Scrum
The company I work for decided to switch to a more Agile / Scrum development method in 2017. A hired consultant promised the CEO that with this method we would be more 30% effective. He used some bullshit metrics and use case found on internet.
Since then two major projects have failed to come to a stable product. This was due to the following reasons:
- sprints of 3 weeks are too short to achieve substantial development.
- focus on short term - easy achievable goals. A pitfall fueled by easy to check off backlog items and tasks.
- work on core and foundation has not much attention. This kind of work is hard to show and demonstrate to your stakeholders.
- make small pieces and of software and patch / refactor later is not a way to build stable buildings let alone software.
- lot of administrative overhead with daily standup's; sprint review; grooming sessions; retrospective etc.
- Agile promised to offer better dealing with shifting requirements but this is a false promise. One cannot design large piece of software and then suddenly decide to do something completely else.
Not sure why the world has gone mad but our company was doing a lot better beforehand. A false fallacy is often used to compare this method with the waterfall method with rigid requirements once written down. However no company works that way.
In the main time our company is now in a difficult spot. This was partly due to changes in the world economy with China protecting its home production and the USA cutting in budgets but the company was also dependent on the projected revenue of the failed products.
No comments:
Post a Comment