|
|
|
|
|
|
by noarchy
3313 days ago
|
|
|
>Devs were always measured by velocity. It was just called "deadlines" or milestones in classical waterfall methods. I tend to think that the entire concept of waterfall is a great strawman. At some point, "rapid iteration" runs into the cold, hard reality of how companies tend to work. There are definitely still deadlines, even if no one wants to come out and call them that. I don't want to suggest that I'm dismissing everything coming out of Scrum (and its cousins) out of hand. But I also think that there's sometimes too much salesmanship pushing it. This represents the commidifying of Agile itself, where now there is money to be made in coaching teams, and selling certifications, regardless of what the end result is. |
|
|
The point of the manifesto and of training is to present the idealized form. All decent Scrum training will point out that, when the rubber meets the road, there are going to be compromises.
The idea is that it's more a frame of mind than a rigid system. If you approach the "cold, hard reality" with that frame of mind you'll still see improvement.
I'll give you a common real world example: having simple timeboxed sprints and daily 10 min standups is all many companies end up doing.
That's a shame but at the same time now that team has better team communication and better tracking of progress.
Will it be as good as it could be? No. Is it as bad as it could be? Also no.
It's a trade off.
The salesmanship that pisses off so many devs is because a truly Agile workplace requires buy in from all levels and know what helps get buy in from management? Certification, training, webinars, and enterprise-y biz-dev seminars.
There's a tendency of developers to think that every part of something that applies to them should be for them, but that's not true. That salesmanship is not aimed at you, it's useful training for you (I'm doing CSD training this summer for example), but that part is aimed at other parts of the company.