|
I stumbled upon this book (
Scenario-Focused Engineering: A toolbox for innovation and customer-centricity (Developer Best Practices) Microsoft Press[^] )
It puts forth a very interesting idea about how handle the SDLC. It's not really Agile, but it is iterative.
The really interesting thing is a very nice list of Keys To Successful Software Dev:
*** strong vision
*** deep sense of empathy for users
*** iterative approach
*** healthy productive relationship between engineering and the UX design team.
I think that is a very good, succinct list because if you think about it and consider what happens if any of them are missing from a project then you know the project is in danger of flopping.
Everyone Works Together All the Time
Basically what all these methodologies come down to is : Everyone works together, all the time.
But not a lot of people want to do that. And it doesn't happen a lot.
There is a lot of separation on software dev projects. People get complacent in their cubicles and just code along. Product Owner (manager or whatever) doesn't provide enough vision. Iteration doesn't really occur because you can't keep bothering the users and users don't want to be bothered. UX team sees things their way and doesn't want to have to change things now that they are solidified.
If You Were Developing a Product With Chance of Making $1,000,000
Contrast that to a project where you stand the chance to make a $1 million.
You'd probably be like, "ok everyone get in the room and start cranking this thing out."
Discussions would happen. Iteration would occur. People would become opinionated and vision would occur. Where there wasn't any vision it would be driven towards and forced. UX and devs would iterate. Devs would develop in chunks and others would be provide feedback quickly.
People would be more pro-active in getting (forcing) users to respond to iterations of the product. And devs would want users to like the product so they'd buy it (so devs could get their $1 million).
Maybe we should call this the :
Monetary Motivation Methodology 
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: Monetary Motivation Methodology
Or simply call it "working together to achieve a common goal"
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
How's your Unicorn Ride over the rainbow with the butterflies, going? Pretty well, then. 
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a nice one; we evolved to identify cheaters in such social constructs, because they drag the group down 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Here's a nice one; we evolved to identify cheaters in such social constructs,
No, no. We've promoted them to positions in management.
(And here, I'm speaking of large(r) companies. Small(er) companies don't have this problem as much because essential functions are generally done by essential people. While larger companies tend to have more space for such individuals to hide. I remember one guy -- at a very large company I worked for -- who you could literally hear snoring in his cubicle each day.)
|
|
|
|
|
Usually that is only attributed to government employees; people who work for large capitalist companies are all hard-working honest people 
raddevus wrote: I remember one guy -- at a very large company I worked for -- who you could literally hear snoring in his cubicle each day
Shows that some bosses should have more supervision
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Usually that is only attributed to government employees; people who work for large capitalist companies are all hard-working honest people
No one wants to admit it but the one and best principle that describes all humans (not just public or private workers)is: lazy.
Suppose you and another fellow are paid $100 to dig a hole.
One of you will dig the hole and the other will insure that the hole is dug.
You get to choose which job you will do.
You do not need to tell me that the other fellow is the one who will be digging the hole. I already know.
|
|
|
|
|
When exploited to productive ends, I think laziness can be a virtue. I try to be efficient, because I'm too lazy to be anything else.
So, let's torture your metaphor a little. If I only had one hole to dig, I'd just dig it. Given a sufficient number of holes, I'd choose option C: find or invent something to dig the holes for me.
I seldom find supervising to be any less work than simply doing it myself
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Lynch wrote: When exploited to productive ends, I think laziness can be a virtue.
I agree, as we all know the best programmers are the lazy ones.
Eric Lynch wrote: If I only had one hole to dig, I'd just dig it. Given a sufficient number of holes, I'd choose option C: find or invent something to dig the holes for me.
Yes, you will be digging holes the rest of your life.
Purchasing something to do it is not possible on your ditch digger salary.
And, inventing and/or building something to do it is a waste of time.
You have The Fellow at your service. He's already been invented and built.
All you have to do is apply the proper motivation. Now all you need is a stick or a carrot.
Again, on your ditch digger salary you probably cannot afford carrots so most likely you'll do a one-time purchase of a nice stick.
|
|
|
|
|
Thankfully, unlike the metaphor, "inventing" software costs me nothing but time...and not much at that.
I've often ended up working supervisory roles...more than I'd like to admit. A few times I've been fortunate to have great people working for me.
Though, in my experience, this is more the exception than the rule. Generally, I've found "motivating" people possible, but no less work than simply doing it myself.
Regrettably, as you noted in your premise, most lazy people are nor more than that. Its the rare individually who turns that particular vice into a virtue 
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Lynch wrote: most lazy people are [no] more than that. Its the rare individually who turns that particular vice into a virtue
Very true. The whole motivation thing is a challenge for supervisors and individuals. Most of the time the individuals who are motivated are motivated for their own reasons.
However, if there is a strong vision of the project that is cast well by leadership it can be quite helpful.
|
|
|
|
|
'Tis a shame I have but one upvote to give for that! Well said! 
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: No one wants to admit it but the one and best principle that describes all humans (not just public or private workers)is: lazy.
