Opinions needed.. (no, really! :))
-
How about appointing a team leader, a real taskmaster who - does the sprint planning and prepares tasks - assigns the tasks - whacks them over the head when they complain about their tasks - whacks them over the head if they take too long - whacks them over the head when they mess with sometthing that's not their business - whacks them over the head if they have too many ideas - whacks them over the head for nothing once in a while, just to keep them on the edge
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 fucking 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.- owns a large, heavy ClueBat.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
Okay, so I'm working with a team that's (relatively) young and like to do things "the right way". This means Agile (naturally!), unit tests written up front, acceptance tests (Gherkin) too.. The problem is that very little gets delivered. In the last two week sprint, 160 points were promised but only 40 delivered. Same in the previous sprint. There's a bit of worry as they're working on a mission critical project that needs to be delivered in a couple of months. Personally, I think they're missing one major point mentioned in the Agile manifesto, in that.. > We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. > Through this work we have come to value: > > Individuals and interactions over processes and tools > Working software over comprehensive documentation > Customer collaboration over contract negotiation > Responding to change over following a plan > > That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more. We're ending up with the situation that writing tests and refactoring is taking the bulk of the time. Things are being (IMO) over-tested and (also IMO) and there's an over-reliance on unit/acceptance testing to pick up all defects - real bugs are being missed and picked up at the point of actual system testing (or even worse, demo). On top of that, we've got developers going in changing working code simply because they think it should be done differently (in their opinion, better). And, if there's a complex way to write simple code you can bet this team will find it.. Has anyone else run into this? What was done to get the team focused on the important deliverables? I would like to understand how we can get away from delivering tests but very little product every two weeks.. :wtf:
Ah, I see you have the machine that goes ping. This is my favorite. You see we lease it back from the company we sold it to and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.
As others have said, throw out Agile (and unit testing, huge waste of time mostly.) The problem with sprints is that they are essentially developer driven. Go back to good 'ol management 101: 1. Here's the features we need 2. Here's the timeline and dependencies for each feature (remember Ghantt charts?) 3. Missing the deadline will result in reprimand, pay reduction, or being terminated. It's time for the kiddies in diapers learning to ride bicycles with training wheels to grow up. ;) Marc
V.A.P.O.R.ware - Visual Assisted Programming / Organizational Representation 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
-
Okay, so I'm working with a team that's (relatively) young and like to do things "the right way". This means Agile (naturally!), unit tests written up front, acceptance tests (Gherkin) too.. The problem is that very little gets delivered. In the last two week sprint, 160 points were promised but only 40 delivered. Same in the previous sprint. There's a bit of worry as they're working on a mission critical project that needs to be delivered in a couple of months. Personally, I think they're missing one major point mentioned in the Agile manifesto, in that.. > We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. > Through this work we have come to value: > > Individuals and interactions over processes and tools > Working software over comprehensive documentation > Customer collaboration over contract negotiation > Responding to change over following a plan > > That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more. We're ending up with the situation that writing tests and refactoring is taking the bulk of the time. Things are being (IMO) over-tested and (also IMO) and there's an over-reliance on unit/acceptance testing to pick up all defects - real bugs are being missed and picked up at the point of actual system testing (or even worse, demo). On top of that, we've got developers going in changing working code simply because they think it should be done differently (in their opinion, better). And, if there's a complex way to write simple code you can bet this team will find it.. Has anyone else run into this? What was done to get the team focused on the important deliverables? I would like to understand how we can get away from delivering tests but very little product every two weeks.. :wtf:
Ah, I see you have the machine that goes ping. This is my favorite. You see we lease it back from the company we sold it to and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.
Whomever is responsible for the 'team' or 'project' needs to define priorities and timelines. If they are not being met, a determination needs to be made as to why and what the consequences are of not meeting the timelines: the project is not completed which results in lost revenue which can result is staff reduction for example. If that person is you, address it with your management and ask what 'corrective' actions can be taken.
