Comment on Anon appreciates Chris Sawyer

• Buddahriffic@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  I bet its looked something like:

  1. Developer in large company was frustrated with how much time was spent just communicating rather than doing.
  2. Comes up with a new system for effective communication and organization.
  3. Doesn’t get much traction at current company because of inertia.
  4. Eventually starts his own company or joins a smaller startup where they are open minded because they haven’t developed their own system for that yet.
  5. Less time spent communicating and organizing because it’s a smaller company but confirmation bias gives credit to new system.
  6. Many companies adopt “proven” system.
  7. Large companies end up in same or worse boat because things still need to be communicated and disagreements still need to be resolved through discussion or orgazational power.

  Though just a guess, since my only “experience” with “agile” has been seeing people complain about it. Plus experience working in a large enough team to have experienced the communication problem and to understand that a part of it is with so many meetings that are often irrelevant to the work any individual is working on, the default often ends up being tune most of it out until it’s their turn to speak, so they often end up missing relevant stuff anyways and any big meeting is mostly a waste of time.

  source

  • HereIAm@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    So the people behind the Agile Manifesto are far more experienced than some random dissatisfied dev. What I think most teams miss is that the only required meeting in the Agile manifesto is to regularly meet up to discuss what has worked and what hasn’t the past few weeks, aka retrospective. If there are meetings or processes that don’t work for a team and they don’t change it after the next retrospective, then they simply aren’t agile.

    source