> The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to DoD program executives and acquisition professionals on how to detect software projects that are really using agile development versus those that are simply waterfall or spiral development in agile clothing (“agile-scrum-fall”).
Actually doing 'waterfall' properly would probably be fine? Or at least not the bogeyman it's made out to be.
The real danger is that the project would just be managed badly, independent of professed approach. Just muddling through badly.
(I am not even sure if waterfall was ever actually a thing, I mostly ever only hear about it as a thing to avoid?)
> Actually doing 'waterfall' properly would probably be fine? Or at least not the bogeyman it's made out to be.
Doing waterfall in the exact sense that is usually described will almost certainly never work well. People usually focus on the design phase, but I think the much more catastrophic part of 'waterfall' is doing testing only once development is complete.
Now, you absolutely can successfully run software projects that are design heavy, that more or less freeze requirements and designs early on, and that seek to execute on the design, instead of iterating. However, if you truly develop for 6 months before any kind of external QA, as described in most Agile talks about what Waterfall means, that is a recipe for disaster. If you do test things by feature, invest in component testing and practice that all along the way, you can succeed.
This essentially describes a 2-stage waterfall: design and execute, where the execute phase includes both development and testing all along the way. Is this 'doing waterfall properly'? Or is it a hybrid methodology? That's a matter of definitions in the end.
It's also important to note that the extent to which this works depends a lot on the project itself. If the requirements are volatile (e.g. when developing a new product with an uncertain market), or if the project is too large (e.g. if the design phase suggests it will take 5 years to finish given the current team), then it's likely that the project would benefit a lot more from an Agile style of development, where you deliver smaller chunks of the project to its end users to gather early feedback on the actual usefullness.
Software development perspective here, from the receiving end of project management.
In my experience, waterfall needs unlimited time and money. Waterfall fails hard when money or time are limited, in which case the likely outcome is that the head of waterfall will be massive and the tail will be rushed, so that one gets a design-heavy and rushed implementation with little or no testing and scant documentation etc.
A timeboxed waterfall with inflexible sculpted-in-stone time schedules are a recipe for burning in the ensuing deathmarch. The planning either cannot or will not anticipate all unknowns and/or the buffers dampening the impact of the unknowns shrink because of outside pressure. (What do you mean 8 months to make this thing, can't you do it in 2 weeks, haggle haggle, sold for 2 months; available time reduced by a factor of 4)
In contrast, (a theoretically ideal) agile or some other iterative method works fine if time or money are limited. The iterative nature allows for a cut-off after a sprint. Pull the plug and have a result of state-of-the-art at that point; of course the result then might not quite reach the viable dimension of MVP nor even resemble a product.
Waterfall was a thing, it actually is a thing. It is a terrible thing. It is an idealized version of running a project that assumes you can actually plan everything out for the next 6-60 months with teams from 5-5000. I have only ever seen it work when the projects were small or the teams were experienced and working on a mature system.
"Work": I don't mean that the projects fail but that they fail in some aspect. Like they deliver late, or don't deliver the full requirements, or they don't deliver the real requirements (because the requirements were written 5 years ago by a consultant, this might be a total failure in many cases).
"agile" (not Big-A Agile the faddish cult) resolves a lot of this by one simple thing: frequent feedback between developers and customers while developing smaller increments. Which, ironically, was actually Royce's point in the paper: Feedback loops, not necessarily with the customer, need to be incorporated in order to develop large scale systems.
One of the issues in discussing this is that it turns out that when most people say "Waterfall" they mean a modified version. When you dig into what they're doing it's either a small modification (we bring the customer in during testing, which is good but that's still 4 years into the project) or a major modification (V-Model which incorporates all of Royce's feedback loops and then some). Others have gone to doing incremental & iterative development or evolutionary but still call it Waterfall because they don't know any other term.
But yes, Waterfall exists, it is a nightmare, and I hope to never be involved in it again.
If folks remember, one of the seminal Waterfall documents was actually a "Don't do it this way." document[0].
That said, sometimes, Waterfall is the best way to do some projects, but I'd say very, very few. It does work reasonably well for hardware production. Many hardware companies apply Waterfall to software, because it's the process they know.