-
A slavish adherence to any process or set of rules will always end in disaster. What many people fail to see is that agile is a set of guidelines, not a be-all and end-all prescription for success. I always try to hire people that are smarter than me (not hard, I have to say) and that have at least 10 years of experience and never have more script-kiddies than experienced people - the kids should be learning, not be the teachers (that isn't always the case, of course). The youngsters always want to use the latest, greatest thing. Without experience or guidance they really have no idea what they are doing. By all means use agile, but adapt it to your team, not the other way around.
Agreed, but I also like the "latest and greatest" thing.. it's more about using it as intended and where it makes sense.. for example, I quite like Angular 2 - myself and another long term developer (from my team) created a working demo app for these guys. The Angular TS code was hand-crafted (very lightweight) with a simple ASP.NET web API back-end, and successfully integrated with a 3rd party system.. But these guys got their hands on it, deleted and refactored code, insisted on using Angular CLI which has led to them breaking pretty much everything, and they now need PowerShell scripts to be able to deploy anything to Azure (yes, really!).. it's a mess and doesn't work, but it's now sort of testable.. :laugh:
Ah, I see you have the machine that goes ping. This is my favorite. You see we lease it back from the company we sold it to and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.
-
- owns a large, heavy ClueBat.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
Drill sarge, team lead - where is the difference?
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 fucking 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. -
Okay, so I'm working with a team that's (relatively) young and like to do things "the right way". This means Agile (naturally!), unit tests written up front, acceptance tests (Gherkin) too.. The problem is that very little gets delivered. In the last two week sprint, 160 points were promised but only 40 delivered. Same in the previous sprint. There's a bit of worry as they're working on a mission critical project that needs to be delivered in a couple of months. Personally, I think they're missing one major point mentioned in the Agile manifesto, in that.. > We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. > Through this work we have come to value: > > Individuals and interactions over processes and tools > Working software over comprehensive documentation > Customer collaboration over contract negotiation > Responding to change over following a plan > > That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more. We're ending up with the situation that writing tests and refactoring is taking the bulk of the time. Things are being (IMO) over-tested and (also IMO) and there's an over-reliance on unit/acceptance testing to pick up all defects - real bugs are being missed and picked up at the point of actual system testing (or even worse, demo). On top of that, we've got developers going in changing working code simply because they think it should be done differently (in their opinion, better). And, if there's a complex way to write simple code you can bet this team will find it.. Has anyone else run into this? What was done to get the team focused on the important deliverables? I would like to understand how we can get away from delivering tests but very little product every two weeks.. :wtf:
Ah, I see you have the machine that goes ping. This is my favorite. You see we lease it back from the company we sold it to and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.
Brent Jenkins wrote:
On top of that, we've got developers going in changing working code simply because they think it should be done differently (in their opinion, better).
This could be the reason why things are behind. Agile is about delivering new features on a regular basis, not refactoring code because someone doesn't like it. If code needs refactoring it should be a backlog item that is added to a sprint.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is. Everything makes sense in someone's mind. Ya can't fix stupid.
-
Simple: toss out agile and do it properly. Oh, and fire all the script-kiddies and get some real coders in. :-)
I'd like to buy you a beer.
Regards, Rob Philpott.
-
Okay, so I'm working with a team that's (relatively) young and like to do things "the right way". This means Agile (naturally!), unit tests written up front, acceptance tests (Gherkin) too.. The problem is that very little gets delivered. In the last two week sprint, 160 points were promised but only 40 delivered. Same in the previous sprint. There's a bit of worry as they're working on a mission critical project that needs to be delivered in a couple of months. Personally, I think they're missing one major point mentioned in the Agile manifesto, in that.. > We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. > Through this work we have come to value: > > Individuals and interactions over processes and tools > Working software over comprehensive documentation > Customer collaboration over contract negotiation > Responding to change over following a plan > > That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more. We're ending up with the situation that writing tests and refactoring is taking the bulk of the time. Things are being (IMO) over-tested and (also IMO) and there's an over-reliance on unit/acceptance testing to pick up all defects - real bugs are being missed and picked up at the point of actual system testing (or even worse, demo). On top of that, we've got developers going in changing working code simply because they think it should be done differently (in their opinion, better). And, if there's a complex way to write simple code you can bet this team will find it.. Has anyone else run into this? What was done to get the team focused on the important deliverables? I would like to understand how we can get away from delivering tests but very little product every two weeks.. :wtf:
Ah, I see you have the machine that goes ping. This is my favorite. You see we lease it back from the company we sold it to and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.
