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 o

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