TDD is also a technique that can encourage a "waterfallish" approach, as the design needs to be fairly complete, right at the beginning (to be fair, it is possible to do TDD iteratively, but that takes effort, and many shops like to reduce effort as much as possible). I tend to keep my designs as fluid as possible, refining in a JIT manner[1], and prefer using test harnesses to fixed unit tests[2].
I personally have a beef with the way many shops handle the concept of MVP. I feel that a significant number of shops use it as an excuse to shove out a hastily-built lashup; favoring adding features to ensuring quality.
I have come to believe in the concept and purpose of MVP, but I am also one of those "grizzled, cranky oldtimers" that has seen many, many prototypes become the "heart" of applications, and even infrastructures. I won't mention some rather obvious examples.
I feel that it's important to ensure quality from the first line of code, and to accept the fact that the MVP will become the core of the system.
The Correct Answer is chart the critical path, balance the triangle, mitigate risks. Everything else is details. aka PMI.
Our industry really jumped the shark with the Agile and XP nonsense. I flip the bozobit for anyone who uses "kanban", "sprint", liar's poker err planning poker, and other Dilbertspeak non-ironically.
20+ years later, best I can tell, the anti-methodology methodology Agile cargo cult band wagon was for people who couldn't be bothered to sit thru a PMI seminar. The unholy synthesis of pop-biz fashionistas and corporate climbers bouldering along the bullshit jobs facades. Artistes, pointy-haired bosses, "consultants", post dotcom era geek wannabes, and other assorted hangerons and poseurs.
I've always struggled to articulate the core problem. Agile is for those proudly belligerent ignorant people who reject expertise, wisdom, or anything else that would expose their grift.
A cult, more or less.
Buy me a beer sometime and I'll tell y'all how I really feel.
> Or at least not the bogeyman it's made out to be
Well... why do you think it's made out to be the "bogeyman"? The reality is that people tried (and continued to try) to run software projects that way: state up-front everything you're going to do, and then do it! What could be simpler?
Anybody who's ever tried to do that has run headlong into the reality that: they didn't know up-front all the things they were going to need to do. For a long time, people believed that this was just a matter of experience and perspective and, after a reasonable amount of practice, software developers would be able to not only recite each task ahead of time, not only predict how long each was going to take, but would be able to do so in orders of magnitude less time than the actual task would take.
This view of software development imagines programming as mostly just typing without much more thought involved than, say, laying bricks. That this model, if accurate, could be automated away seems to escape the attention of the project managers who insist on managing software projects this way. If it were possible to specify software in such a way that it could be predicted and planned out the way "waterfall" demands, it could be automated to take humans out of the equation completely. (And the project managers themselves could be replaced with a spreadsheet).
If you go back and read the original Agile manifesto, it was written by people who were trying to explain that software is inherently unpredictable or - more to the point - that the parts of software that you need humans to perform are the unpredictable parts. There's an old saying, though, that nobody ever went broke telling people what they wanted to hear, so a cottage industry of agile "consultants" who'd never tried to develop software themselves made fortunes telling upper management that software is, as they wished, completely predictable, and the only reason schedules slip is because they're not mistreating their programmers harshly enough.
Approximately 13 years in the field. At least four to five different organizations. Worked on everything from embedded aerospace systems to web apps and everything in between. Start-ups, mega-government labs, and again everything in between.
I've never seen a project use "Waterfall". It's just not a thing. People use it as a hypothetical boogeyman to "Agile".
As with everything "Agile", all words lose meaning.
Edit: There DOES exist the CMMI Systems Engineering processes, that generally involve various design reviews (PDR, CDR), IOCs, FOCs. These are essential for large-scale procurement that perform mission-critical functions. Superficially similar to "Waterfall", it still isn't. For example, you don't want to be on an aircraft or spacecraft that was "Agile"-ed to completion.
I dont know, the paper that described waterfall used it as an example of what not to do, they covered the better method on the following page but it seems people only read the "headline".
> Actually doing 'waterfall' properly would probably be fine?
