opinions software methodology
-
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.)
"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 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. -
Mike Hankey wrote:
I say toss it back to your manager
sooner or later it will get tossed to the managers' manager :~
V.
(MQOTD rules and previous solutions)
Why not, as long as they are busy giving each other the fault and duke out their little rivalries, you are safe. You must only see to it that they never realize what's going on :-)
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. -
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?
V.
(MQOTD rules and previous solutions)
-
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?
V.
(MQOTD rules and previous solutions)
-
I could give a long reply to several statements, but in short: a) I can see how it could work, you did put some good arguments for solid use of the method. b) You convinced me even more that our organization should never, ever (!) use this. :-)
V.
(MQOTD rules and previous solutions)
V. wrote:
You convinced me even more that our organization should never, ever (!) use this.
My job is done. :) 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
-
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?
V.
(MQOTD rules and previous solutions)
Well, even if one follows agile (let's not discuss if it's good or bad), if the requirements change all the time, that is if if the requirements giver declares his own words from last week wrong, he either has a latent case of split personality disorder or is plain stupid.
-
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?
V.
(MQOTD rules and previous solutions)
In many organizations it's more important to do something rather than the right thing. With agile coding can start immediately, without a design. Since progress is measureed in lines of code, "something" is progressing well. After all, it's gonna be late anyway, put off the design till halfway through the project.
-
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?
V.
(MQOTD rules and previous solutions)
My agency let's a woman with no technical skills run fake scrums. No substantial comments are allowed. If there is an issue (you can't say problem)follow up if any is a mob meeting where the A types dominate the floor blathering on about irrelevances. I need a day off.
Leadership equals wrecked ship. If you think you are leading my look behind you. You are alone. If you think I am leading you, You are lost.
-
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
That is absolutely horrifying.
-
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?
V.
(MQOTD rules and previous solutions)
There are lots of criticisms that you could make of agile and supporters would suggest that you are not doing it properly. But from what you've posted, it seems more like you have a bad manager, but you know this already. I'm guessing you're dealing directly with your boss? Agile is just a smoke-screen for do it all as fast as you can; use weekends and evenings for all I care? If you can, you need to educate your manager with the true costs of software development in terms of time that it takes to do the job properly. You need to try to establish that there is an overhead in constantly re-writing the same software when requirements change. Granted, this is a part of the natural evolution of software, but (for simplicity's sake) at the very least you should be able to confirm the version you've just released before you start working on the next version. Changing team company or team culture won't happen overnight. It will be a process over a long period of time. Collect your data and facts before having that argument. Hope this helps.
-
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?
V.
(MQOTD rules and previous solutions)
As long as the majority thinks all you need to run projects is "people skills" (and little or no technical expertise), software development teams will continue to produce sh*t. Eastern Europe and China are now cranking out all the (good) code ... because they are still a bit more hungry than the average Westerner and don't need the BS.
-
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?
V.
(MQOTD rules and previous solutions)
In my experience, Agile/Scrum works best in consultant line of work where as long as the customer keep paying the hours, the team will keep coding, changing to the will of the changing requirement. It rarely works with projects that have deadline and budget constraints. These type of projects required the full understanding of the scope to properly estimate budget. The requirement must be approved before any development can take place. Unfortunately far too many managers are in place without really understand the technical difficulties of managing the unknown. Compounding to the problem is that some managers are having ego issue, not willing to listen to the team. When I have this kind of problem, I either go directly to the upper management (yes stepping on toes and risk getting fired) or if the manage is the upper management, find another job quick. There is no reason to be stressed out and stick with a moron.
-
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?
V.
(MQOTD rules and previous solutions)
Wow, your boss sounds like he is clueless... After listening to the overall goals of the project, We start with a metaphor which frames the conceptual expectations: - A Web Kiosk, A Public Web, A 3-tier Client, a 2-tier Client... - Then we discuss this with the client to make sure they understand the limitations/abilities (you probably don't want a remote interactive video editing tool) Then we choose an even better metaphor - Like Twitter, Like Facebook, Like.... - But NOT like, and will not Now we have a framework concept. We still have not started any coding. Then we meet and identify the various user "groups" (admins, managers, users, clients, etc) Then we assign Points of Contact for each group that we can FREELY ACCESS as developers. We start collecting the Use Cases (user stories) at a HIGH Level. Looking for exceptions. And we mock up an presentation to demonstrate how interactions will work (no coding yet). Now we have a PROJECT. We have wasted ZERO programming hours. We should have a general consensus. We know the stake holders. Stake holders know where everything is going in general. They also know they are NOT the only users of the system. Then we start the real work, which feels a lot more agile, because we are always delivering a usable system with high quality. Did we specify EVERYTHING up front in detail? NOPE. Did we leave everything until after the programming started? NEVER. Will we prevent the programmer from talking to the user? (Not unless we have a to) == What you are describing meets my definition of death by a thousand cuts. Your baby step is to be in the meeting with your boss so you can ask the detailed questions when required.
-
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?
V.
(MQOTD rules and previous solutions)
Point out to the person bringing the changing requirements that you make the same hourly wage whether he is wasting resources by changing requirements, or planning and executing effectively, and wouldn't it be better for the business if he did some planning and analysis. Or don't point it out, but just remember it yourself. Really the only thing that requires changing is the blaming you for his changing the requirements. Be a stickler any time you get blame. Ask for misunderstandings to be explained in writing, preferably with reference to a previous document, and keep the memos. If he won't document it, then you do, and send him an email recapping what he said was the issue. At the end, you'll have a complete list of requirements. And you may get lucky enough to catch the manager in a 360, where he first says, "go left", then says "go right", then says "go left" again, which you can call him on, with documentation. A reasonable person will "get it" when you show him such evidence of bad planning. Requirements don't really change. What changes is the team's understanding of the requirements. Software development is knowledge acquisition, plus crystallizing that knowledge into executable form. You don't know what you don't know, until you try to build the thing.
-
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 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.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.
-
unfortunately I'm not asked to talk to the client... Although in this case, I might not want to, either.
V.
(MQOTD rules and previous solutions)