|
|
|
|
|
|
by 64StarFox64
1469 days ago
|
|
|
How much of this is possible due to the fact that "there is no real fear of the company collapsing?" This sounds like process-resembling-waterfall, which seemingly works well because use cases, constraints, and patterns are (relatively) so well understood at an established company. Is there "edge" or value in that process, or is the value in the understanding of use-cases, constraints, and patterns (or a drive to align towards reaching said understanding) that enables the process? |
|
|
"the value in the understanding of use-cases, constraints, and patterns (or a drive to align towards reaching said understanding) that enables the process"
These companies operate at a different scale, speed and constraints to other companies. Just as people say "you are not Google" don't use Google tech solutions for your problems. Don't use FAANG processes for your use case without understanding why those processes are the way they are.
As an addendum to my first comment I want to also say that no scrum does not mean no processes. In fact there is a lot of processes. The number one complaint is that there is too much processes. They are just not scrum.
There is no one size fits all solution which is what the product "Enterprise Scrum" tries to be. Teams need to understand their needs for themselves and build/iterate on a set of processes that works for them. Large orgs need to enable this as well as set the baseline for processes that work across the whole org at every level (indivudual -> team _-> product area -> organization).