It's not fine if there is a need for the particular things that agile serves, which is why contracting requirements would specify agile and contractors would, to be response, claim to be agile necessitating the people reviewing the submission to detect agile BS.
Government requires waterfallish process in contracts all the time, but a document on identifying Agile BS isn't addressing those cases.
Interesting that all these issues are completely different from my own experiences with Agile BS. We would have 10 hours of exhausting meetings every 2 weeks in order to plan our sprints. Unconsciously, we just ended up hyper inflating estimates so our team would joke about how the only thing we did each sprint was "slap a box on it" (in CSS, or some similarly simple task).
I left that job when all the developers completed their tasks a few hours before the end of the sprint, giving me (QA) just a few hours to test, merge, and deploy their code, which because of our terribly clunky and manual deploy system, just wasn't possible. I was placed under an internal investigation for not being productive because I held up the sprint of the "most productive team in the company" and made us look bad to out of state executives.
I worked at a failing startup that had embraced agile BS. 4 week sprints, 2-3 days spent on retro and planning meetings. They eventually moved to 2 week sprints, but 2 days of that still went to planning. Each day had a 45 minute standup (with about 20 people from the whole "back end" team.) Each week, there was a department wide standup with over 100 people, from all of engineering! It was insane.
They used an enterprise-grade source control system run by the IT department (Perforce.) It was almost impossible to create a branch. In fact, I saw only one created during my brief 1 year time there.
Since there were no branches, you had "shelve" your changes and get an "in person" code review to merge. If you added something minor, like a new getter, but didn't have a unit test for it, you'd get flagged (even if it was used else where in the code.) It basically took forever to get anything done.
Oh yeah, they never shipped any of this stuff, either.
I love the document and will distribute to my co-workers. The short story, however, is not really that there's a checklist to determine BS Agile, but rather that all/most Agile is BS.
In my career I've seen "Agile" throw a wrench in the works for so many projects. Embedded systems; data center distributed systems that are air-gapped; aerospace safety systems; R&D work. Agile in these cases just isn't the thing to do, but unfortunately the culture these days is that everyone MUST be Agile, and so it creates another bureaucratic nightmare of dysfunction.
The funny thing is, people will always go to bat for Agile (MUCH more so on Reddit than HN).. and I don't understand why. I think furthermore the discourse around this has become so weird. For example, I asked someone kindly what is "Not-Agile"? There's no answer, other than "bad ways of making software". The discourse has become caveman-like "Agile good. Not-Agile bad."
At the end of the day, Agile is probably great if you're making a mobile app or a web app with a small team for a client with a small-to-medium budget, which accounts for most work software developers do, which is why its so popular. But is inherently too short-sighted and unable to address technical challenges that go more than superficially deep.
I love this document as well for very similar reasons. It's interesting how attached people become to the ritual of doing things instead of thinking about why they are doing it.
In my experience it seems like a ton of things that people want to do with agile is get to skip the writing and design work that has to happen to make deep technical projects happen. There is a really strong desire to just start implementing and then be able to refactor to working code. Of course there is always pressure to deliver faster so the refactor only ever gets half done and then there is an architectural mess.
The advantage that Agile brings to the table is that it enables more tracking and measurement at finer-grained time intervals than other approaches. Tracking and measurement is the key feature of Agile or any other software development methodology. It enables the business to determine what needs to get done, if it's on track to completion, and if not, what the pain points are. Having a short OODA loop for these three points is paramount to the business's success and in order to do that you need to track and measure. You can't manage what you can't measure, and Agile processes give the business data and analytics about how their development efforts are going at least at a sprint level of granularity; depending on local practices it could be as fine as one day. That's huge. It could potentially add visibility to all aspects of the business -- so get ready to see Agile everywhere.
TL;DR, if you believe Agile was created to help you do your job better, you might also believe that open-plan offices were really adopted to "foster collaboration" and not make you easier to spy on at work.
Agile really scratched that "cult" (weird names, daily rituals, special roles, people who don't do it are either ignorant or evil) part of the brain that programmers are susceptible to, the part that starts so many flamewars over emacs versus vi or top-posting versus bottom-posting. It's as if people forgot that programming existed before Agile came along.
