All it does is let leadership not define what they actually want, and make changes on the fly, which leads to longer dev times and worse code. Fuck agile, bring back waterfall.
All it does is let leadership not define what they actually want, and make changes on the fly, which leads to longer dev times and worse code. Fuck agile, bring back waterfall.
The problem is that it’s a lot easier to implement agile poorly, than it is to implement it in a way that works.
You’ve essentially described what agile shouldn’t be. The fact it’s called agile, means people assume it just means you can change things whenever you want because that’s being “agile”. That isn’t what agile methodology is meant to be. If that’s what you’re experiencing, then it’s being done wrong. And it’s frustrating because this is extremely common.
Waterfall can be just as bad. I’ve worked on plenty of waterfall projects only to spend months of my time on things that never see the light of day. Things change, and waterfall can rarely deal with change mid-project without starting over. It’s completely dependent on the context of the work.
Agile is like communism. Nice in theory. Never works in actual practice.
If praxis can never even come close to theory, and indeed if praxis is almost always worse than the alternative it was replacing, your system is untenable.
Agile is untenable.
I disagree. I’m currently working in agile and it’s the best team I’ve worked in/with. It can easily go wrong, but it can also work really effectively. Implementing agile in an “ok” way, is still better than waterfall in most instances. Of course it depends on the business context.
Take all of OPs complaints for example. Sure, they can be an issue if agile is implemented poorly (or not at all in OPs case), but all of them are inherent issues with waterfall. Developing something only to find out days before launch the business has something else in mind. There would be much less chance of that happening in an agile environment over something like waterfall.
There’s a big problem with people saying they work in agile, when they’re really not. Like in OPs instance. And that leads to the negative sentiment about agile never working. I get it, I’ve been there and had to work in agile teams that weren’t really agile. That doesn’t mean it can never work.
Take all of <anti-communist>'s complaints for example. Sure, they can be an issue if <communism> is implemented poorly (or not at all in <anti-communist>'s case), but all of them are inherent issues with <capitalism>.
If you’re making constant excuses bout “implemented poorly” and the majority (I’d argue all) instances of your approach are “implemented poorly” and thus fail, then the issue is your approach.
So if all approaches are poor, then anarchy? I think you need to move on from the communism comparison, and the idea that unless something is perfect it’s not worth doing.
Believe it or not, there are people working in successful agile teams right now. Just because you haven’t, that doesn’t mean it isn’t tenable.
Please point where I said we should just do what we want (anarchy). (Hint: this is not possible.)
Let me quote what I actually said , K?
(I corrected a couple of minor typos.)
Now let me take this apart.
The conditional is very important here.
So is the word “constant”.
This is the crux of the argument. If your argument in support of a system is that its failures are all “implemented poorly”…
… and if most of the attempts to use your approach are mysteriously “implemented poorly” …
… then the problem is your approach, not the implementation of it. Good systems fail safe. Good systems do not require perfection in implementation to see benefits. Good systems, if imperfectly applied, should at the very least not be worse than the alternatives.
In most cases (and again I’d actually argue all, but that’s a personal bias) of “agile” the system fails and turns into a clusterfuck worse than the approaches it tries to replace. It does not fail safe. And whenever this is pointed out, invariably someone comes out of the scrum to point accusing fingers at where it was “implemented poorly”.
But you know what? There are engineering processes that even when people fail at elements of them you still see actual improvement in outcomes from trying to apply them. I don’t see this in agile. Ever. It, like communism, requires people to be perfect little robots doing every piece of the system perfectly to achieve the purported grand benefits.
And I ain’t buyin’.
Incidentally, would you mind sharing with me what you think ‘waterfall’ is? I have a suspicion what picture you’re going to share and if you do, I’m afraid I will laugh at you.
Agile isn’t meant to replace anything. You need to use the right method for your context. No one said the purpose of agile is to replace all other methods.
Agile doesn’t have to be implemented perfectly to work. You seem to be holding agile to some higher standard than anything else.
You have to get over the communism comparisons. They aren’t relevant.
Just because you haven’t worked in an agile environment you enjoyed, that doesn’t mean it can’t work. It can and does work. Just like any other method. And it can and does fail. Just like any other method.
OP didn’t work in agile. They were told that they were working in agile but it was just an excuse for the business to not have requirements and continually change their mind. Every one of the issues they raised could have happened in any other methodology. It’s poor management.