We've invented waterfall • Hacker News Board

Re: We've invented waterfall

#101

Post by rhizome » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 8:38 PM UTC

Duff wrote: post #97

roc wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me tell you why you don't see this happening more often. I did this on a project a few years back. I replaced a paper workflow process that was taking up two people each in three departments with a web-based workflow that increased visibility, dropped turn-around time from days to minutes, increased accountability and accuracy and trimmed those 16 person hours of processing down to 1-2 per department. Everyone wh…

My favorite thing like this for a purely technical topic was a project where there was a mandatory requirement to NOT support ethernet auto-negotiation. Why? The company had a long-standing policy of manually setting speed and duplex to ensure that there were no duplex mismatches. The was a team of 6-7 people who would audit servers and check switchports, and they produced a report was issued every week, and reviewed…

I don't know if you were around 10 years ago, but there used to be real problems between certain network cards and switches that prevented autoneg from being 100% reliable. For any company of a certain age I would not be surprised to see a policy like the one you describe.

Re: We've invented waterfall

#102

Post by jakejake » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 9:00 PM UTC

Spearchucker wrote: post #86

jakejake wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting point until the twatty comment at the end.

I just love how much sound advice we discard because of our feelings towards someone/something. Ever read Stuart Sutherland's Irrationality?

if you tell somebody something while slapping them in the face, don't be surprised if the only thing they remember from the interaction is the slap.

on the other hand, sometimes people need a good kick in the ass, so who the hell knows!

Re: We've invented waterfall

#103

Post by sleight42 » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 9:00 PM UTC

theorique wrote: post #84

roc wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me tell you why you don't see this happening more often. I did this on a project a few years back. I replaced a paper workflow process that was taking up two people each in three departments with a web-based workflow that increased visibility, dropped turn-around time from days to minutes, increased accountability and accuracy and trimmed those 16 person hours of processing down to 1-2 per department. Everyone wh…

Great anecdote that illustrates this principle observed by Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." (from I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked )

Speaks well to why money won't ever get out of politics: it's not in the interest of the politicians.

Re: We've invented waterfall

#104

Post by sleight42 » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 9:04 PM UTC

nlawalker wrote: post #82

roc wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me tell you why you don't see this happening more often. I did this on a project a few years back. I replaced a paper workflow process that was taking up two people each in three departments with a web-based workflow that increased visibility, dropped turn-around time from days to minutes, increased accountability and accuracy and trimmed those 16 person hours of processing down to 1-2 per department. Everyone wh…

>> It's simply too easy and financially rewarding to allow a client's political nonsense to screw up every stage of a project. I have less stress, the people who pay me are happier and I bill far more hours. This is now one of my favorite comments from this site. Very well put!

I have less stress. But have I done my client a service? No! I've helped enable the flawed behavior that led them to engage me in the first place!

Are you a consultant because you want to earn a big paycheck without much stress or because you want to make teams better? For me, the latter comes first.

I even go so far as to tell the client when I believe that I can no longer add value equivalent to my cost: when they no longer need me. My job is, ultimately, to become superfluous: to make them better then get out of the way.

Now if I was engaged because of that delusional thinking, that's another problem...

Re: We've invented waterfall

#105

Post by keithpeter » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 9:06 PM UTC

wwweston wrote: post #89

goldmab wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was posted on HN so that we can make fun of it, and I think we're right to do so. You can be as wishy washy as you like about different situations requiring different processes, but have you ever seen somebody successfully isolate software engineering from coding and put them in sequence?

I actually once worked for a place that didn't have this exact process, but they had a heavy process I'm sure nobody would describe as agile. And it worked pretty darn well. They designed educational games for early elementary education. Every game activity was hashed out with a working committee consisting of an educator, a technical writer, an artist, and a programmer. They'd take a few hours and talk about the con…

I think this process would work pretty well for educational games as each game was a self contained thing.