What's DIB? Just trying to understand who is the target audience of this guide.
It's a practical set of traits to spot. But inevitably a question comes up "what to do next?" Re-educate, enforce, hire/fire, disband?
One needs to remember how the Agile processes were being "installed" back in the day in organisations/teams of various degree of dysfunction. Lots of those teams went through trials of "templates", including waterfall, just with the same outcomes.
Too often, the failure is not at the team but on org-level. The base tenet of Agile success is buy-in on all levels. Yet it's easier for the management to "buy-into" a structure and attributes, not into actually empowering and trusting the teams.
So, this detection approach may find all right attributes, tools, lingo, roles... but not the actual practices. A beaten down example is a morning stand-up, which disguises the dreaded subordinate reports - best indicator of such theater is a presence of a "clip-board" or note-taker person.
I'd think for such guide to be of better practical value, there should be a section which would outline ways to detect the constraints and obstacles for adoption of a proccess which would be effective in a given team's case. It does not have to be Agile-or-wrong.
Made up of various tech industry leaders (mainly CEOs, it seems). The purpose was to try and modernize the way, or present a path to modernization, defense software systems are developed and maintained. Because it's presently a cluster fuck.
My current problem : customers who don't want to participate in the agile process and do want to have a "simple" pre-agreed specification to use to determine project success/failure. Of course they can't write such a spec and want me to do it - and of course I can't without doing large parts of the work to implement it (because if I'm wrong I'm on the hook for a large sum of money wasted).
It started well, then it completely fell on the corporate bullshit side.
For example: "Some current, common tools in use by teams using agile development".
This is the kind of reason why a lot of people are required by management to use useless overkill stacks for their needs like docker or kubernetes.
Also the "questions to ask" are typical ridiculous agile corporate bullshit like "have you a product charter", or common forced process oriented questions.
I don't think that listing some example tools is a problem. Especially for the audience of a primer like this, a categorized vocabulary list like this can be indispensable for giving people a quick lay of the land and a preview of some names they'll encounter.
My complaint would be that, "Tools listed/shown here are for illustration only: no endorsement implied," should have been inline instead of buried in a footnote.
Given agile is 20 years old and most of those tools are somewhat younger, it is obviously possible to use other techniques to manage development and deployment without having to tick the 'at scale' type boxes that are so loved by the current batch of web deployment models.
I interviewed recently at a defense contractor and experienced something like this. I know you’re supposed to ask questions during an interview but I usually only really come up with two: what is your git/hg workflow and what does your automated test coverage look like.
Usually the second one has an answer along the lines of “not good but we’re working on it” which is fine. This place though tried pretty hard to convince me they were using git to manage their code right up until I asked the second question. The senior engineer sort of mumbled a few things ending with something along the lines of “we’re still figuring out exactly what the transition from svn will look like.”
I’m not sure why they didn’t decide to hire me but I feel like that interaction really upset someone and may have been a big part of it.
For me the biggest clue is always a fixed "agile" process. By definition any notion of fixing a process is anti-agile.
In my current team the only thing that I have asked to do when "going agile" was biweekly retro to discuss what to improve. Seems to be going pretty well even if most problems have solutions from various described "agile" process templates.
eru|5 years ago
> The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to DoD program executives and acquisition professionals on how to detect software projects that are really using agile development versus those that are simply waterfall or spiral development in agile clothing (“agile-scrum-fall”).
Actually doing 'waterfall' properly would probably be fine? Or at least not the bogeyman it's made out to be.
The real danger is that the project would just be managed badly, independent of professed approach. Just muddling through badly.
(I am not even sure if waterfall was ever actually a thing, I mostly ever only hear about it as a thing to avoid?)
tsimionescu|5 years ago
Doing waterfall in the exact sense that is usually described will almost certainly never work well. People usually focus on the design phase, but I think the much more catastrophic part of 'waterfall' is doing testing only once development is complete.
