4 ms·

Because waterfall software engineering has been so successful, right? ;-)

by platzhirsch 5mo ago

saulpw 5mo ago
Because agile has been so successful, right? ;)
- platzhirsch 5mo ago
  Agile fails when folks don't adjust and tailor the process to the specific needs of their team or organization but instead try to cargo cult it.
  - vrighter 5mo ago
    so it's called agile when it works, but not when it doesn't, got it!
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
    - habinero 5mo ago
      You gotta understand how to use a tool for it to be effective, yes.
      - scorpioxy 5mo ago
        And if a tool is that difficult to use, how can you tell if the problem is in the tool or the user? There's a large industry built around doing training and certifications in agile methodologies now. If a tool is that difficult to get right, maybe it's just not a good tool to begin with. To be fair, the manifesto and methodology is quite good in theory. But I just have never heard of(or experienced) it working properly and the response is always that it wasn't implemented correctly.
        bonesss 5mo ago
        So the widespread existence of business programs, certification and training heavy, obviously proves every project and business methodology is “bad” and the problem is the tool of “business methodologies”? PRINCE2, for example, is constantly fumbled and misunderstood by immature juniors. They don’t get it, and screw it up. So… what? Haphazard planning and last minute project detonations must replace any effort to avoid such outcomes? It’s chicken and egg. You have screwups who can’t manage and think wrong, so you formalize rules so dummies can’t hurt leadership, and then you have to train people. A stunning number fail to ‘get it’, suck at management, and do what they feel with justifications instead of following the book. That’s standard distribution at play. Blaming methods for basic management failures is a management and culture failure. “I’ve never seen [agile] implemented correctly” is saying you didn’t fix communication issues. That’s fine, that’s hard. But that’s a meatspace issue, not process.
        scorpioxy 5mo ago
        I am not sure how you jumped from what I said to this. I don't believe I claimed that every project and business methodology is bad. I can only speak from my experience and am not confident enough to say how every project and business methodology should or shouldn't work. I do believe you are helping to make my point though. I am saying that the process may very well be perfection but if entities within "meatspace" cannot use it well and may never be able to use it well then how useful really is it.
        hogehoge51 5mo ago
        That the methodology is established and is correct for the project and business is what a manager should be doing - at best an industry established process should make that easier, but it can't remove all the work. Ensuring the methodology survives contact with the "meatspace" is what a leader should be doing - and even if the process is perfect for the project and business this can still be a lot of work.
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
    - bonesss 5mo ago
      No, “it’s” adaptive and if you’re not adaptive then you’re quite literally not doing “it”. Adaptive methods aren’t something unique to Agile, it’s an aspect found in basic business methodologies and processes. Very basic, textbook stuff. So when software types start grumping about their dysfunctional organizations and blaming methods they aren’t actually applying, it isn’t an indictment of the method and never can be. If “Adaptive Heat Cycle 3.5” is a process where we turn down the thermostat when we’re too hot, and up when we’re too cold, based on a vote every 20 min: a bunch of sweaty people who are not voting and not changing the temp and lying about their needs because their boss sucks are not using the process. The fact they claim they are is only further proof of dysfunction and incompetence. Agile has a built in solution to all agile complaints: the agile process where you fix the problem. No fix? Not agile. Blame the cargo cult players, not the rules.
- marcosdumay 5mo ago
  In fact, agile has been extremely successful. It's the people that claim to "do agile" that invariably don't do it. But software development used to fail most of the time, and it doesn't do that anymore.
  - scorpioxy 5mo ago
    What makes you say that it has been extremely successful? And when you say doesn't fail anymore, do you mean it doesn't go over budget and/or changes scope?
    - Turskarama 5mo ago
      Agile cannot go over budget or scope because those are failures of planning. Agile is the methodology that was developed specifically to counteract those problems with planning. Projects that use Agile can go over budget and scope but they never do that because they are using Agile, rather they use Agile because they might do that.
      - sevenzero 5mo ago
        It always felt like Agile is the lazy attempt of people unwilling to learn what it takes to build software, to make it more predictable. Unfortunately project planning methods that work for buildings are not really great for software. It's just corpo stuff project managers do to feel meaningful.
    - marcosdumay 5mo ago
      It goes severely overbudget less often, it rarely goes unused, and it causes organizational changes more often than not. Except on the places that "do agile", those got worse. There is an organization that tracks that, I don't remember the name.
  - s-lambert 5mo ago
    It used to fail once after a long time, now software fails a lot every 2 weeks.
  - 5mo ago
onion2k 5mo ago
Lots of very successful software was built using a waterfall approach. It's a methodology that works well if you know precisely what the end result needs to be. That doesn't make it appropriate for everything - if you don't know what the customer needs, or if you want to get an MVP out, then Agile works better, but you shouldn't dismiss an approach because it doesn't work everywhere. Plus, 'agile' in quite a lot companies is really waterfall that's been broken into sprints without the planning of proper waterfall or the discovery and learning of real Agile. The software still gets built though. Maybe software is actually quite easy to plan.
- mikestaas 5mo ago
  Agilefall, the worst of both worlds.
21asdffdsa12 5mo ago
As if anything in the world is ever pure. Waterfall can have small scrums run on side-shows, while staying waterfally on the center project.