Brent Jenkins wrote:
so I'm working with a team that's (relatively) young
Brent Jenkins wrote:
unit tests written up front
I am not a big fan of test driven development, sounds good on paper, but it is shite in reality. Also, I don't like working with a bunch of relatively young people. Been there, done that, fucking nightmare and a half. In summary, run to the hills, run for your life.
-
Brent Jenkins wrote:
so I'm working with a team that's (relatively) young
Brent Jenkins wrote:
unit tests written up front
I am not a big fan of test driven development, sounds good on paper, but it is shite in reality. Also, I don't like working with a bunch of relatively young people. Been there, done that, fucking nightmare and a half. In summary, run to the hills, run for your life.
+5 for the Maiden reference.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
-
+5 for the Maiden reference.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
:)
-
I'd like to buy you a beer.
Regards, Rob Philpott.
and I'd like to drink that beer! :thumbsup:
-
Okay, so I'm working with a team that's (relatively) young and like to do things "the right way". This means Agile (naturally!), unit tests written up front, acceptance tests (Gherkin) too.. The problem is that very little gets delivered. In the last two week sprint, 160 points were promised but only 40 delivered. Same in the previous sprint. There's a bit of worry as they're working on a mission critical project that needs to be delivered in a couple of months. Personally, I think they're missing one major point mentioned in the Agile manifesto, in that.. > We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. > Through this work we have come to value: > > Individuals and interactions over processes and tools > Working software over comprehensive documentation > Customer collaboration over contract negotiation > Responding to change over following a plan > > That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more. We're ending up with the situation that writing tests and refactoring is taking the bulk of the time. Things are being (IMO) over-tested and (also IMO) and there's an over-reliance on unit/acceptance testing to pick up all defects - real bugs are being missed and picked up at the point of actual system testing (or even worse, demo). On top of that, we've got developers going in changing working code simply because they think it should be done differently (in their opinion, better). And, if there's a complex way to write simple code you can bet this team will find it.. Has anyone else run into this? What was done to get the team focused on the important deliverables? I would like to understand how we can get away from delivering tests but very little product every two weeks.. :wtf:
Ah, I see you have the machine that goes ping. This is my favorite. You see we lease it back from the company we sold it to and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.
Brent Jenkins wrote:
Things are being (IMO) over-tested and (also IMO) and there's an over-reliance on unit/acceptance testing to pick up all defects - real bugs are being missed and picked up at the point of actual system testing (or even worse, demo).
Take 2 - and have everyone read this blog post[^] (no, not from me). :) Marc
V.A.P.O.R.ware - Visual Assisted Programming / Organizational Representation 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
-
Okay, so I'm working with a team that's (relatively) young and like to do things "the right way". This means Agile (naturally!), unit tests written up front, acceptance tests (Gherkin) too.. The problem is that very little gets delivered. In the last two week sprint, 160 points were promised but only 40 delivered. Same in the previous sprint. There's a bit of worry as they're working on a mission critical project that needs to be delivered in a couple of months. Personally, I think they're missing one major point mentioned in the Agile manifesto, in that.. > We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. > Through this work we have come to value: > > Individuals and interactions over processes and tools > Working software over comprehensive documentation > Customer collaboration over contract negotiation > Responding to change over following a plan > > That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more. We're ending up with the situation that writing tests and refactoring is taking the bulk of the time. Things are being (IMO) over-tested and (also IMO) and there's an over-reliance on unit/acceptance testing to pick up all defects - real bugs are being missed and picked up at the point of actual system testing (or even worse, demo). On top of that, we've got developers going in changing working code simply because they think it should be done differently (in their opinion, better). And, if there's a complex way to write simple code you can bet this team will find it.. Has anyone else run into this? What was done to get the team focused on the important deliverables? I would like to understand how we can get away from delivering tests but very little product every two weeks.. :wtf:
Ah, I see you have the machine that goes ping. This is my favorite. You see we lease it back from the company we sold it to and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.