Now, you absolutely can successfully run software projects that are design heavy, that more or less freeze requirements and designs early on, and that seek to execute on the design, instead of iterating. However, if you truly develop for 6 months before any kind of external QA, as described in most Agile talks about what Waterfall means, that is a recipe for disaster. If you do test things by feature, invest in component testing and practice that all along the way, you can succeed.
This essentially describes a 2-stage waterfall: design and execute, where the execute phase includes both development and testing all along the way. Is this 'doing waterfall properly'? Or is it a hybrid methodology? That's a matter of definitions in the end.
It's also important to note that the extent to which this works depends a lot on the project itself. If the requirements are volatile (e.g. when developing a new product with an uncertain market), or if the project is too large (e.g. if the design phase suggests it will take 5 years to finish given the current team), then it's likely that the project would benefit a lot more from an Agile style of development, where you deliver smaller chunks of the project to its end users to gather early feedback on the actual usefullness.
jnurmine|5 years ago
In my experience, waterfall needs unlimited time and money. Waterfall fails hard when money or time are limited, in which case the likely outcome is that the head of waterfall will be massive and the tail will be rushed, so that one gets a design-heavy and rushed implementation with little or no testing and scant documentation etc.
A timeboxed waterfall with inflexible sculpted-in-stone time schedules are a recipe for burning in the ensuing deathmarch. The planning either cannot or will not anticipate all unknowns and/or the buffers dampening the impact of the unknowns shrink because of outside pressure. (What do you mean 8 months to make this thing, can't you do it in 2 weeks, haggle haggle, sold for 2 months; available time reduced by a factor of 4)
In contrast, (a theoretically ideal) agile or some other iterative method works fine if time or money are limited. The iterative nature allows for a cut-off after a sprint. Pull the plug and have a result of state-of-the-art at that point; of course the result then might not quite reach the viable dimension of MVP nor even resemble a product.
Jtsummers|5 years ago
"Work": I don't mean that the projects fail but that they fail in some aspect. Like they deliver late, or don't deliver the full requirements, or they don't deliver the real requirements (because the requirements were written 5 years ago by a consultant, this might be a total failure in many cases).
"agile" (not Big-A Agile the faddish cult) resolves a lot of this by one simple thing: frequent feedback between developers and customers while developing smaller increments. Which, ironically, was actually Royce's point in the paper: Feedback loops, not necessarily with the customer, need to be incorporated in order to develop large scale systems.
One of the issues in discussing this is that it turns out that when most people say "Waterfall" they mean a modified version. When you dig into what they're doing it's either a small modification (we bring the customer in during testing, which is good but that's still 4 years into the project) or a major modification (V-Model which incorporates all of Royce's feedback loops and then some). Others have gone to doing incremental & iterative development or evolutionary but still call it Waterfall because they don't know any other term.
But yes, Waterfall exists, it is a nightmare, and I hope to never be involved in it again.
ChrisMarshallNY|5 years ago
That said, sometimes, Waterfall is the best way to do some projects, but I'd say very, very few. It does work reasonably well for hardware production. Many hardware companies apply Waterfall to software, because it's the process they know.
TDD is also a technique that can encourage a "waterfallish" approach, as the design needs to be fairly complete, right at the beginning (to be fair, it is possible to do TDD iteratively, but that takes effort, and many shops like to reduce effort as much as possible). I tend to keep my designs as fluid as possible, refining in a JIT manner[1], and prefer using test harnesses to fixed unit tests[2].
I personally have a beef with the way many shops handle the concept of MVP. I feel that a significant number of shops use it as an excuse to shove out a hastily-built lashup; favoring adding features to ensuring quality.
I have come to believe in the concept and purpose of MVP, but I am also one of those "grizzled, cranky oldtimers" that has seen many, many prototypes become the "heart" of applications, and even infrastructures. I won't mention some rather obvious examples.
I feel that it's important to ensure quality from the first line of code, and to accept the fact that the MVP will become the core of the system.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model#History (Look at Royce's presentation)
[1] https://medium.com/chrismarshallny/evolutionary-design-speci...
[2] https://medium.com/chrismarshallny/testing-harness-vs-unit-4...
specialist|5 years ago
Our industry really jumped the shark with the Agile and XP nonsense. I flip the bozobit for anyone who uses "kanban", "sprint", liar's poker err planning poker, and other Dilbertspeak non-ironically.
