|
|
|
|
|
by goodlinks
1031 days ago
|
|
There needs to be a stable narrative to shareholders, anything within your control should be managed. Moving all software development into some kind of skunkworks part of the business with 0 expected returns and only ever discussing roll outs may be one way to do it. (Shrug) Its why i think innovation is maybe a bit easier at a privately held or government owned org. They can look at the value more directly rather than through share value impact. This response is just about how big a deal the shareholder perspectove is, if you can fly under that radar then you stillneed to convince everyone else that you can be trusted to deliver eventually. |
|
I don't disagree with that. In fact, knowing the end goal is even more important when actions are "skunkworks".
> Moving all software development into part of the business with 0 expected returns
Agile's focus on "Working software is the primary measure of progress. ... early and continuous delivery of valuable software." is IMHO the opposite of that characterisation; as it demonstrates value and solicits feedback as soon as feasible. Note that this has very little to do with "is it following a pre-agreed plan or not?".
The issue is more that too many businesses believe that software development is best done as top-down detailed micromanagement, and the tools at hand (i.e. Jira) lean into this delusion.