192 ms·
Kinda misses the entire point of 'agile' which is a way to adjust to and gather changing requirements in an iterative process. It's a risk _mitigation_ strateg
by jayd16 4y ago
Kinda misses the entire point of 'agile' which is a way to adjust to and gather changing requirements in an iterative process. It's a risk _mitigation_ strategy.
I'm not sure I agree that anything is a glass cannon because it could work but you could also do it wrong so it could fail. If a team can't pull off agile what do they think would have been a safer strategy?
- nikau 4y ago> gather changing requirements in an iterative process. But you can't have processes, after all its "individuals and interactions over processes and tools".
- bramblerose 4y ago"That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more."
- nikau 4y agosounds more like "do as i say not do as i do"
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Gupie 4y agoNo, it says you can have processes but that individuals and interactions are more important. It does not say that you can't have processes.
- dragonwriter 4y ago“X over Y” does not mean “X instead of Y”, it means “Y serves X rather than vice versa”. That doesn’t mean no processes and tools, you need to have those. It means the processes and tools aren’t canned processes and tools imposed on the team, it means they serve the team and the way they work, are owned by the team, and that the team is free to adjust them according to its developing understanding of its needs. (And, ideally, that the team is frequently checking in and evaluating whether and how it should be changing them.)
- jayd16 4y agoThe process is iterated on by the people. The people tweak the process so it works for them instead of adhering to some dogma.
- boyakasha 4y ago> It's a risk _mitigation_ strategy. It's designed to mitigate _delivery_ risk, not _organisational_ risk. > If a team can't pull off agile what do they think would have been a safer strategy? I would probably argue that Scrum (which I barely consider to be "agile") is more resilient to inexperience, and therefore lower risk. It's the McDonalds of processes. You're not going to get amazing results, but it will still operate despite hiring a bunch of inexperienced people into it.