|
raddevus wrote: This creates the immediate formation of another group of people known as the I_TOLD_YOU_SOs.
Which forms yet other groups of those known as "Excuse Makers" and "Scapegoaters".
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your thoughts are valid. Another thing that happens in the transformation is the following:
The team-based approach where the team decides how to add value in agile may not get traction, if the organization has not ever done agile and that the team will continue to prioritize the procedures in place. With lack of out-of-box thinking, the ideas and values of the Agile processes won't get priority at least in the medium term thus making the transformation process often slow.
|
|
|
|
|
This fall into the excuse maker's[^] category
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Great post and I agree with you. I think this is also why Small Teams more often succeed with Agile.
Of course, there is a bit of a paradox too because small steams often default to an Agile-type of working process.
|
|
|
|
|
The reason Agile will never work - stake holders are never available to discuss the progress until it's too late to change anything before deployment.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: They are disinterested because they will never use the thing -- or at least don't think they'll have to use it. If you were going to be forced to actually use the thing you'd get involved and have heavy opinions about how it would look and work.
How are they going to use it? Most of the times the ones "approving" don't even have a clue about what is going to be approved.
raddevus wrote: Are we devs that boring? 
Yes! 
No... we only speak a language that most decision makers or money responsible just don't understand
raddevus wrote: However, when they are finally forced to use the software (because there is no alternative) they will finally use it and complain about the way every feature works. 
And don't forget about the icons / colors of the GUI 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: And don't forget about the icons / colors of the GUI
The most important part of any app. How could I forget!?!
|
|
|
|
|
#realJSOP wrote: The reason Agile will never work - stake holders are never available to discuss the progress until it's too late to change anything before deployment.
I've been doing Agile for 20+ years and it works great. It works beautifully as long as people understand it.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
"As long as people understand it".
You probably should have written "ALL people". You only need a few people believing it doesn't apply to them to ruin the idea. Those people are usually having key positions.
|
|
|
|
|
This is all well and true.
But waterfall is worse.
So Agile fails... less...
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know why Agile fails, because for over 20 years I've been doing it and it has worked great. Not perfectly, but great. But it has never failed me.
raddevus wrote: pre-release edition
Looks like this will be the last time you get asked to review pre-release books. 
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
ZurdoDev wrote: I don't know why Agile fails, because for over 20 years I've been doing it and it has worked great. Not perfectly, but great. But it has never failed me.
I really, really like Agile. I use it in my own development. However, the point of what Martin is saying is that many company and corporate environments have far too rigid rules for it to work there. That is very unfortunate. Have you read the book, Scrum: The Art of Doing Twice the Work in Half the Time[^]
It is one of the two original implementers of Agile and it is a great book. It details the _heart_ of Agile and I like the actual working process (no matter what you call that).
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: is saying is that many company and corporate environments have far too rigid rules for it to work there.
That is true. I mentioned in a different reply that everyone has to be on board and then it works great.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect you're work alone and your own Scrum Master playing with your board.
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps I have just been lucky to work with competent people my whole career. Or at least semi-competent.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
You are very lucky. I certainly can not state that.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Ahh, the competent, those who are:
0. Spenting their time holding coffee mug and roaming around in the office.
1. False process story tellers wasting corporate money.
2. Sprint secrectories...
|
|
|
|
|
I've always felt agile was most effective in smaller shops, where you can have that free communication and ability to think and act outside the box.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Never been a fan of Mr. Martin.
After all, the reason for:
> value safety, consistency, command-and-control, and plan execution
is specifically to counter the chaos of:
> risk-taking, rapid-feedback, intense, high-bandwidth communication between people that ignores barriers and command structures.
Granted, middle-management structures are not the solution but tend to become necessary as the product develops from a two person garage shop (or dorm room) implementation into a company that employs thousands of people, many of which have nothing directly to do with software development (legal team, help desk, sales and marketing, etc) but are very necessary. And it is those groups that start driving the requirements that get fed to the actual developers, not the other way around.
IMHO, the problem with Agile (well, one of many) is that it's a concept intended to maintain the illusion that the developers are in control of the product, when in reality they are not.
|
|
|
|
|
Those are all very good points.
It also reminds me of the
Two Distinct Parts of Business
1. building
2. selling
Its also the two distinct types of workers
1. builders (Wozniak)
2. sellers (Jobs)
You can't have one with the other.
Agile tends to be focused on The Builders.
It's a great method for getting Builders to drive the thing.
The Sellers really should drive the product to where it is supposed to be and _SHOULD_ own the product.
Marc Clifton wrote: the problem with Agile (well, one of many) is that it's a concept intended to maintain the illusion that the developers are in control of the product, when in reality they are not.
Product Owner
This should be the part of the Product Owner. The Product Owner simply "contracts" devs to get the shtuff done. The developers shouldn't own the product. The Product Owner should be a person who is as motivated as Jobs to "Get it right!!!" and "Don't build crap!"
But the Seller must also KNOW EXACTLY what the product MUST be.
But, have you ever seen that in a company? Very rare!
So, the devs end up making the lion's share of final decisions.
They are way down the pipe and only seeing one part of the elephant and thinking it is one thing or the other: no overall vision.
And, as you said, it all falls apart.
modified 8-Aug-19 14:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Never been a fan of Mr. Martin.
...and just what have I done to p1ss you off this time?
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
I work in an agile organization of 400 devs. At my company, agile isn't a bolt-on thrust onto the R&D team - it's how the entire company operates. Clearly, I'm in the minority.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Ravi Bhavnani wrote: I work in an agile organization of 400 devs. At my company, agile isn't a bolt-on thrust onto the R&D team - it's how the entire company operates.
That must be a very solid company that is running well.
It's a 1 in a million to find a company with a strong process in place. 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
