This article doesn't make any sense. A project's "success" can't really be measured in any objective way like the article is implying. Even saying that a project is "on time" is a vague statement depending on the situation, and it's not a good way to measure the quality of the end result or the efficiency of the development team.
this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
61227 readers
4207 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The article even states this is a thinly veiled ad for some other "method".
The agile manifesto is fantastic. Scrum can work wonders as a means for providing a framework to hang "agile principles" onto.
Most organizations don't do "scrum" well or quickly lose sight of the "why" behind it.
Companies are gonna company at the end of the day. Process + bureaucracy + buzzwords + ill-informed management + vendors promises + shit customers/product owners = late projects.
Agile done right, works. The benefit agile has over waterfall(the process it replaced in a lot of places), imo, is that it's predicated on working software, responding to change and working collaboratively/iteratively.
I'm all for and good eye rolling at institutional Agile (basically checkered with bad management who doesn't know what to do, but abuses buzz words and assets Agile instead), but this article has a lot of issues.
For one, it's a plug for someone's consultancy, banking on recognition that, like always, crappy teams deliver crappy results and "Agile" didn't fix it, but I promise I have a methodology to make your bad team good.
For another, it seems to gauge success based on how developers felt if they succeeded. Developers will always gripe about evolving requirements, so if they think requirements were set in stone early, they will proclaim greatness (even if the users/customers hate it and it's a commercial failure).
Feels like the old php metric. PHP had a ton of great code and successful projects but it also attracted very bad devs as well as very inexperienced devs leading to a real quality problem.
Honestly kinda see thing in a lot of JavaScript applications these days. Brilliant code but also a ton of bad code to the point I get nervous opening a new project.
My point? It may be a tough pill but it's not the project framework that makes projects fail, it's how the project is run.
Agile falls into the category of how the project is run
No it's a set of tools you can use to run a project.
My point is that a lot of people use "agile" to mean not planning or don't put guard rails on scope and they fail. That's not agile, it's just bad PM
Agreed.
Being Agile is being flexible. To do that you need to plan for multiple contingencies. Resulting in more planning, not none.
"agile" is being flexible. Being "Agile" more often than not means your company's incompetent management paid some hack consultants to come in and bless your flavor of stupid bureaucracy as "Agile".
I witnessed a huge number of failed projects in my 25-year career. The cause was almost always the same: inexperienced developers trying to create a reusable product that could be applied to imagined future scenarios, leading to a vastly overcomplicated mess that couldn't even satisfy the needs of the original client. Made no difference what the language or framework was or what development methodology was utilized.
I've seen a lot of contractors over promising timelines too. "No matter how hard you push and no matter what the priority, you can't increase the speed of light."
But yeah exactly.
I feel like that's the same underlying issue: The requirements are not understood upfront.
If a customer cannot give you any specific information, you cannot cut any corners. You're pretty much forced to build a general framework, so that as the requirements become clearer, you're still equipped to handle them.
I guess, the alternative is building a prototype, which you're allowed to throw away afterwards. I've never been able to do that, because our management does not understand that concept.
I feel like that’s the same underlying issue: The requirements are not understood upfront.
Actually on most of these failed projects the requirements of the original customer were pretty clear. But the developers tried to go far beyond those original requirements. It is fair to say that the future requirements were not well understood.
the alternative is building a prototype, which you’re allowed to throw away afterwards
Lol I've done many prototypes. The problem is that management sees them and says "oh, so we're finished with the project already? Yay!"
Yeah, look at the most prolific language at a given time. There's your crappy projects or your soon-to-be-crappy projects. What are the universities and 'coding academies teaching'? That's going to be the crappiest stuff in the world when those students come out.
So too it goes with 'management', the popular 'self-help' style crap of the moment is what crappy teams will adopt, and no matter what methodology it is, that crap team is still crap, and it will reflect on that methodology.
Isn't it more that people tend to use agile as an excuse for not having any kind of project plan.
It'd be interesting to know how many of those agile projects actually had an expert project lead versus just some random person who was picked who isn't actually experienced in project management.