20+ years later, best I can tell, the anti-methodology methodology Agile cargo cult band wagon was for people who couldn't be bothered to sit thru a PMI seminar. The unholy synthesis of pop-biz fashionistas and corporate climbers bouldering along the bullshit jobs facades. Artistes, pointy-haired bosses, "consultants", post dotcom era geek wannabes, and other assorted hangerons and poseurs.
I've always struggled to articulate the core problem. Agile is for those proudly belligerent ignorant people who reject expertise, wisdom, or anything else that would expose their grift.
A cult, more or less.
Buy me a beer sometime and I'll tell y'all how I really feel.
commandlinefan|5 years ago
Well... why do you think it's made out to be the "bogeyman"? The reality is that people tried (and continued to try) to run software projects that way: state up-front everything you're going to do, and then do it! What could be simpler?
Anybody who's ever tried to do that has run headlong into the reality that: they didn't know up-front all the things they were going to need to do. For a long time, people believed that this was just a matter of experience and perspective and, after a reasonable amount of practice, software developers would be able to not only recite each task ahead of time, not only predict how long each was going to take, but would be able to do so in orders of magnitude less time than the actual task would take.
This view of software development imagines programming as mostly just typing without much more thought involved than, say, laying bricks. That this model, if accurate, could be automated away seems to escape the attention of the project managers who insist on managing software projects this way. If it were possible to specify software in such a way that it could be predicted and planned out the way "waterfall" demands, it could be automated to take humans out of the equation completely. (And the project managers themselves could be replaced with a spreadsheet).
If you go back and read the original Agile manifesto, it was written by people who were trying to explain that software is inherently unpredictable or - more to the point - that the parts of software that you need humans to perform are the unpredictable parts. There's an old saying, though, that nobody ever went broke telling people what they wanted to hear, so a cottage industry of agile "consultants" who'd never tried to develop software themselves made fortunes telling upper management that software is, as they wished, completely predictable, and the only reason schedules slip is because they're not mistreating their programmers harshly enough.
vbtemp|5 years ago
I've never seen a project use "Waterfall". It's just not a thing. People use it as a hypothetical boogeyman to "Agile".
As with everything "Agile", all words lose meaning.
Edit: There DOES exist the CMMI Systems Engineering processes, that generally involve various design reviews (PDR, CDR), IOCs, FOCs. These are essential for large-scale procurement that perform mission-critical functions. Superficially similar to "Waterfall", it still isn't. For example, you don't want to be on an aircraft or spacecraft that was "Agile"-ed to completion.
noir_lord|5 years ago
dragonwriter|5 years ago
It's not fine if there is a need for the particular things that agile serves, which is why contracting requirements would specify agile and contractors would, to be response, claim to be agile necessitating the people reviewing the submission to detect agile BS.
Government requires waterfallish process in contracts all the time, but a document on identifying Agile BS isn't addressing those cases.
ngngngng|5 years ago
I left that job when all the developers completed their tasks a few hours before the end of the sprint, giving me (QA) just a few hours to test, merge, and deploy their code, which because of our terribly clunky and manual deploy system, just wasn't possible. I was placed under an internal investigation for not being productive because I held up the sprint of the "most productive team in the company" and made us look bad to out of state executives.
icedchai|5 years ago
They used an enterprise-grade source control system run by the IT department (Perforce.) It was almost impossible to create a branch. In fact, I saw only one created during my brief 1 year time there.
Since there were no branches, you had "shelve" your changes and get an "in person" code review to merge. If you added something minor, like a new getter, but didn't have a unit test for it, you'd get flagged (even if it was used else where in the code.) It basically took forever to get anything done.
Oh yeah, they never shipped any of this stuff, either.
I could go on...
vbtemp|5 years ago
Functional teams and companies will make good products and set up their staff for success, with or without agile.