If it works: do not fix it. What's the point of refactoring if no new feature is added in the end?
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
-
- owns a large, heavy ClueBat.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
:thumbsup:
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
-
There's a process to everything. Many people (developers) have no real process. THey just write code. Just writing code is terrible. The book attempts to explain a process that a real person(s) can use to create a product, not just code. Those of us, like yourself, who have a process that actually creates valuable products have no need of such a thing and consider the writers of such processes as snake oil salesmen (and many are).
My book, Launch Your Android App, is available at Amazon.com (only $2.99USD over 350 pages). Get my Android app on Google Play and F*orget All Your Passwords.
raddevus wrote:
THey just write code. Just writing code is terrible.
Just because they say so?
raddevus wrote:
The book attempts to explain a process that a real person(s) can use to create a product, not just code.
Well - real programmers, by this definition, are simply not real people. I can go with that because real programmers are better than real people! Apparently, by Agile standards, us real programmer earn our living by continuously doing the impossible. Mmmmmmm. Maybe.
"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
-
Okay, so I'm working with a team that's (relatively) young and like to do things "the right way". This means Agile (naturally!), unit tests written up front, acceptance tests (Gherkin) too.. The problem is that very little gets delivered. In the last two week sprint, 160 points were promised but only 40 delivered. Same in the previous sprint. There's a bit of worry as they're working on a mission critical project that needs to be delivered in a couple of months. Personally, I think they're missing one major point mentioned in the Agile manifesto, in that.. > We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. > Through this work we have come to value: > > Individuals and interactions over processes and tools > Working software over comprehensive documentation > Customer collaboration over contract negotiation > Responding to change over following a plan > > That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more. We're ending up with the situation that writing tests and refactoring is taking the bulk of the time. Things are being (IMO) over-tested and (also IMO) and there's an over-reliance on unit/acceptance testing to pick up all defects - real bugs are being missed and picked up at the point of actual system testing (or even worse, demo). On top of that, we've got developers going in changing working code simply because they think it should be done differently (in their opinion, better). And, if there's a complex way to write simple code you can bet this team will find it.. Has anyone else run into this? What was done to get the team focused on the important deliverables? I would like to understand how we can get away from delivering tests but very little product every two weeks.. :wtf:
Ah, I see you have the machine that goes ping. This is my favorite. You see we lease it back from the company we sold it to and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.
Lets all go the park and feed the pigeons - we would be more useful to at least the birds.
-
Okay, so I'm working with a team that's (relatively) young and like to do things "the right way". This means Agile (naturally!), unit tests written up front, acceptance tests (Gherkin) too.. The problem is that very little gets delivered. In the last two week sprint, 160 points were promised but only 40 delivered. Same in the previous sprint. There's a bit of worry as they're working on a mission critical project that needs to be delivered in a couple of months. Personally, I think they're missing one major point mentioned in the Agile manifesto, in that.. > We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. > Through this work we have come to value: > > Individuals and interactions over processes and tools > Working software over comprehensive documentation > Customer collaboration over contract negotiation > Responding to change over following a plan > > That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more. We're ending up with the situation that writing tests and refactoring is taking the bulk of the time. Things are being (IMO) over-tested and (also IMO) and there's an over-reliance on unit/acceptance testing to pick up all defects - real bugs are being missed and picked up at the point of actual system testing (or even worse, demo). On top of that, we've got developers going in changing working code simply because they think it should be done differently (in their opinion, better). And, if there's a complex way to write simple code you can bet this team will find it.. Has anyone else run into this? What was done to get the team focused on the important deliverables? I would like to understand how we can get away from delivering tests but very little product every two weeks.. :wtf:
Ah, I see you have the machine that goes ping. This is my favorite. You see we lease it back from the company we sold it to and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.
