|
|
|
|
|
by jayd16
1179 days ago
|
|
Kinda misses the entire point of 'agile' which is a way to adjust to and gather changing requirements in an iterative process. It's a risk _mitigation_ strategy. I'm not sure I agree that anything is a glass cannon because it could work but you could also do it wrong so it could fail. If a team can't pull off agile what do they think would have been a safer strategy? |
|
It's designed to mitigate _delivery_ risk, not _organisational_ risk.
> If a team can't pull off agile what do they think would have been a safer strategy?
I would probably argue that Scrum (which I barely consider to be "agile") is more resilient to inexperience, and therefore lower risk. It's the McDonalds of processes. You're not going to get amazing results, but it will still operate despite hiring a bunch of inexperienced people into it.