[bantunes]

That's the thing all these "easy bake recipe for success" blog posts miss: it's all about the people. I've been in companies with the exact same processes and wildly different outcomes because staff was more competent (which includes soft skills) and experienced.

But that is anathema to tech companies that think having the right X (agile, Spotify guilds, kanban, etc.) will fix everything because that's what they sell to end users.

[sirwhinesalot]

These rigid processes and ceremonies are the mcdonalds approach. You can get a group of unskilled randos and produce passable slop (e.g. MS Teams). The problem is that people with actual skill suffocate in such an environment.

If you have a crappy team and only light processes, you get garbage.

If you have a crappy team and heavy processes, you get barely passable results.

If you have a good team and only light processes, you get great results.

If you have a good team and heavy processes, you get barely passable results.

[kraftman]

It's worth bearing in mind that as much as we don't like it, a lot of the time the goal is passable slop. Mcdonalds is doing well, and they arent focussing on increasing the quality of their slop unless theres some public outcry.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

This is true.

I once read a comment, here, that said, "If the code quality on your MVP doesn't physically disgust you, you're probably focusing on code quality too much."

I think that sort of sums up the zeitgeist. I'm also not a fan of the MVP Model. I don't think it results in good work.

[kraftman]

maybe it should be prepended with 'if you work in the mcdonalds of software development companies'

[ChrisMarshallNY]

I was extremely fortunate, and managed a team of really experienced and good developers.

Unfortunately, the company I worked for, worshipped Process, so, as their manager, I spent a great deal of time, shielding them from that overhead. This did not always win me praise from my managers.

But we got pretty damn good work done. Sadly, it was "engine" code, and was often shipped in "passable" UX.

Kind of like dropping an F1 engine into a beater Chevy Vega.

[_heimdall]

That does raise the question of what those tech companies' motivation really are though.

The processes you described would work really well if the goal is to meet a hiring target and ship just enough product that marketing and sales can run with it.

If they don't necessarily care about quality of end product or quality of the engineering that went into, throwing heavy process at the team may get them there just fine. That heavy process may even work better for them if the goal is more managerial control to meet sales and marketing deadlines.

[lupire]

Agile Manifesto was invented by consultants / contractors to make better products for their customers at a good price, not by ivory tower engineers building Platonically ideal software.

[_heimdall]

Sure, I don't disagree there. In context I was replying to a comment about how big tech companies use agile and similar though.

I do agree though, when used in the specific context of consulting it may be a better fit than in a big tech corporation.

[hinkley]

> But that is anathema to tech companies

One of the biggest dangers in business is believing your own PR. And yet tech companies do it over, and over, and over again.