2 ms·

I once had a project where I regularly sat with the end-users of my software. I’d look over their shoulders and observe where they were losing time to something

I once had a project where I regularly sat with the end-users of my software. I’d look over their shoulders and observe where they were losing time to something I could automate away. They were happy with the result. I was happy I could act as a force multiplier for an entire team. That’s what Agile is supposed to be. Everything else is some weird cult. Like… Jesus just told everyone to treat each other the way they themselves would like to be treated. The specific dress code of the bishops in the Vatican? That’s not the message. But I guarantee you that the dress code is enforced by some busybody.

palata 3y ago
> That’s what Agile is supposed to be. But then does it have to be called "Agile", or can we keep the older "common sense"? I tend to think that at university, we were pretty good at self-organizing for group projects. We had to be efficient because of deadlines, and it worked well. Then I joined a company, where some people (usually not the best developers, obviously) felt good telling everybody else how they should work. Introducing processes, reading all sorts of agile books, copying Spotify's processes, using the management tools they saw in a Netflix blog. Those were the managers. And every time I ask a manager: "so, this process... is it to make you more productive, or is it meant to make me productive?", they say "it is making you more productive". Why would they believe me when I say it does not? Their job depends on it.