3 ms·

Better a few weeks than a couple of years and millions of funding.

by 14113 12y ago

RHSeeger 12y ago
Not necessarily in the eyes of certain people, and it happens in the corporate world, too. If you're only in charge of the project for a period of time (no longer in that political role, promoted, whatever), then "it doesn't need to succeed, it just can't fail" is a term used widely. You don't want to be seen having failures in your project (even small, agile failures that are for the good)... but you don't care if the project succeeds. If you can plan out a waterfall project that won't complete until you're "out of office", then there is no negative consequences for you... even if you KNOW it will fail once you're gone, that's the next guy's problem. Sad, but true.
- wpietri 12y ago
  This certainly true, but it's my hope the culture will shift to make the waterfall option impossible. Back in 2004 or so, I heard of a major company that only updated their website once a year. Even then that was considered ridiculous. Consumer expectations have shifted massively; plenty of places now release every week or two. I have hope that the government culture could shift similarly, so that software projects that don't deliver anything for long periods are seen as troubled no matter how many Powerpoint decks and GANTT charts they produce in the meantime. And I think the way to change that culture is by having enough projects that deliver early and often, so that people say, "Well, those guys are shipping monthly. What's wrong with your team?" So instead of keeping people from being blame-y, we get them to be blame-y about long project cycles. I think that's definitely happened a fair bit in industry, so there's some chance it will happen in government, too.
Loughla 12y ago
Not in an election year. If it's either a failed public project, or spending millions of dollars (that can be spun as creating jobs), what do you think they're going to take?

Better a few weeks than a couple of years and millions of funding.

by 14113 12y ago

Better a few weeks than a couple of years and millions of funding.

Not necessarily in the eyes of certain people, and it happens in the corporate world, too. If you're only in charge of the project for a period of time (no longer in that political role, promoted, whatever), then "it doesn't need to succeed, it just can't fail" is a term used widely. You don't want to be seen having failures in your project (even small, agile failures that are for the good)... but you don't care if the project succeeds. If you can plan out a waterfall project that won't complete until you're "out of office", then there is no negative consequences for you... even if you KNOW it will fail once you're gone, that's the next guy's problem. Sad, but true.

wpietri 12y ago
This certainly true, but it's my hope the culture will shift to make the waterfall option impossible. Back in 2004 or so, I heard of a major company that only updated their website once a year. Even then that was considered ridiculous. Consumer expectations have shifted massively; plenty of places now release every week or two. I have hope that the government culture could shift similarly, so that software projects that don't deliver anything for long periods are seen as troubled no matter how many Powerpoint decks and GANTT charts they produce in the meantime. And I think the way to change that culture is by having enough projects that deliver early and often, so that people say, "Well, those guys are shipping monthly. What's wrong with your team?" So instead of keeping people from being blame-y, we get them to be blame-y about long project cycles. I think that's definitely happened a fair bit in industry, so there's some chance it will happen in government, too.

Loughla 12y ago

Not in an election year. If it's either a failed public project, or spending millions of dollars (that can be spun as creating jobs), what do you think they're going to take?