4 ms·

> process has an unfortunate side effect of crushing innovation unintentionally We've been taken over by PE and forced into a very strict Jira powered "Agile"

by donatj 9mo ago

> process has an unfortunate side effect of crushing innovation unintentionally We've been taken over by PE and forced into a very strict Jira powered "Agile" with time tracking of how long cards are in progress, and all work needs to be planned pre-sprint. I cannot even begin to explain the opportunity cost of all this to anyone with any sort of control. The art of building good software is continual improvement. Being able to improve something without planning it.

MrGilbert 9mo ago
There will always be this back-and-forth discussion of planning vs not-planning. The agile idea in itself is quite simple: Inspect and Adapt. My firm belief is that everything else needs to be build around that.
- 9rx 9mo ago
  > The agile idea in itself is quite simple: Inspect and Adapt. Ish. Agile is, ultimately, about removing managers. - Individuals over processes - Working software over documentation - Customer collaboration over contract negotiation - Responding to change over following a plan Developers on a team coming together to inspect and adapt, as you say, is a necessary function when you don't have a manager to do it for you. Hence why it is included in the Twelve Principles. Each of the twelve principles present a function that needs to be considered when you don't have a manager to do the work for you. Of course, this point from the Twelve Principles is always Agile's sticking point: "Build projects around motivated individuals." In the real world, businesses don't want to hire motivated individuals that will drive projects, they want to hire many cheap, replaceable commodities along with just one motivated manager to whip them into shape. That is what that Jira stuff mentioned in the earlier comment is all about.
nebezb 9mo ago
> Being able to improve something without planning it. There are very few professions we’d consider this acceptable. Implicit in this statement is the assumption that your time-value is only known by you (or free). You certainly wouldn’t let your contractor improve things on your dime, unplanned, and unexplained. You might even fire them if you discovered they spent the day “refactoring” conduit instead of installing the pot lights you asked them for.
- 9rx 9mo ago
  > You certainly wouldn’t let your contractor improve things on your dime Where you have a contractor hired on a full-time basis with the intent to built the best house, or at least the most moated house, on the market so that all the people of the world come to live in your house, not someone else's, of course you would.
  - nebezb 9mo ago
    Your example worsens your position. I do not want my home builder going over budget and over time without telling me, only finding out after their “continual improvement” that I won’t be moving into my house. Worse, because they believe only they’re able to know what’s best. In your fictional scenario of unlimited budget and time, sure I grant that an expert should work unguided.
    - 9rx 9mo ago
      > Your example worsens your position. Worsens what position? > Worse, because they believe only they’re able to know what’s best. Well, you certainly wouldn't hire a contractor if you knew better, would you? That would be pointless. The whole reason for hiring a contractor, instead of hiring the same laborers the contractor will go on to hire on you behalf anyway, is because the contractor brings the expertise you lack. If you can't trust them to know better than you, why bother? It just becomes an unnecessary expense and a waste of another person's time.
      - nebezb 9mo ago
        In practice what you’re suggesting is that you’ll let your home builder run over time and over budget. Intervention on your behalf would be an unnecessary expense and a waste of the builders time. They know better and that would be pointless. Your position is employers are building the best house with the biggest moat to attract the entire world, with an assumed endless time and budget, and there are no bounds to be set with employees.

by donatj 9mo ago

MrGilbert 9mo ago

There will always be this back-and-forth discussion of planning vs not-planning. The agile idea in itself is quite simple: Inspect and Adapt. My firm belief is that everything else needs to be build around that.

9rx 9mo ago
> The agile idea in itself is quite simple: Inspect and Adapt. Ish. Agile is, ultimately, about removing managers. - Individuals over processes - Working software over documentation - Customer collaboration over contract negotiation - Responding to change over following a plan Developers on a team coming together to inspect and adapt, as you say, is a necessary function when you don't have a manager to do it for you. Hence why it is included in the Twelve Principles. Each of the twelve principles present a function that needs to be considered when you don't have a manager to do the work for you. Of course, this point from the Twelve Principles is always Agile's sticking point: "Build projects around motivated individuals." In the real world, businesses don't want to hire motivated individuals that will drive projects, they want to hire many cheap, replaceable commodities along with just one motivated manager to whip them into shape. That is what that Jira stuff mentioned in the earlier comment is all about.

nebezb 9mo ago

> Being able to improve something without planning it. There are very few professions we’d consider this acceptable. Implicit in this statement is the assumption that your time-value is only known by you (or free). You certainly wouldn’t let your contractor improve things on your dime, unplanned, and unexplained. You might even fire them if you discovered they spent the day “refactoring” conduit instead of installing the pot lights you asked them for.

9rx 9mo ago
> You certainly wouldn’t let your contractor improve things on your dime Where you have a contractor hired on a full-time basis with the intent to built the best house, or at least the most moated house, on the market so that all the people of the world come to live in your house, not someone else's, of course you would.
- nebezb 9mo ago
  Your example worsens your position. I do not want my home builder going over budget and over time without telling me, only finding out after their “continual improvement” that I won’t be moving into my house. Worse, because they believe only they’re able to know what’s best. In your fictional scenario of unlimited budget and time, sure I grant that an expert should work unguided.
  - 9rx 9mo ago
    > Your example worsens your position. Worsens what position? > Worse, because they believe only they’re able to know what’s best. Well, you certainly wouldn't hire a contractor if you knew better, would you? That would be pointless. The whole reason for hiring a contractor, instead of hiring the same laborers the contractor will go on to hire on you behalf anyway, is because the contractor brings the expertise you lack. If you can't trust them to know better than you, why bother? It just becomes an unnecessary expense and a waste of another person's time.
    - nebezb 9mo ago
      In practice what you’re suggesting is that you’ll let your home builder run over time and over budget. Intervention on your behalf would be an unnecessary expense and a waste of the builders time. They know better and that would be pointless. Your position is employers are building the best house with the biggest moat to attract the entire world, with an assumed endless time and budget, and there are no bounds to be set with employees.