As a teacher myself I do often incorporate a game (computer based or actual paper, dice, pieces), an interactive Web site, a video or other objects into a lesson. I also direct students to Web based interactive content as part of homework along with 'traditional' work.

In effect, my lesson planning is the 'interface' between the (no doubt well coded and engagingly designed) objects your team designed.

I suspect, from my own interactions with the business applications used in the largish educational institutions that I work in, that it might be harder to use this model when the interactions between the individual activities get complex...

Re: We've invented waterfall

#106

Post by sleight42 » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 9:16 PM UTC

zedshaw wrote: post #64

Actually, this is refreshingly honest compared to the "agile" methodologies. Having worked with plenty of supposedly agile consultants I can tell you they basically do waterfall it's just their cascading stupidity starts with code and then wanders around writing unit tests until the client is tapped out. At least this is doing some actual user interface design and usability testing. Then again, I doubt these guys do…

Most "agile" consultants you know start coding from day one? If so, I now understand much better why you dump so much on agile.

I had myself a nice little nerd slap fight on twitter earlier today about this post. "Agile" without up front planning and research is just dangerous.

Re: We've invented waterfall

#107

Post by eweise » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 9:22 PM UTC

I love how each coder has a giant clock right in front of their face.

Re: We've invented waterfall

#108

Post by phuff » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 9:32 PM UTC

rhizome wrote: post #101

Duff wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite thing like this for a purely technical topic was a project where there was a mandatory requirement to NOT support ethernet auto-negotiation. Why? The company had a long-standing policy of manually setting speed and duplex to ensure that there were no duplex mismatches. The was a team of 6-7 people who would audit servers and check switchports, and they produced a report was issued every week, and reviewed…

I don't know if you were around 10 years ago, but there used to be real problems between certain network cards and switches that prevented autoneg from being 100% reliable. For any company of a certain age I would not be surprised to see a policy like the one you describe.

For a long time that was my first question anytime there was a network problem that wasn't a simple solve on the client. Step 1: Disable/Enable interface Step 2: Call NOC: "Can you tell me what this port is autonegotiated to?"

Re: We've invented waterfall

#109

Post by quanticle » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 9:34 PM UTC

rhizome wrote: post #101

Duff wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite thing like this for a purely technical topic was a project where there was a mandatory requirement to NOT support ethernet auto-negotiation. Why? The company had a long-standing policy of manually setting speed and duplex to ensure that there were no duplex mismatches. The was a team of 6-7 people who would audit servers and check switchports, and they produced a report was issued every week, and reviewed…

I don't know if you were around 10 years ago, but there used to be real problems between certain network cards and switches that prevented autoneg from being 100% reliable. For any company of a certain age I would not be surprised to see a policy like the one you describe.

The surprising thing isn't the policy. The surprising thing is the persistence of the policy even after it's no longer beneficial in any way. It's been more than a decade since Ethernet auto-negotiation became reliable. During that decade, that company has paid for a team to go around and do manually what could have been done by an automated process for a trillionth of the cost. That's a staggering amount of waste.

Re: We've invented waterfall

#110

Post by tomlin » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 9:37 PM UTC

haasted wrote: post #29

tpatke wrote: post #12

Meh. This is hardly the most ridiculous thing I have seen on the internet. I am sure this methodology will work sometimes for some clients. Heck, I bet a lot of startups here on HackerNews are using similar methodologies - but without the early usability testing. If nothing else, at least this company are differentiating themselves. Haven't seen a lot of other consultancies get posted up here on HackerNews. Every pro…

The ridiculous aspect of this page is the quote "We've invented a development process tbat's completely unique in the industry." , after which they describe a process that looks entirely like waterfall. It's an entertaining fallacy.

The company I work for has had a very similar process for years. In fact, it's stated much better within the first line of text on the homepage.

I think a workflow approach is a better way to go for the client, but even our approach was inspired by other companies who have embraced a transparent workflow methodology such as this.

It's painful to see a company claim it as a first.