Dysfunctional teams will have all sorts of perverse incentives and set each other up for failure, with or without agile.
dionian|5 years ago
vbtemp|5 years ago
In my career I've seen "Agile" throw a wrench in the works for so many projects. Embedded systems; data center distributed systems that are air-gapped; aerospace safety systems; R&D work. Agile in these cases just isn't the thing to do, but unfortunately the culture these days is that everyone MUST be Agile, and so it creates another bureaucratic nightmare of dysfunction.
The funny thing is, people will always go to bat for Agile (MUCH more so on Reddit than HN).. and I don't understand why. I think furthermore the discourse around this has become so weird. For example, I asked someone kindly what is "Not-Agile"? There's no answer, other than "bad ways of making software". The discourse has become caveman-like "Agile good. Not-Agile bad."
At the end of the day, Agile is probably great if you're making a mobile app or a web app with a small team for a client with a small-to-medium budget, which accounts for most work software developers do, which is why its so popular. But is inherently too short-sighted and unable to address technical challenges that go more than superficially deep.
jrott|5 years ago
In my experience it seems like a ton of things that people want to do with agile is get to skip the writing and design work that has to happen to make deep technical projects happen. There is a really strong desire to just start implementing and then be able to refactor to working code. Of course there is always pressure to deliver faster so the refactor only ever gets half done and then there is an architectural mess.
bitwize|5 years ago
TL;DR, if you believe Agile was created to help you do your job better, you might also believe that open-plan offices were really adopted to "foster collaboration" and not make you easier to spy on at work.
at_a_remove|5 years ago
marcodave|5 years ago
closeparen|5 years ago
So do the users visit the datacenter to connect them, or what?
zoomablemind|5 years ago
It's a practical set of traits to spot. But inevitably a question comes up "what to do next?" Re-educate, enforce, hire/fire, disband?
One needs to remember how the Agile processes were being "installed" back in the day in organisations/teams of various degree of dysfunction. Lots of those teams went through trials of "templates", including waterfall, just with the same outcomes.
Too often, the failure is not at the team but on org-level. The base tenet of Agile success is buy-in on all levels. Yet it's easier for the management to "buy-into" a structure and attributes, not into actually empowering and trusting the teams.
So, this detection approach may find all right attributes, tools, lingo, roles... but not the actual practices. A beaten down example is a morning stand-up, which disguises the dreaded subordinate reports - best indicator of such theater is a presence of a "clip-board" or note-taker person.
I'd think for such guide to be of better practical value, there should be a section which would outline ways to detect the constraints and obstacles for adoption of a proccess which would be effective in a given team's case. It does not have to be Agile-or-wrong.
Jtsummers|5 years ago
Made up of various tech industry leaders (mainly CEOs, it seems). The purpose was to try and modernize the way, or present a path to modernization, defense software systems are developed and maintained. Because it's presently a cluster fuck.
TheSoftwareGuy|5 years ago
sgt101|5 years ago
kthejoker2|5 years ago
You can't force customers to "get" Agile. You can force them to understand the risks of not participating in the process.
dang|5 years ago
greatgib|5 years ago
For example: "Some current, common tools in use by teams using agile development".
This is the kind of reason why a lot of people are required by management to use useless overkill stacks for their needs like docker or kubernetes.
Also the "questions to ask" are typical ridiculous agile corporate bullshit like "have you a product charter", or common forced process oriented questions.
mumblemumble|5 years ago
My complaint would be that, "Tools listed/shown here are for illustration only: no endorsement implied," should have been inline instead of buried in a footnote.
cesaref|5 years ago
swiley|5 years ago
Usually the second one has an answer along the lines of “not good but we’re working on it” which is fine. This place though tried pretty hard to convince me they were using git to manage their code right up until I asked the second question. The senior engineer sort of mumbled a few things ending with something along the lines of “we’re still figuring out exactly what the transition from svn will look like.”
I’m not sure why they didn’t decide to hire me but I feel like that interaction really upset someone and may have been a big part of it.
lmilcin|5 years ago
In my current team the only thing that I have asked to do when "going agile" was biweekly retro to discuss what to improve. Seems to be going pretty well even if most problems have solutions from various described "agile" process templates.
unknown|5 years ago
[deleted]
postfacto|5 years ago
[deleted]