That doesn't apply to all; but we will game the system if possible and if there seems no damage then that step is simpeler.
raddevus wrote: Suppose you and another fellow are paid $100 to dig a hole.
One of you will dig the hole and the other will insure that the hole is dug.
You get to choose which job you will do.
You do not need to tell me that the other fellow is the one who will be digging the hole. I already know. 
That's not lazyness, that is intelligence
Before you call all people lazy; some houses are *very* clean. It is not because they love cleaning, just that they prefer the result.
Once you have ten people cleaning in different locations, it is harder to see whether someone is working (going for the result) or whether they are taking advantage of the group. Without oversight, people will abuse a position.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Without oversight, people will abuse a position.
It shouldn't have to be that way. If everyone were truly invested at the same level then it would not be that way. But such is the way it works. It's the old chickens and pigs thing.
You know that is the story that the Agile Methodology uses.
A Pig and a Chicken are walking down the road.
The Chicken says: "Hey Pig, I was thinking we should open a restaurant!"
Pig replies: "Hm, maybe, what would we call it?"
The Chicken responds: "How about 'ham-n-eggs'?"
The Pig thinks for a moment and says: "No thanks. I'd be committed, but you'd only be involved."
from The Chicken and the Pig - Wikipedia[^]
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: It shouldn't have to be that way. If everyone were truly invested at the same level then it would not be that way.
It has to be that way, that's how nature works and how we are programmed. The individual tries to gain as much as possible, because that's advantageous in reproducing. The group as a total has to check the individual.
raddevus wrote: You know that is the story that the Agile Methodology uses.
I think my explanation works better for human nature 
The agile thing will pass eventually. We don't build houses or cars "agile", because we want something decent. With software, we just want something new. Agile caters to getting sh*t to the market, not to develop some good long-term foundation.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Agile caters to getting sh*t to the market
Don't hold back. Let the world really know how you feel. 
|
|
|
|
|
While most people WILL try to do as little as possible, I believe this is self-optimization over laziness.
Next, Paretos Law says that 50% of the productivity belongs to the square root of the number of workers. So if 10,000 farmers are out there... 100 of them make 50% of the output.
This is nature at work. Skills and abilities are not distributed evenly.
But the next part is Motivation. A manager (or management) that motivates his employees to really show up (and not phone it in, like they do under socialism/communism [the govt pretends to pay us, so we pretend to work])... Is the one that gets the most done.
Right now, that appears to be Amazon. But EVERY hard working employee there has their own self-interest at heart AS WELL as working to make the company better. Over time, it will fail. Just like MSFT, IBM, DEC, and so many others did before them. Capitalism requires these failures, to give birth and make room for new ideas.
The essence of this thread is true. Any Methodology will work with suitably (motivated, responsible, and intelligent) people on a project.
The counter proof is, lets staff the project with Low(65) IQ individuals to program, and to represent the users. And lets apply the Best Methodology and Whatever motivation you want... Good Luck!
|
|
|
|
|
Very good and interesting points.
Kirk 10389821 wrote: But EVERY hard working employee there has their own self-interest at heart AS WELL as working to make the company better.
I agree 100%. If any party in the work relationship doesn't get something out of the situation then they are not going to stay around.
Kirk 10389821 wrote: Over time, it will fail. Just like MSFT, IBM, DEC, and so many others did before them. Capitalism requires these failures, to give birth and make room for new ideas.
I think that is a great point. Systems were meant to be useful for a while and then decay. That's how it works. But we see these HUGE companies that try to keep going forever and they become total garbage.
I just read this principle in Tom Peter's book Re-Imagine[^]
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: We've promoted them to positions in management.
Ahhh, the Peter Principle. I find it holds true more often than not.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|
|
David Crow wrote: Ahhh, the Peter Principle. I find it holds true more often than not.
Yes, unfortunately, in these enlightened times the darkness still prevails.
|
|
|
|
|
Another reason I miss my cube, nap time.
|
|
|
|
|
(being awakened by noise) : "Can all you people keep that Agile noise down over there! Do you really have to iterate so much?"
|
|
|
|
|
Promoted to their level of incompetence often because they have been to the right schools.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, it's very difficult to deal with managers who've never done tech work themselves. Much better if a manager has been in the trenches too.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: Contrast that to a project where you stand the chance to make a $1 million.
Hypothetically (with a big H!) if I were to work at one company for 30 years...
...there are actually quite a few people at the company where I work that have worked 30+ years for that company, though the only devs that are 30-yearers are COBOL devs and they're retiring left and right, haha....
and my average salary over those 30 years, say, $90,000 / yr....
I would earn $2.7M, pre-tax, etc.
I propose that one should look at employment as "the big project." But then again, this is all so totally hypothetical because most devs never stick around for 30 years. If I were working for NASA or SpaceX, or even Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Google, or Amazon, maybe that would still be possible.
raddevus wrote: There is a lot of separation on software dev projects.
I would use the word "disconnect." Particularly between management and their team. 
Latest Article - A Concise Overview of Threads
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
