Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday January 04 2018, @02:11PM   Printer-friendly
from the what-if-you-can't-program-your-way-out-of-a-paper-bag? dept.

Agile Development is hip. It's hot. All the cool kids are doing it.

But it doesn't work.

Before I get into why this "Agile" stuff is horrible, let's describe where Agile/Scrum can work. It can work for a time-sensitive and critical project of short duration (6 weeks max) that cross-cuts the business and has no clear manager, because it involves people from multiple departments. You can call it a "Code Red" or call it a Scrum or a "War Room" if you have a physical room for it.

Note that "Agile" comes from the consulting world. It suits well the needs of a small consulting firm, not yet very well-established, that lands one big-ticket project and needs to deliver it quickly, despite changing requirements and other potential bad behavior from the client. It works well when you have a relatively homogeneous talent level and a staff of generalists, which might also be true for an emerging web consultancy.

As a short-term methodology when a firm faces an existential risk or a game-changing opportunity, I'm not opposed to the "Code Red"/"crunch time"/Scrum practice of ignoring peoples' career goals and their individual talents. I have in mind that this "Code Red" state should exist for no more than 6 weeks per year in a well-run business. Even that's less than ideal: the ideal is zero. Frequent crises reflect poorly on management.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Thursday January 04 2018, @06:08PM (3 children)

    by Nerdfest (80) on Thursday January 04 2018, @06:08PM (#617845)

    I have trouble believing that. I have never seen anyone do anything that stupid, and I've done a lot of government work.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @12:48AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @12:48AM (#618128)

    Well, the government uses waterfall, or at least that's their reputation. So they wouldn't have fallen into that particular trap.

    But it's baked right into the agile manifesto. Developers are fungible. Anyone must be able to work on any code at any time. It's central to the premise and it means that exactly this doesn't just happen, it's actually the goal.

    Scrum is largely about observing that there is a wide variation in developer productivity, and eliminating that by bringing everyone down to the lowest level. Good for managers who don't want to have to make sensible hiring decisions and who mentally translate "software developer" into "anomalously well-paid peon." Bad for actually writing software.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @11:00AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2018, @11:00AM (#618285)

      I don't think that goal is bad. Nurturing a broad, overall understanding of the product in as many people as reasonable is a rather good goal I think.
      The mistake is just to think that things will be done equally fast and good no matter who writes the code... And in some cases that difference is probably enough that you don't want to swap things around.
      Still, if you skip that kind of thing, you should still have some mechanism to ensure that you do not end up with parts that only one person in the whole team has any clue about, that kind of risk is NOT good to take.

    • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Friday January 05 2018, @07:29PM

      by Nerdfest (80) on Friday January 05 2018, @07:29PM (#618457)

      That is not part of the agile manifesto [agilemanifesto.org] that I can see.