All it does is let leadership not define what they actually want, and make changes on the fly, which leads to longer dev times and worse code. Fuck agile, bring back waterfall.
All it does is let leadership not define what they actually want, and make changes on the fly, which leads to longer dev times and worse code. Fuck agile, bring back waterfall.
Please point where I said we should just do what we want (anarchy). (Hint: this is not possible.)
Let me quote what I actually said , K?
(I corrected a couple of minor typos.)
Now let me take this apart.
The conditional is very important here.
So is the word “constant”.
This is the crux of the argument. If your argument in support of a system is that its failures are all “implemented poorly”…
… and if most of the attempts to use your approach are mysteriously “implemented poorly” …
… then the problem is your approach, not the implementation of it. Good systems fail safe. Good systems do not require perfection in implementation to see benefits. Good systems, if imperfectly applied, should at the very least not be worse than the alternatives.
In most cases (and again I’d actually argue all, but that’s a personal bias) of “agile” the system fails and turns into a clusterfuck worse than the approaches it tries to replace. It does not fail safe. And whenever this is pointed out, invariably someone comes out of the scrum to point accusing fingers at where it was “implemented poorly”.
But you know what? There are engineering processes that even when people fail at elements of them you still see actual improvement in outcomes from trying to apply them. I don’t see this in agile. Ever. It, like communism, requires people to be perfect little robots doing every piece of the system perfectly to achieve the purported grand benefits.
And I ain’t buyin’.
Incidentally, would you mind sharing with me what you think ‘waterfall’ is? I have a suspicion what picture you’re going to share and if you do, I’m afraid I will laugh at you.
Agile isn’t meant to replace anything. You need to use the right method for your context. No one said the purpose of agile is to replace all other methods.
Agile doesn’t have to be implemented perfectly to work. You seem to be holding agile to some higher standard than anything else.
You have to get over the communism comparisons. They aren’t relevant.
Just because you haven’t worked in an agile environment you enjoyed, that doesn’t mean it can’t work. It can and does work. Just like any other method. And it can and does fail. Just like any other method.
OP didn’t work in agile. They were told that they were working in agile but it was just an excuse for the business to not have requirements and continually change their mind. Every one of the issues they raised could have happened in any other methodology. It’s poor management.