Live data from Hacker News

Even with Agile and Scrum waterfall will sneak in

amazingcto.com

171–180 of 319 posts

Re: Even with Agile and Scrum waterfall will sneak in

#171
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Doesn't Waterfall incorporate feedback? In my memory and experience, it does. No, by definition. Do you see a stream of water back to the beginning of waterfall in any waterfall on the planet? Nope.

Read the original paper [1]. By definition, treating the steps as iterative is a recommended practice. [1] http://www-scf.usc.edu/~csci201/lectures/Lecture11/royce1970...

I don't get the point of Figure 4 in the .pdf, I see htat and I hear process process process, don't skip process even when it makes no sense.

You can actually tell that the methodology was developed for a different time period, when you would have to schedule time in order to run your program on the mainframe, instead of just hitting build on your machine.

Re: Even with Agile and Scrum waterfall will sneak in

#172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with waterfall to my experience is not immediately visible to developers or directly concerns developers, but rather the stakeholders and managers. Almost always, your customer doesn't know what they want - they think they do, but they don't and will only realize this after you finished development and have a visible system demo/field test. Additionally it is really hard for project management to get metr…

>The problem with waterfall to my experience is not immediately visible to developers or directly concerns developers, but rather the stakeholders and managers. Almost always, your customer doesn't know what they want - they think they do, but they don't and will only realize this after you finished development and have a visible system demo/field test. This just indicates a failure to perform a proper Analysis/Speci…

>This just indicates a failure to perform a proper Analysis/Specification/Requirements phase, with relevant qualifications steps. It doesn't matter if you're a Manager or a lowly Developer - if you can't adequately qualify the requirements and specifications, the analysis is simply not complete.

Not really. It indicates a general inability to predict the future.

That's really the core of the issue. Requirements analysis can be done badly but even when done well it doesnt make you good at predicting the future.

The longer the feedback loop the more the ground changes under your feet.

>Pushing the problem to or away- from Managers is just one way of saying "I'm too lazy/incompetent to adequately complete the Analysis phase

I used to believe precisely this in my early 20s.

My "aha" moment came when I built software solely for myself and even then I realized that this didnt stop the requirements from changing because of surprises that kept being thrown my way and problems that I uncovered only in retrospect from actually using the software.

For sure not all problem spaces are this chaotic but most software problem spaces are.

Re: Even with Agile and Scrum waterfall will sneak in

#173

I started working prior to Agile becoming a thing but wasn't around for the entirety of the 1990s. I have seen both waterfall and agile products fail or succeed. I don't think the process is ever to blame when they failed or deserves much credit when they succeeded. My take on it is both processes have their strengths and weaknesses and perhaps a product needs to start Agile and slowly morph towards Waterfall as it m…

What I've found while working in defense is that when your customer issues a statement of work with clear high level requirements then you're going to need waterfall (even if just at a high level).

Re: Even with Agile and Scrum waterfall will sneak in

#174

I've never quite understood, over 30 years of experience in software development, what problems Waterfall presented that warranted a complete refactor of software development processes such that things are now very much in cult-/cargo-cult territory. There is a natural process that every issue goes through: Analysis, Specifications, Requirement, Design .. then the Developer takes in the materials of each of these ste…

> I've never quite understood, over 30 years of experience in software development, what problems Waterfall presented that warranted a complete refactor...

Because layers of management who need to continually justify their existence can never, ever keep themselves from putting their big fat thumb in the pie and fucking everything up.

Re: Even with Agile and Scrum waterfall will sneak in

#175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't formulate actionable requirements, you're either not the domain expert, or not communicating properly with the domain expert. What your service looks like now and what it looks like in five years are obviously two different questions, but a proper analysis will divide the issue between now and 5 years from now and come up with requirements that fill the gaps. This doesn't mean things get set in stone and…

>but a proper analysis will divide the issue between now and 5 years from now and come up with requirements that fill the gaps The issue with the Waterfall model is that this approach doesn't work. Aiming for "now" means you come out with an outdated product in the future. Aiming for "5 years from now" means speculating on what users will eventually want , which is very error-prone. Trying to adjust course midway thr…

Still you need requirements for what to build today. Often that is brushed aside as "details" in 2-week sprints, just start coding!

Re: Even with Agile and Scrum waterfall will sneak in

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This just indicates a failure to perform a proper Analysis/Specification/Requirements phase, with relevant qualifications steps. It doesn't matter if you're a Manager or a lowly Developer - if you can't adequately qualify the requirements and specifications, the analysis is simply not complete. But that view of requirements is not borne out by the reality for most projects. You're presuming that it's possible to gat…

If you can't formulate actionable requirements, you're either not the domain expert, or not communicating properly with the domain expert. What your service looks like now and what it looks like in five years are obviously two different questions, but a proper analysis will divide the issue between now and 5 years from now and come up with requirements that fill the gaps. This doesn't mean things get set in stone and…

Do you work in software development or IT operations? Of if you did but no longer do, how long ago was it?

