|
Agile software development[^]
I'm currently in a situation where I constantly run into changing requirements, "misunderstandings" (=other name for changing requirements, but I get the blame), dependencies on moving targets, ...
When I challenged the person in charge (for the lack of design) I got: Yes, but you don't know, and have no experience in, the methodology we're using here. Personally I believe agile is a methodology invented by managers who failed to understand the importance of design and documentation. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure this person has no clue about any methodology, bu rather "goes with the flow".
Though I see a benefit in using this when doing prototyping and/or proof of concepts, I fail to see any value when doing real (operational) products which could (and should) be defined.
Opinions?
|
|
|
|
|
Even if some managers think so, agile does not mean that there is no planning and everything is done whenever someone feels like it.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
please, come explain that here 
|
|
|
|
|
10 months ago I left a company where they also thought that Jedi handwaving was very agile. I just got out and did not waste my time explaining anything. 
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
V. wrote: Yes, but you don't know, and have no experience in, the methodology we're using here.
Then it is up to him to explain the process to you - and you should be able to challenge every assumption, logical fallacy, incorrect belief that he comes out with. If the process is so strong, he should have no problem with you questioning it.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
true, so he blames in the client. Which is partially true, but personally I would have told the client what they needed to do first before we started anything... 
|
|
|
|
|
This is something I hear often. It's the idea that agile means you can skip the requirements gathering phase altogether. That is not, and never has been, the case. You still need a rough idea of what you're going to build. And it's your responsibility to work, with a representative of the client, to determine at the start of each sprint, what you are going to deliver. That means that they have to have provided enough detail going into the meeting to work out the rough shape and size of each task.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
Even more: Get everything out of the way you can. Your team has to know enough of the architecture and the technologies used so that you can assign them tasks that tell them what needs to be done, not how to do it.
In sprint planning I want to define tasks like this:
We need a new entity named <whatever> that has the following properties: (list), possibly some reference to the requirement documents.
Also, we need a data access object with data access methods to cover the following requirements: (another list of references to the requirements and possibly some elaborations)
No need to lose a word about how to do that, where to place these objects or what technologies to use. My boys know that before writing the first line of code and there probably will be more assignments like this coming their way.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
That is absolutely horrifying.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, and with mixed but increasing success, I try to explain to the client* what they need and how they need it. They're a clue-less lot and if I didn't (or they just don't want to listen) then the effect is much more like what you've experienced.
Interestingly, word of mouth (?) has it that IT knows what it's talking about when it comes to IT. Imagine that!
* Client as in defining users as these are in-house users.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
unfortunately I'm not asked to talk to the client...
Although in this case, I might not want to, either.
|
|
|
|
|
If you can't talk to the client you are toast.
|
|
|
|
|
Agile Software Development: sorry, but that's an oxymoron.
Sin tack ear lol
Pressing the "Any" key may be continuate
|
|
|
|
|
Not really. If
- there is a well defined architecture
- there is a detailed documentation of the requirements
- every member of the team is familiar with this architecture and the platform
- a realistic sprint planning, producing a list of managable tasks
it can work. By taking architecture and the target platform out of the picture as a prerequisite, you can concentrate on the work at hand.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
And that's my point, 2 choices to make agile methodologies work:
1. as you've done simplify the target / break it up
.... (even seen attempts to waterfall ahead of the project plan)
2. (like RyanDev - next reply) take 'parts of' the methodologies
.... so it's not really agile or scrum, it's a hodgepodge of what sounds good
3. most commonly combinations of 1 and 2
.... so true to the definition it's not agile, it's ad-hoc pm.
But in fairness, to 100% perform properly to many tasks become impossible, slippage is almost not allowed and even small failure definitely not handled properly without throwing out the entire plan for the workaround, lack of flexibility, just unreasonable to ever perform 100% purein the real world. (Achieving real word pure agile ranks alongside the traveling salesman / 4 colors puzzles.)
Sin tack ear lol
Pressing the "Any" key may be continuate
|
|
|
|
|
CDP1802 wrote: By taking architecture and the target platform out of the picture as a prerequisite, you can concentrate on the work at hand.The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
It's like that almost all the time - before agile.
Braking project up into bit-size pieces, making sure they all work, &etc. What's really so novel about that? Now creating a test before you've something to test - honestly, that's like taking a dump before you drop your pants. (i.e., you heart's in the right place - nothing else is.)
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Most people don't know the difference between strategy and tactics.
