[fredwu]

So Slashdot quotes The Register https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/05/agile_failure_rates/ which in turn quotes Engprax https://www.engprax.com/post/268-higher-failure-rates-for-ag... which in turn is promoting its book "Impact Engineering" which the "study" is conducted for.

Take it with a huge grain of salt.

[sigtstp]

Engprax being a consultancy that comissioned the study, mostly for self-promotion.

Hazardous levels of sodium with this one.

[iLoveOncall]

That's true, but it's not Engprax that RAN the study, they commissioned it.

What matters is not the "268% higher" failure rate than whatever they are selling. It's the 65% failure rate of projects using Agile.

That said the true question is how they define failure? Missed deadline? Project stopped? Etc.

[sigtstp]

Comissioning it is a huge conflict of interest though, esp since it's used as promotion material for their consulting.

Reminds me of the study saying "a teaspoon of honey per day is healthy" with funding from the American Honey Something Association.

[torginus]

It's like expert witnesses hired by lawyers - you're not supposed to be able to influence what they say, yet unfailingly they tend to arrive at conclusions the people hiring them want to hear.

[blackoil]

There is a reason we don't trust studies funded by tobacco companies about harms from smoking.