Live data from Hacker News

Agile at 20: The Failed Rebellion

simplethread.com

11–20 of 320 posts

Re: Agile at 20: The Failed Rebellion

#11
post #3

> We have found that the role of the project manager is counterproductive in complex, creative work. The project manager’s thinking, as represented by the project plan, constrains the creativity and intelligence of everyone else on the project to that of the plan, rather than engaging everyone’s intelligence to best solve the problems. Pretty much wish this was a defined part of agile, most of the time all my boss/pm…

Low-level drone with 8 different bosses here. I hate being micro managed as much as the next guy, but I've also had way too many coworkers over the past decade who can't seem to just sit down and get the job done. They fiddle and tinker and explore way too much. It's helpful to do that at times but many lack the discipline to produce software without a PM to answer to. I wish it were different, but it isn't. My curre…

This is why Agile has a love hate relationship with the engineering public. For some engineers its a hindrance to dedicated work. For other engineers, they have the realism to see that many programmers need direction and direct feedback to be profitable for their companies.

Re: Agile at 20: The Failed Rebellion

#12
I'm not an expert on this subject, but I feel like "agile" could be summarized as "a process for actively incorporating feedback early and often".

That doesn't mean you need points or tshirt sizes or constant status meetings. You just need channels of communication with the right people and a chance to adapt to what they say.

Re: Agile at 20: The Failed Rebellion

#13
Agile got widespread adoptions because of the micromanagement undertone of it, starting with the daily scrum. It's a slippery slope, way to easy to over do. The risk is it starts something to be gamed/incentivized instead of actual progress.

Re: Agile at 20: The Failed Rebellion

#14
post #7
post #3

> We have found that the role of the project manager is counterproductive in complex, creative work. The project manager’s thinking, as represented by the project plan, constrains the creativity and intelligence of everyone else on the project to that of the plan, rather than engaging everyone’s intelligence to best solve the problems. Pretty much wish this was a defined part of agile, most of the time all my boss/pm…

If your team is led by a manager, then it is solving a management problem, and if your team is lead by an engineer, then it is solving an engineering problem. Managers are not good at solving engineering problems, and managers can and will fill management-shaped holes with engineers until everyone is either burnt out or checked out.

Word.

Re: Agile at 20: The Failed Rebellion

#15
Badly done agile made me lose interest in software development. Daily scrums that amounted to one upsmanship and lasted entirely too long. Planning meetings that were mired in politics. I went from wanting to learn the deepest minutiae of languages and practices to only coding the bare minimum at work. Only now (8 years later) am I just finding some joy in coding again, mainly because coding is not a large part of my day job. My dev jobs made me feel like I chose a path of arbitrarily short deadlines and stress while the non development folks largely coasted. I ended up blaming agile practices for a lot of it. I think it still deserves some blame because pushing back on bad practice implementation should be a bigger part of the manifesto.

Re: Agile at 20: The Failed Rebellion

#16
I never really understood the hype around (f)ragile (as one famous google engineer called it in a small closed circle a few years ago). I think the main problem is that in the past 7-8 years it has become more of an evangelism effort rather than anything.

> The important piece that gets forgotten is that Agile was openly, militantly anti-management in the beginning.

Yet here we are: The process just became an endless rabbit hole of filling jira tickets, workday schedules, and a bunch of other systems(including a shared google sheets table as it was in a company I used to work for with 5000+ employees) which easily eat up a day of your week. Detrimental if you are aiming for a deadline. And while I embraced wfh and felt insanely comfortable with it, it was used as an excuse for management to further push those things further down everyone's throats. The end result was that, at least from an engineering prespective, work became more of a marketing team meeting, filled with absurd abbreviations and processes which hold no value and only drag you down. Another problem is when you get an email from jira that someone assigned you a ticket called "Implement X in Y" with no further explanation when you click the link. It's absurd that in large companies(think 250+ people) your value is determined by how many tickets you've ticked off. "Implement X in Y" seems like just another one, but in many case those 4 words end up being 8 separate things, each of which can take several days but no one cares even if you described those in detail in the comments. You might think that story points solve that but they often don't. Imagine the following scenario: you are tasked to hook up a system to an s3 bucket to store data but you have restricted access to the aws console so you can't even create a bucket on your own. Then it turns out that the vpn is set up wrong and you can't even resolve the host if you are connected to the vpn. Then it turns out that the library you use has some bug in it or it's incompatible with some of the other libraries you use so you end up upgrading a bunch of libraries, patch up a large codebase and only then be able to get on with the s3 bucket thing. At first glance what you would assume is a 2 hour task tops ends up being a week and a half of your life. And it can be insanely demotivating when you have the same thing to report that you are working on the s3 thing in your daily scrum for a week and a half. Which is even worse when your managers have little to no tech skills beyond excel for instance. The point of my rant is that agile became the thing it was supposed to destroy - a time tracking system for the assembly line.

Edit: those things don't seem to apply for small companies/startups because... Well they are small and you get to know everyone on day one.

Re: Agile at 20: The Failed Rebellion

#18
Agile is a generic umbrella term that involves a vast array of complex, subtle knowledge and skills. It's like saying "Engineer", or "Chef". Each has a shared skillset, to be sure. But each category's members can't just work the same way at all jobs, and there's no book on how to be an Engineer or Chef everywhere.

The Agile Manifesto is a failure at trying to make Agile happen because it can't tell you how to make it happen, because it varies wildly. No manager can read a book on how to "Agile-ify" their org, they have to apply their brains and figure out how their specific version of "Agile" will work. But the skill-set required to do this is not a Managerial skill, it is a lower-level-worker skill. But it's also a very advanced lower-level-worker skill.

And that's why things like "Agile", "DevOps", etc will fail. People at the higher end have no clue how to make it happen, and people at the lower end who have an idea how to make it happen don't have the power to make the organizational changes to do so. You need a way for the lower-end people to tell the higher-end people what to do, and have the higher-end people listen to them, and make the changes happen. This is very hard in a traditional organizational hierarchy, because higher-end people have big egos and bigger concerns over things like politics.

Re: Agile at 20: The Failed Rebellion

#19
I think the big divide here is between tech companies and non tech companies.

Tech companies can look at the agile manifesto and use it as a heuristic guide, because engineers are already kind of on the same page about it. You don't need heavyweight process etc.

Non tech-companies need the window dressing of tech companies to retain their best engineers, but ultimately agile is kinda telling them to turn everything upside down and also threatening to make them superfluous. Nobody is really up for that.

So agile in non-tech companies is Kabuki theater and engenders cynicism, and agile in tech companies is basically superfluous "water is wet" advice no one even bothers to comment about.

You'll notice a lot of these blogs about how agile has failed are coming from consultants, who are basically brought into traditional companies that are struggling with some part of this process, not tech companies.

Re: Agile at 20: The Failed Rebellion

#20
post #13

Agile got widespread adoptions because of the micromanagement undertone of it, starting with the daily scrum. It's a slippery slope, way to easy to over do. The risk is it starts something to be gamed/incentivized instead of actual progress.

Agile and Scrum isn't the same thing. Even if Scrum in someways are agile. The "original" agile process, or the first videspread variant XP didn't mention any dailies. Scrum as such is much a way to adopt XP into a large cooperate environment.
Post reply on HN