Strategy is when many bigwigs stand around a plan and take a look at the big picture. Tactics are when the little soldiers are actually fighting in the trenches and must react to constantly changing situations and see only a small part of the picture.
You are in trouble when you treat one like the other. Treat architecture and the 'how tos' strategically and take all the time you need to think them through and make your troops familiar with the plan. Have them out of the way when the actual work begins.
I see agile as a way to handle the implementation tactically and to help you to react quickly to unforseen situations or changes.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
The detailed documentation of the requirements is the most important point. How detailed, these are the specifications that your team will build to. Most helpful are the expected inputs and outputs, which you get from questioning the customer or the marketing dept. IPO mapping is best for this, then the internal processes and objects. From these, the team designs the architecture and user interfaces.
|
|
|
|
|
When done right, Agile works great. Used it at my last job and took parts of Scrum that I liked and it worked very well. But everyone needs to understand their role.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: But everyone needs to understand their role.
That was already the case when they built the pyramids. One guy holds the plan, a handful of guys hold whips and the rest of the guys are in charge of hauling the stones. If they are not agile enough, the guys with the whips come and motivate them.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
Wrong. It was the aliens who did it. 
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Congratulations, you work for the PHB.
Dilbert Comic Strip on 2007-11-26[^]
Are you the only one who "doesn't know and has no experience in the methodology" (according to him)? If there are others in the team, get him to explain to everyone what exactly he has in mind by this methodology.
Why are changing requirements labelled as your misunderstandings anyway? Requirements are allowed to change, since most people don't know what they need right away from the start.
|
|
|
|
|
Nighthowler wrote: Requirements are allowed to change, since most people don't know what they need right away from the start.
Yes, but in most other cases I will get a nice bill if I can't make up my mind. Only in software development customers like to mistake us for nice little elves who instantly can do anything at no cost.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
What Pete said. It doesn't matter if it is training for Fairyball, learning the guitar or developing the latest doohickey for app stores. There has to be a reference point of how and why things are done and the bosum must be able to tell you not just the what but the all important why.
If he can't explain that, ask him to explain why you should stay.
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
First off, Agile was created mainly by software developers (wikipedia):
In February 2001, 17 software developers met at the Snowbird resort in Utah to discuss lightweight development methods.
If you take two of the principles:
Simplicity—the art of maximizing the amount of work not done—is essential
Best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-organizing teams
It should be self-evident that this requires people with technical, personal, and inter-personal skills. Furthermore, because there will always be a mix of skills, it requires that those with skills that others are lacking become mentors, or, amusingly, manage those with less skills in a particular area. For example, would you conclude that a junior developer can produce "best architectures"? Would you assume that everyone is good at defining requirements? Would you assume that anyone can be placed in front of the customer?
Assuming you answer no to hopefully all three of those questions, the cracks in the Agile castle start to show up because 1) people have different skills, 2) because skills vary, a hierarchy of skill is necessary. This is unavoidable, necessary, and the only way that people have the opportunity to learn.
The idea of self-organization is great, but only when you have highly skilled people in just about every area that the task requires. If not, you can get some self-organizations that result in terrible work. Therefore, again, organization requires management skill - someone to decide who the right people are to self-organize.
Some of this can be compensated for in item #12 of the manifesto:
Regularly, the team reflects on how to become more effective, and adjusts accordingly
However, self-reflection is also a skill, and one many people, in my experience, are not skilled at.
V. wrote: Yes, but you don't know, and have no experience in, the methodology we're using here.
Agile is not a methodology[^].
V. wrote: Though I see a benefit in using this when doing prototyping and/or proof of concepts, I fail to see any value when doing real (operational) products which could (and should) be defined.
I see the reverse for a few reasons. Often prototype code becomes production code without review of design, architecture, simplicity, etc. Second, the production development phase often requires a delivery schedule of features, customer feedback, and requirement changes. If you have a good foundation for your code, these changes are considerably less painful. And in theory, Agile's practices of having a solid customer relationship, frequent review of work with the customer, good feedback to the customer of delays, tradeoffs, etc., really helps in creating a successful application. If you're creating a mass market product, someone needs to pick a cross section of people that can play the roll of the "customer."
Unfortunately, I've seen Agile used, not by managers, but by developers, as carte blanche for not doing documentation, design, etc., and management, that doesn't understand Agile (how can anyone actually, since it's not a methodology) wonders why yet another "methodology" for software development fails, produces the same number of bugs (or more), and has cost and time overruns.
The reality is, it's not the so-called methodologies that determine success, it's actually the people and the skills they bring.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
