Conversation
The agile methodology is entirely predicated on the idea that people who aren't managers have power in a company.
That's sort of like designing an amazing anti-gravity system on the assumption that gravity goes up.
That's sort of like designing an amazing anti-gravity system on the assumption that gravity goes up.
1
0
2
The whole point of all these methodologies is to compensate for poor technical management that the (presumed insane) inventors encountered in the industry by providing a set of rules to demonstrate very clearly that you know if you have one guy working on something, he can't also work on something else without it taking longer.
Mysteriously, it turns out that tech managers don't appear to hugely appreciate this, so 'agile' gets warped into the same old weekly meetings you always used to get, only this time using different words.
In scrum (which is the most stupid idea in software engineering) the weekly meetings are done daily.
Mysteriously, it turns out that tech managers don't appear to hugely appreciate this, so 'agile' gets warped into the same old weekly meetings you always used to get, only this time using different words.
In scrum (which is the most stupid idea in software engineering) the weekly meetings are done daily.
1
0
1
@pbarker that's a good point about consultancy, interesting.
To me it's pretty simple fundamentally - all of these methodologies are basically trying to compensate for poor tech management by 'forcing' sanity via a process.
The fundamental error is thinking that you can do that bottom-up, you can't, poor managers will simply adapt things to suit their own ends.
So it was flawed from the start, of course the original concept doesn't match reality, because it never could.
And of course managers always warp and adapt it to basically become 'weekly super top-down meetings only with different words', because they have the power, and they want to do that.
Scrum is infinitely worse, as you just end up with weekly meetings but now daily.
The whole thing is a failure.
To me it's pretty simple fundamentally - all of these methodologies are basically trying to compensate for poor tech management by 'forcing' sanity via a process.
The fundamental error is thinking that you can do that bottom-up, you can't, poor managers will simply adapt things to suit their own ends.
So it was flawed from the start, of course the original concept doesn't match reality, because it never could.
And of course managers always warp and adapt it to basically become 'weekly super top-down meetings only with different words', because they have the power, and they want to do that.
Scrum is infinitely worse, as you just end up with weekly meetings but now daily.
The whole thing is a failure.
0
0
0