21–30 of 66 posts
Most of us with a brain have looked at it and taken the best parts of what is there and incorporated into our workflow for ourselves and our teams, and dumped the rest.
The rest just parrot on the same talking points with a different angle every week.
For me, Agile is about risk migitation by early knowledge building.
I guess the “No True Agile” crowd is as alive and well as they were 10 years ago. When it’s a failure, they always come out of the woodwork to let you know you weren’t doing it according to the orthodoxy. When you point out that it isn’t faster in practice, they gaslight you and claim that was never the point in the first place. In a way it reminds me of a cult. You do a series arcane rituals that have no scientific…
Conceptually, I like shapeup. I think spiral model is fine - I'd argue that a lot of "agile" shops are closer to spiral.
Now, there are tools in agile that I'll vehemently defend, such as continuous integration and retrospectives. I'm a fan of most of the principles, such as "Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility." But we are now at a point that if we're going to argue that "agile doesn't work," we've had enough time as an industry to gather around an alternative.
It's about both, it's just that ritualized Big-A Agile isn't about either. It's about the appearance of speed and selling certifications to companies and management that don't know better. I think "velocity" (from Scrum) actually evoked the correct idea, but most people seem to forget that velocity != speed. Velocity is a pair, speed and direction. Raw speed is useless if you're heading the wrong way (e.g., towards a…
But if you can adjust the direction fast enough, you can quickly recover from the wrong direction. That is, it's about speed of adjusting , not just speed. (In sports, it's the difference between speed and quickness.)
Theoretically, scrum was aimed at adjusting faster. But if the adjustments just keep coming, you won't go anywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if you can adjust the direction fast enough, you can quickly recover from the wrong direction. That is, it's about speed of adjusting , not just speed. (In sports, it's the difference between speed and quickness.)
Only if you adjust into the right direction, and keep it after the adjustment. Theoretically, scrum was aimed at adjusting faster. But if the adjustments just keep coming, you won't go anywhere.
I guess the “No True Agile” crowd is as alive and well as they were 10 years ago. When it’s a failure, they always come out of the woodwork to let you know you weren’t doing it according to the orthodoxy. When you point out that it isn’t faster in practice, they gaslight you and claim that was never the point in the first place. In a way it reminds me of a cult. You do a series arcane rituals that have no scientific…
Fine. Let's assume that Agile is worse than the alternative. I am willing to accept that. However, which process are you arguing for, in its stead? "Programming, Motherfucker?" Shapeup? (Shapeup gets pretty close to agile in spirit.) Spiral Model? (I am assuming you're not arguing for RUP or others.) Conceptually, I like shapeup. I think spiral model is fine - I'd argue that a lot of "agile" shops are closer to spira…
I guess the “No True Agile” crowd is as alive and well as they were 10 years ago. When it’s a failure, they always come out of the woodwork to let you know you weren’t doing it according to the orthodoxy. When you point out that it isn’t faster in practice, they gaslight you and claim that was never the point in the first place. In a way it reminds me of a cult. You do a series arcane rituals that have no scientific…
I guess the “No True Agile” crowd is as alive and well as they were 10 years ago. When it’s a failure, they always come out of the woodwork to let you know you weren’t doing it according to the orthodoxy. When you point out that it isn’t faster in practice, they gaslight you and claim that was never the point in the first place. In a way it reminds me of a cult. You do a series arcane rituals that have no scientific…
Hold up.
You mean to tell me that someone just pulled stories, story points, point poker, scrum, and the master of the scrum, burn down charts, spikes, iterations, sprints, and retrospectives ... all out of their ass?
I guess the “No True Agile” crowd is as alive and well as they were 10 years ago. When it’s a failure, they always come out of the woodwork to let you know you weren’t doing it according to the orthodoxy. When you point out that it isn’t faster in practice, they gaslight you and claim that was never the point in the first place. In a way it reminds me of a cult. You do a series arcane rituals that have no scientific…
What would be a more data-driven software development process, that’s backed by scientific evidence and is statistically proven?