Contrary to other opinions here, there is nothing wrong with Agile. Couple of thoughts to help you hopefully get a handle on this: First: the points. Is 40 points your true capacity? If you're doing 2 week sprints and only have 4 developers (as an example), then why are you scheduling 160 points per sprint? If your capacity is significantly higher than 40 points, and you're just not meeting it, then the scrum master needs to come down on folks who are taking a week to finish a 2 point story. Nip that stuff in the bud. A 2 point story should be done by the next scrum, and if it's not the SM needs to buttonhole the dev and ask him or her why, and how they're going to fix it for the next 2 point story. Second: Who is the owner? Who is prioritizing stories? I don't have a problem with technical debt stories, but if those stories are being prioritized ahead of critical defects or features, then you got the wrong people deciding priorities. The SM or PM needs to fix that ASAP. Last: Unit testing is not right or wrong, but if you're going to do it, then A) make sure it's in the story points and B) make sure unit test results are given the same weight as a fistful of air: A unit test is only there to let developers know if they broke someone else's code. Unit tests do not decide if a story was implemented properly. Only Business and/or QA make that call. Edit to add the real, final last item: If someone is doing work that's not part of a user story or defect, then they need to be at the very least kicked off the project. Possibly fired if your company wants to go that far.
-
raddevus wrote:
THey just write code. Just writing code is terrible.
Just because they say so?
raddevus wrote:
The book attempts to explain a process that a real person(s) can use to create a product, not just code.
Well - real programmers, by this definition, are simply not real people. I can go with that because real programmers are better than real people! Apparently, by Agile standards, us real programmer earn our living by continuously doing the impossible. Mmmmmmm. Maybe.
"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
W∴ Balboos wrote:
Just because they say so?
No, not just because Agile says so. I'm saying that code without a purpose isn't valuable to a company or a project. Developers often get stuck on code, but if the code isn't useful or usable the product suffers. Often, it is because developers are focused on other things like some beautiful algorithm. I like software that works and that is really the true goal of a real Agile project. Even this process that the OP has described isn't actually Agile, because they are missing a prime ingredient: product owner / visionary. Alas. :)
My book, Launch Your Android App^, is available at Amazon.com (only $2.99USD over 350 pages). Get my Android app on Google Play and F*orget All Your Passwords (free)^ Get C'YaPass in the App Store(free)^
-
The real answer could/should be dogfooding[^]. Make the developers use the thing themselves. It may be that the product / project is so overly boring that no one really uses it anyways so the devs descend into tweaking algorithms which are interesting to devs. Somehow transform them into thinking about actually using the product and how important the final result it. This may work. Edit My point here is that the problem you are describing is that there is no "product owner" / visionary who is really driving things.
My book, Launch Your Android App, is available at Amazon.com (only $2.99USD over 350 pages). Get my Android app on Google Play and F*orget All Your Passwords.
:thumbsup: Great comment, and appreciated by one who eats dogfood! :laugh: My company is so small that I provide frontline customer support and training for anything I develop. It's way different when your goal becomes to minimize phone calls/remotes/interruptions! I do think you wind up with better software in the end when devs interact with end users at some level.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
-
:thumbsup: Great comment, and appreciated by one who eats dogfood! :laugh: My company is so small that I provide frontline customer support and training for anything I develop. It's way different when your goal becomes to minimize phone calls/remotes/interruptions! I do think you wind up with better software in the end when devs interact with end users at some level.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
Thanks and I totally agree with you on your comment, especially...
kmoorevs wrote:
It's way different when your goal becomes to minimize phone calls/remotes/interruptions!
My book, Launch Your Android App, is available at Amazon.com (only $2.99USD over 350 pages). Get my Android app on Google Play and F*orget All Your Passwords.
