way to organize work to me. However, letting a team of people align on what process they want to use with what makes sense plucking concepts from agile is fine.
- cratermoon 4y ago> Agile is used to micromanage engineers to push out crap features, optimizing for the two week return, with poor results in the longer term More correctly, organizations micromanage engineers to push out crap features, optimizing for the two week return, with poor results in the longer term, and call it 'agile'. They wouldn't know the nature agile if it fell on their heads.
- jounker 4y agoIf I could upvote this a thousand times, then I would. Bad management makes any development methodology suck.