Having been in the field for some time, and reading HN and talking with people in the field for as long, I believe your general attitude is one of someone who has an idea for how things should work in a stable, ideal world with unchanging toolsets and unchanging technologies. This is not the world of technology.

Re: Even with Agile and Scrum waterfall will sneak in

#177
post #6

A version of this is Scaled Agile (SAFe) which somehow manages to combine the worst of both worlds. If you see your organization preparing to go SAFe, run!

Even the name is hillarous. It's like one of those cryptocurrencies that try to be sellable by a pump&dumpy name, like SafeMoon, haha.

Re: Even with Agile and Scrum waterfall will sneak in

#178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This just indicates a failure to perform a proper Analysis/Specification/Requirements phase, with relevant qualifications steps. It doesn't matter if you're a Manager or a lowly Developer - if you can't adequately qualify the requirements and specifications, the analysis is simply not complete. But that view of requirements is not borne out by the reality for most projects. You're presuming that it's possible to gat…

If you can't formulate actionable requirements, you're either not the domain expert, or not communicating properly with the domain expert. What your service looks like now and what it looks like in five years are obviously two different questions, but a proper analysis will divide the issue between now and 5 years from now and come up with requirements that fill the gaps. This doesn't mean things get set in stone and…

> If you can't formulate actionable requirements, you're either not the domain expert, or not communicating properly with the domain expert.

I want to highlight this, because it's almost universally true on any given project that there are no complete experts. But I'll be looking at domain not as a business domain, but actually considering if you can find a domain expert in the technology stack a project is planned in.

When requirements are written up, there is never a domain expert on all the technologies to be used that is so experienced in the technology that they will not get things wrong. Software development is so intertwined and so fast-paced that we are at the mercy of tech stack we use too.

Imagine you are well-versed in Postgres, but your new project requires you to use Postgres FTS extension. Without learning the ins-and-outs of Postgres FTS extension, you'll make grave estimation and "planning" mistakes. And then you are supposed to deploy on RDS instead, where there is another set of considerations. And this being a new project, you are asked to use asyncio psycopg for the first time, so there will be more gotchas as well.

Basically, the number of "tools" we shift between is so vast that nobody can be an expert in them. The rate of change is huge as well. Just count all the Kubernetes tools today, and imagine having to use any one of a dozen of mini-k8s set-ups for local development. Just exploring the tech stack is a full time job for a dozen people, and you wouldn't be getting anything done. While others in the market would.

So, if you are in a world where you've got your tech stack pre-set, you've got plenty of experience with it, and you are a domain expert on the business problem you are looking to solve, sure: waterfall-like approach will not put you at a disadvantage. But introduce any one of the newer components (cloud scale-out), and an approach to gain expertise first will have you run-down by the competition.

Re: Even with Agile and Scrum waterfall will sneak in

#179

I've never quite understood, over 30 years of experience in software development, what problems Waterfall presented that warranted a complete refactor of software development processes such that things are now very much in cult-/cargo-cult territory. There is a natural process that every issue goes through: Analysis, Specifications, Requirement, Design .. then the Developer takes in the materials of each of these ste…

There is a natural process that every issue goes through: Analysis, Specifications, Requirement, Design .. then the Developer takes in the materials of each of these steps, does an Implementation and Testing phase .. then the issue has to be validated/verified with a Qualification step, and then it gets released to the end user/product owner, who sign off on it. Doing that per issue is still basically agile. The prob…

That might be its stated goal, i still haven’t seen a single shop that actually implements that. First thing that happens when implementing agile are estimations, and the justification for that is for “predictability”.

Re: Even with Agile and Scrum waterfall will sneak in

#180

I started working prior to Agile becoming a thing but wasn't around for the entirety of the 1990s. I have seen both waterfall and agile products fail or succeed. I don't think the process is ever to blame when they failed or deserves much credit when they succeeded. My take on it is both processes have their strengths and weaknesses and perhaps a product needs to start Agile and slowly morph towards Waterfall as it m…

What I've found while working in defense is that when your customer issues a statement of work with clear high level requirements then you're going to need waterfall (even if just at a high level).

Yeah, I think this is uncontroversial. If your problem domain generates strict, well-defined requirements, agile has less to offer.

https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff

There might still be some useful agile practices, and you could have the less defined work (eg internal tooling?) be more agile.

Post reply on HN