In my experience It's not about a project plan for features, but actually doings things correctly instead of doing the minimum to finish what you need to do on the current sprint.
Isn’t it more that people tend to use agile as an excuse for not having any kind of project plan.
I'd say it's more about continuously milking customers on projects that never seem to end. I've never done software project management, but I have seen it's "tenets" applied to other types of projects. The results were arduous - to say the least.
I've seen it being done even on internal projects though. Things within an organization.
It tends to be that they start developing a feature and then someone comes along and says, ooh wouldn't it be nice if it did x, so they modify it to have x feature. Then someone decides it should be able to sync with Azure (there's always someone that wants that), so Azure sync is added, but now that interferes with x, so that has to be modified so that it can sync as well. Then we get back to original product development which is now 3 weeks behind schedule.
Repeat that enough times and you can see why a lot of this stuff fails.
Even internal projects have a facet of 'milking customers' even those customers are internal. There's a rather large internal team that has managed to last years by milking the fact their stuff always sucks but any moment when they are challenged about their projects they always have a plan to fix all that's wrong within '3 months'.
I'd say it's that people tend to use Agile because consultants tell them they can be piss poor managers dealing with the crappiest developers and stupid business ideas and still make awesome stuff if they just make everything buzzword compatible.
I'd say projects without much of an upfront project plan can still be very successful, but it's all about having a quality team, which isn't something a two week 'training and consultancy' session isn't going to get you, so there's no big marketing behind that sort of message.
Move fast and break shit!
Today, new research conducted for a new book, Impact Engineering, has shown that 65% software projects adopting Agile requirements engineering practices fail to be delivered on time and within budget, to a high standard of quality. By contrast, projects adopting a new Impact Engineering approach detailed in a new book released today only failed 10% of the time.
All you need to know about this study.
It almost sounds like a project team that is actually and actively looking to solve known and recurring problems instead of "just do whatever everyone else is kind of doing" might be why they are successful.
It's the difference between "how should we go about this" vs "see how we go" regardless of what you label those approaches as.
I think the take away should be:
new research conducted for a new book, Impact Engineering,
By contrast, projects adopting a new Impact Engineering approach detailed in a new book released today only failed 10% of the time.
So the people who want to sell you 'Impact Engineering' say 'Impact Engineering' is better than Agile.... Hardly an objective source.
Even if they have success with their 'Impact Engineering' methodology, the second it becomes an Agile-level buzzword is the second it also becomes crap.
The short of the real problem is that the typical software development project is subject to piss poor management, business planning, and/or developers and that piss poor management is always looking for some 'quick fix' in methodology to wave a wand and get business success without across the board competency.
Not gonna read it because we, elsewhere in engineering land, have been forced to eat Agile shit from the water hose to make us better and faster. Fucking hell! I can't re-compile a mirror if it comes out wrong!
I hope "New Impact" includes hammers.
It seems very biased to say the least. A title like that would be ok if it was comparing agile to pre-existing models like waterfall. A valid title for this would have been "new sw development methodology seems to have a much lower failure rate than agile dev. "
ALSO I would like to see the experiment repeated by independent researchers.
"new sw development methodology seems to have a much lower failure rate than agile dev, claims people who stand to make money if new sw development methodology has a lower failure rate. "
Oh well, time to switch back to the waterfall model I guess
lol, no.
I'm always sceptical about results like these. I was told that waterfall always failed when I'd worked on successful waterfall projects with no fails. The complaints about waterfall were exaggerated as I think are complaints about agile. The loudest complaints seem to always be motivated by people trying to sell sonething
My crazy wacko conspiracy theory - software development is just a really weird discipline, most of the people in the field are bad at it, and it doesn't have the same amount of standardization and regulation that other engineering fields have, so doing it "right" looks a lot fuzzier than doing, say, civil engineering "right".
The biggest thing though is that most people are bad at it. It's really hard to evaluate high level organizational concepts like waterfall vs. agile when we still have developers arguing over the usefulness of unit tests.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)