|
|
|
|
|
|
by randomdata
1558 days ago
|
|
|
Where are the lines drawn? Take Agile. It clearly outlines that you cannot have managers getting in the way. Yet, I don't know how many companies I've seen trying "Agile" without giving up their managers. If you're not even willing to move past the first step, indeed it is doomed to failure. But surely you should recognize that when you decide to go down that road? Removing the managers from the equation requires a team of developers who have a very business-oriented mindset. I expect a lot of developers don't have that, and may not even be capable of it. For any given business, chances are that does not describe your team. I think it is fair to say that Agile is not realistic in the vast majority of cases. Is the fault Agile for being written for a narrow scope of situations or for practitioners trying to adopt it where it was not designed to fit? I would suggest the latter. |
|
|
I believe Agile is one of the main offenders here. You suggest that Agile is not "realistic" in most cases, and I agree with that, but Agile consultants and practitioners like to say that Agile is about taking what works for you, and adapting it to your needs.
I think Agile adoption by people who believe in this, is doomed. When Agile is seen as a set of nebulous guidelines from where you can pick and choose, it just doesn't work, and in turn, these experiences feed the idea that Agile doesn't work as a whole.