[ChrisMarshallNY]

It's not really that.

It's because that company is laser-focused on Quality (they have a well-earned reputation as one of the highest-Quality manufacturers in the world).

They believe that Agile promotes bad-quality work, because it promotes a lack of Discipline and checks and balances (which are necessary components of high-Quality production).

I disagree, but many of the Agile proponents exemplify low-quality work, because they deliberately eschew Discipline and checks and balances. They use Agile as "Santa Claus for young developers," as opposed to what I believe is Agile's focus on delivering high-quality, useful, and timely, product to end-users.

We need more examples of the Agile process doing really good work.

[randomdata]

> They believe that Agile promotes bad-quality work

Whether or not that is true, why would they care? They'll be gone.

> Agile's focus on delivering high-quality, useful, and timely, product to end-users.

I tend to agree. As managers are removed from the picture, there is no manager to hide behind. You're working directly, each day, with those who are going to hold you accountable.

> We need more examples of the Agile process doing really good work.

To be fair to the managers, are there any? Even the C3 project that gave birth to Agile is widely regarded as a failure.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

> Whether or not that is true, why would they care? They'll be gone.

Well, it’s not true (in my opinion), but try telling that to people who have been successfully shipping world-class optical gear, for a century.

I have learned that, if we want to introduce new paradigms, it’s a very bad idea to do so, by telling folks that the way they do it now, is wrong (even if it is).

That experience taught me a great deal about working within a super-high-Quality context. The personalities and opinions are very powerful, and most of the senior folks involved, got there, by being very, very good at their jobs. A true meritocracy.

They won’t react well to having some wet-behind-the-ears yank, come in and tell them that they are wrong, when that’s clearly not the case (in their eyes).

I’ve found that, if I want to introduce change, I need to begin by respecting the context and the people, and using that as a substrate for change, as opposed to suggesting it be removed, wholesale.

Or start my own company, which is what a lot of folks do, these days. It’s not an option that’s available to many. Also, those companies often encounter problems that have nothing to do with the tech, and everything to do with the inexperience of the founders (like reckless behavior).