|
| ▲ | orthoxerox 21 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| > Today we move much faster but often build the wrong thing or rewrite and refactor things multiple times. In waterfall we move glacially but what we would build sticks. That's an interesting observation. That's one of the biggest criticisms of waterfall: by the time you finish building something the requirements have changed already, so you have to rewrite it. |
|
| ▲ | steveBK123 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > I've worked waterfall and while I hated it at the time I'd rather go back to it. Today we move much faster but build the wrong thing or rewrite and refactor things multiple times. My experience as well. Waterfall is like - let's think about where we want this product to go, and the steps to get there. Agile is like ADHD addled zig zag journey to a destination cutting corners because we are rewriting a component for the third time, to get to a much worse product slightly faster. Now we can do that part 10x faster, cool. The thing is, at every other level of the company, people are actually planning in terms of quarters/years, so the underlying product being given only enough thought for the next 2 weeks at a time is a mismatch. |
| |
| ▲ | zingar an hour ago | parent [-] | | It’s possible to manage the quarterly expectations by saying “we can improve metric X by 10% in a quarter”. It’s often possible to find an improvement that you’re very confident of making very quickly. Depending on how backwards the company is you may need to hide the fact that the 10% improvement required a one line change after a month of experimentation, or they’ll fight you on the experimentation time and expect that one line to take 5 minutes, after which you should write lots more code that adds no value. Agile isn’t a good match for a business that can only think in terms of effort and not learning+value. That doesn’t make agile the problem. | | |
| ▲ | steveBK123 44 minutes ago | parent [-] | | My experience in an agile firm was that they hired a lot of experienced people and then treated them like juniors. Actively allergic to thinking ahead. To get around the problem that deliverables took more than a few days, actual tasks would be salami sliced down into 3 point tickets that simply delivered the starting state the next ticket needed. None of these tickets being completed was an actual user observable deliverable or something you could put on a management facing status report. Each task was so time boxed, seniors would actively be upbraided in agile ceremonies for doing obvious next steps. 8 tickets sequentially like - Download the data. Analyze the data. Load a sample of the data. Load all the data. Ok now put in data quality tests on the data. OK now schedule the daily load of the data. OK now talk to users about the type of views/aggregations/API they want on the data. OK now do a v0 of that API. It's sort of interesting because we have fully transitioned from the agile infantilization of seniors to expecting them to replace a team of juniors with LLMs. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | zingar an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Comparing the same work done between agile and waterfall I can accept your experience of what sounds like an org with unusually effective long term planning. However the value of agile is in the learning you do along the way that helps you see that the value is only in 10% of the work. So you’re not comparing 100% across two methodologies, you’re comparing 100% effort vs 10% effort (or maybe 20% because nobody is perfect). Most of the time when I see unhappiness at the agile result it’s because the assessment is done on how well the plan was delivered, as opposed to how much value was created. |
