4 ms·

This is what happens with many software projects following crazy customers and waterfall approaches. Clearly we never speak about 6 billion, but hey, shit happe

by x0rg 11y ago

This is what happens with many software projects following crazy customers and waterfall approaches. Clearly we never speak about 6 billion, but hey, shit happens...

philippnagel 11y ago
Can you develop a big infrastructure project using agile methodologies?
- rqebmm 11y ago
  IT doesn't seem unreasonable to plan a project in stages, focusing on the most critical components in order, and only starting on the next once the first is ready. For instance with an airport you could build one terminal at a time. Obviously this would have limitations, but it could be a better system than trying to build a gigantic airport all at once, when it's already somewhat modular (i.e. terminals)
- rqebmm 11y ago
  IT doesn't seem unreasonable to plan a project in stages, focusing on the most critical components in order, and only starting on the next once the first is ready. For instance with an airport you could build one terminal at a time. Obviously this would have limitations, but it could be a better system than trying to build a gigantic airport all at once, when it's already somewhat modular (i.e. terminals)
- x0rg 11y ago
  I don't know anything about building an airport, but I guess you could try something. We tried to compare software to buildings for many years, maybe in a case like this the learnings from failing software projects can be somehow useful.
  - kzhahou 11y ago
    I'm not sure there's any evidence that "agile," in any of its many forms, had a high success rate for very complex projects.
    - germanier 11y ago
      For what it's worth, after the original monolithic plan for the Berlin airport needed to be changed there was no other grand plan but rather small teams each independently and locally applying changes on-the-go. Let's say as we see it didn't go too well.
- agwa 11y ago
  Actually, Boston's infamous Big Dig project used so called "fast track construction," wherein construction on earlier segments was started before the design of later segments was finished[1]. This required frequent modifications of already-constructed segments, and it's unclear how beneficial this methodology was in the end. [1] http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10629&page=16 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10629&page=16
- tajen 11y ago
  Rhetorical question or not? I've often asked at Agile conferences, it seems Agile can't be applied to hardware industries. I can't imagine the first sprints: First the infrastructure for A320 then iterate through to A380? First the police checks the iterate through to baggage claims? First the roof then the air conducts? It seems the closest to this mind set is: First Tegel Airport then upgrade Tegel again... The root reason is certainly, we've invented Agile because software industries have hundreds of competitors with fast moving markets and we needed to lower the overhead costs. Even though the article explains how Schwartz pursued moving targets, airports have quite steady markets, competitors (train, etc) aren't massively agile, and there's a lot to gain by studying things ahead.
- lmm 11y ago
  Yes, absolutely - you would end up adapting them to the point that they were quite unlike building agile software, but that's built into agile. I suspect that waterfall properly applied would have worked though. This sounds like a failure to nail down the requirements early, combined with a methodology that assumed the requirements would be nailed down early.
- manarth 11y ago
  The idea of agile is to launch early, then iterate new features once you've seen how the existing features are performing in production. Essentially, you'd need to establish the MVP for an airport. An airport without a runway would be useless. How about an airport with baggage conveyor belts? OK, we could manually carry the bags until we've established what desks are busy, how many bags we're carrying, etc. How about shops? Well, maybe the cafés are more important, so lets build those first, and add duty-free shops later. But in other airports, the duty-free shops generate more profit, so maybe those should go first, and then you get a conflict of users needs vs organisational needs. Most big infrastructure projects are just that - big - because the cost of breaking them down into smaller projects and iterating would be massively more expensive.

by x0rg 11y ago

This is what happens with many software projects following crazy customers and waterfall approaches. Clearly we never speak about 6 billion, but hey, shit happens...

philippnagel 11y ago

Can you develop a big infrastructure project using agile methodologies?

rqebmm 11y ago
IT doesn't seem unreasonable to plan a project in stages, focusing on the most critical components in order, and only starting on the next once the first is ready. For instance with an airport you could build one terminal at a time. Obviously this would have limitations, but it could be a better system than trying to build a gigantic airport all at once, when it's already somewhat modular (i.e. terminals)
rqebmm 11y ago
IT doesn't seem unreasonable to plan a project in stages, focusing on the most critical components in order, and only starting on the next once the first is ready. For instance with an airport you could build one terminal at a time. Obviously this would have limitations, but it could be a better system than trying to build a gigantic airport all at once, when it's already somewhat modular (i.e. terminals)
x0rg 11y ago
I don't know anything about building an airport, but I guess you could try something. We tried to compare software to buildings for many years, maybe in a case like this the learnings from failing software projects can be somehow useful.
- kzhahou 11y ago
  I'm not sure there's any evidence that "agile," in any of its many forms, had a high success rate for very complex projects.
  - germanier 11y ago
    For what it's worth, after the original monolithic plan for the Berlin airport needed to be changed there was no other grand plan but rather small teams each independently and locally applying changes on-the-go. Let's say as we see it didn't go too well.
agwa 11y ago
Actually, Boston's infamous Big Dig project used so called "fast track construction," wherein construction on earlier segments was started before the design of later segments was finished[1]. This required frequent modifications of already-constructed segments, and it's unclear how beneficial this methodology was in the end. [1] http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10629&page=16 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10629&page=16
tajen 11y ago
Rhetorical question or not? I've often asked at Agile conferences, it seems Agile can't be applied to hardware industries. I can't imagine the first sprints: First the infrastructure for A320 then iterate through to A380? First the police checks the iterate through to baggage claims? First the roof then the air conducts? It seems the closest to this mind set is: First Tegel Airport then upgrade Tegel again... The root reason is certainly, we've invented Agile because software industries have hundreds of competitors with fast moving markets and we needed to lower the overhead costs. Even though the article explains how Schwartz pursued moving targets, airports have quite steady markets, competitors (train, etc) aren't massively agile, and there's a lot to gain by studying things ahead.
lmm 11y ago
Yes, absolutely - you would end up adapting them to the point that they were quite unlike building agile software, but that's built into agile. I suspect that waterfall properly applied would have worked though. This sounds like a failure to nail down the requirements early, combined with a methodology that assumed the requirements would be nailed down early.
manarth 11y ago
The idea of agile is to launch early, then iterate new features once you've seen how the existing features are performing in production. Essentially, you'd need to establish the MVP for an airport. An airport without a runway would be useless. How about an airport with baggage conveyor belts? OK, we could manually carry the bags until we've established what desks are busy, how many bags we're carrying, etc. How about shops? Well, maybe the cafés are more important, so lets build those first, and add duty-free shops later. But in other airports, the duty-free shops generate more profit, so maybe those should go first, and then you get a conflict of users needs vs organisational needs. Most big infrastructure projects are just that - big - because the cost of breaking them down into smaller projects and iterating would be massively more expensive.