Because waterfall software engineering has been so successful, right? ;-)

saulpw 5mo ago

Because agile has been so successful, right? ;)

platzhirsch 5mo ago
Agile fails when folks don't adjust and tailor the process to the specific needs of their team or organization but instead try to cargo cult it.
- vrighter 5mo ago
  so it's called agile when it works, but not when it doesn't, got it!
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - habinero 5mo ago
    You gotta understand how to use a tool for it to be effective, yes.
    - scorpioxy 5mo ago
      And if a tool is that difficult to use, how can you tell if the problem is in the tool or the user? There's a large industry built around doing training and certifications in agile methodologies now. If a tool is that difficult to get right, maybe it's just not a good tool to begin with. To be fair, the manifesto and methodology is quite good in theory. But I just have never heard of(or experienced) it working properly and the response is always that it wasn't implemented correctly.
      - bonesss 5mo ago
        So the widespread existence of business programs, certification and training heavy, obviously proves every project and business methodology is “bad” and the problem is the tool of “business methodologies”? PRINCE2, for example, is constantly fumbled and misunderstood by immature juniors. They don’t get it, and screw it up. So… what? Haphazard planning and last minute project detonations must replace any effort to avoid such outcomes? It’s chicken and egg. You have screwups who can’t manage and think wrong, so you formalize rules so dummies can’t hurt leadership, and then you have to train people. A stunning number fail to ‘get it’, suck at management, and do what they feel with justifications instead of following the book. That’s standard distribution at play. Blaming methods for basic management failures is a management and culture failure. “I’ve never seen [agile] implemented correctly” is saying you didn’t fix communication issues. That’s fine, that’s hard. But that’s a meatspace issue, not process.
        scorpioxy 5mo ago
        I am not sure how you jumped from what I said to this. I don't believe I claimed that every project and business methodology is bad. I can only speak from my experience and am not confident enough to say how every project and business methodology should or shouldn't work. I do believe you are helping to make my point though. I am saying that the process may very well be perfection but if entities within "meatspace" cannot use it well and may never be able to use it well then how useful really is it.
        hogehoge51 5mo ago
        That the methodology is established and is correct for the project and business is what a manager should be doing - at best an industry established process should make that easier, but it can't remove all the work. Ensuring the methodology survives contact with the "meatspace" is what a leader should be doing - and even if the process is perfect for the project and business this can still be a lot of work.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - bonesss 5mo ago
    No, “it’s” adaptive and if you’re not adaptive then you’re quite literally not doing “it”. Adaptive methods aren’t something unique to Agile, it’s an aspect found in basic business methodologies and processes. Very basic, textbook stuff. So when software types start grumping about their dysfunctional organizations and blaming methods they aren’t actually applying, it isn’t an indictment of the method and never can be. If “Adaptive Heat Cycle 3.5” is a process where we turn down the thermostat when we’re too hot, and up when we’re too cold, based on a vote every 20 min: a bunch of sweaty people who are not voting and not changing the temp and lying about their needs because their boss sucks are not using the process. The fact they claim they are is only further proof of dysfunction and incompetence. Agile has a built in solution to all agile complaints: the agile process where you fix the problem. No fix? Not agile. Blame the cargo cult players, not the rules.
marcosdumay 5mo ago
In fact, agile has been extremely successful. It's the people that claim to "do agile" that invariably don't do it. But software development used to fail most of the time, and it doesn't do that anymore.
- scorpioxy 5mo ago
  What makes you say that it has been extremely successful? And when you say doesn't fail anymore, do you mean it doesn't go over budget and/or changes scope?
  - Turskarama 5mo ago
    Agile cannot go over budget or scope because those are failures of planning. Agile is the methodology that was developed specifically to counteract those problems with planning. Projects that use Agile can go over budget and scope but they never do that because they are using Agile, rather they use Agile because they might do that.
    - sevenzero 5mo ago
      It always felt like Agile is the lazy attempt of people unwilling to learn what it takes to build software, to make it more predictable. Unfortunately project planning methods that work for buildings are not really great for software. It's just corpo stuff project managers do to feel meaningful.
  - marcosdumay 5mo ago
    It goes severely overbudget less often, it rarely goes unused, and it causes organizational changes more often than not. Except on the places that "do agile", those got worse. There is an organization that tracks that, I don't remember the name.
- s-lambert 5mo ago
  It used to fail once after a long time, now software fails a lot every 2 weeks.
- 5mo ago

onion2k 5mo ago

Lots of very successful software was built using a waterfall approach. It's a methodology that works well if you know precisely what the end result needs to be. That doesn't make it appropriate for everything - if you don't know what the customer needs, or if you want to get an MVP out, then Agile works better, but you shouldn't dismiss an approach because it doesn't work everywhere. Plus, 'agile' in quite a lot companies is really waterfall that's been broken into sprints without the planning of proper waterfall or the discovery and learning of real Agile. The software still gets built though. Maybe software is actually quite easy to plan.

mikestaas 5mo ago
Agilefall, the worst of both worlds.

21asdffdsa12 5mo ago

As if anything in the world is ever pure. Waterfall can have small scrums run on side-shows, while staying waterfally on the center project.