3 ms·
> I don't consider it a "strawman" so much as a "simplification" I consider it a straw man because, as the agile crowd describes it, there appears to be no suc
by JohnFen 2y ago
> I don't consider it a "strawman" so much as a "simplification"
I consider it a straw man because, as the agile crowd describes it, there appears to be no such thing as "waterfall". Perhaps that is the result of comical oversimplification rather than a conscious attempt at deception (I believe this is the case), but it still results in standing up a straw man so it can be knocked down.
- jerf 2y agoIf a process is 98% waterfall and management blames developers for the 2% and considers it a problem to be solved rather than something to be harnessed, it's close enough to waterfall for all practical purposes. I don't believe there's a sudden transition in the cost/benefits for waterfall at 100%, in either direction. (Just as I don't believe it for Scrum.) The criticisms will apply.
- JohnFen 2y ago> If a process is 98% waterfall I just haven't seen that happen. I'm sure there are exceptions where it has, but I think those have always been rare.