3 ms·

Agile is fundamentally a "UI convergence" technique. It is perfect for interacting visually and conceptualizing requirements (and the realization of those requi

Agile is fundamentally a "UI convergence" technique. It is perfect for interacting visually and conceptualizing requirements (and the realization of those requirements) with end users and other stakeholders. I'm not saying waterfall is the only alternative. But one week sprints is a dumb idea for any serious software development. The other thing Agile does is give too much priority to outside concerns. Like pulling people off to do some thing the support team should fundamentally own, or meetings, support tickets that get too high prioritization because agile gives them too much prioritization. Sometimes you have to sit in an office undisturbed. To Agile people, that's the worst thing ever, but fundamentally everything truly significant in software stemmed from that.

seadan83 3y ago
Interesting: > I'm not saying waterfall is the only alternative. But one week sprints is a dumb idea for any serious software development. I just proposed to our team we move from 3 week sprints to 1 week. It's working out far better already. In part it's already waterfall done as sprints, so the duration is not as bad, but it's helping my boss stay a lot more focused on delivering and keeping in mind WIP limits. I do draw a distinction on "Agile" between 'agile development' and 'agile project management'. Unqualified, I would assume "Agile" to mean "agile project management", in which case IMHO it's mostly garbage. The interesting stuff is 'agile development' IMO, the project management is context dependent and would tend to flow readily from a development project where: - developers focus on releasing early & often - developers are speaking directly to customers frequently - customers/users are interacting with the software as it is being built and are providing feedback along the way > Sometimes you have to sit in an office undisturbed. To Agile people, that's the worst thing ever, but fundamentally everything truly significant in software stemmed from that. I would tend to agree. My impression is generic IT management, or business & project management stems from just the 1920s & has evolved only so much. There's a lot of emphasis on predictability, removing variation, reducing risk and maximizing utilization. (eg: Gantt [1], and there is someone else whose name I can't think of around the same time that was also as foundational). For the context in which that management was created, in part it's fine (ableit de-humanizing) - but for an industry that is more akin to a story writer than a factory worker - it's not really fine. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Gantt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Gantt

seadan83 3y ago

Interesting: > I'm not saying waterfall is the only alternative. But one week sprints is a dumb idea for any serious software development. I just proposed to our team we move from 3 week sprints to 1 week. It's working out far better already. In part it's already waterfall done as sprints, so the duration is not as bad, but it's helping my boss stay a lot more focused on delivering and keeping in mind WIP limits. I do draw a distinction on "Agile" between 'agile development' and 'agile project management'. Unqualified, I would assume "Agile" to mean "agile project management", in which case IMHO it's mostly garbage. The interesting stuff is 'agile development' IMO, the project management is context dependent and would tend to flow readily from a development project where: - developers focus on releasing early & often - developers are speaking directly to customers frequently - customers/users are interacting with the software as it is being built and are providing feedback along the way > Sometimes you have to sit in an office undisturbed. To Agile people, that's the worst thing ever, but fundamentally everything truly significant in software stemmed from that. I would tend to agree. My impression is generic IT management, or business & project management stems from just the 1920s & has evolved only so much. There's a lot of emphasis on predictability, removing variation, reducing risk and maximizing utilization. (eg: Gantt [1], and there is someone else whose name I can't think of around the same time that was also as foundational). For the context in which that management was created, in part it's fine (ableit de-humanizing) - but for an industry that is more akin to a story writer than a factory worker - it's not really fine. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Gantt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Gantt