I loved agile as an analyst, we used to use waterfall and you’d hear about incorrect designs months later, or not at all, where in agile you can work out the details with the programmers and get both nearer the business requirements, and better designs
Also I absolutely love the job of scrum master which had no equivalent in waterfall
I love waterfall as an developer, I’m using agile now and we have incomplete, conflicting designs every sprint, or spills which affect our metrics, where in waterfall you can workout all the details and have full vision of product and better design with less reworks.
Not to mock you. My point is that methodology is not import when team consists from responsible professionals
I think a lot of it dependent on management. If you have a good product manager, software architect (or whatever) who can have things solidly designed before sending it to development, agile works great. But if the people writing the cards suck at their job, well then the project isn’t going to go well.
But then bad management is going to suck no matter what methodology is used.
You’re right on. We have some good expertise left over from our previous methodology which was both waterfall and siloed so bad feature documents don’t cause too much problem, but once our expertise retires (and we’re not makeing new experts as the silos were removed) the features will need to great to get decent products
And bad management is the biggest thing to make a job miserable
I don’t take it as mocking or anything, I know that some devs in my team preferred waterfall. I’m just saying there are aspects of agile I really enjoy
Waterfall makes higher quality software in many circumstances. It’s optimised for quality.
Agile is optimised for speed explicitly at the expense of quality. Whatever methodology you can only pick two between development speed, cost, and quality
I loved agile as an analyst, we used to use waterfall and you’d hear about incorrect designs months later, or not at all, where in agile you can work out the details with the programmers and get both nearer the business requirements, and better designs
Also I absolutely love the job of scrum master which had no equivalent in waterfall
I love waterfall as an developer, I’m using agile now and we have incomplete, conflicting designs every sprint, or spills which affect our metrics, where in waterfall you can workout all the details and have full vision of product and better design with less reworks.
Not to mock you. My point is that methodology is not import when team consists from responsible professionals
I think a lot of it dependent on management. If you have a good product manager, software architect (or whatever) who can have things solidly designed before sending it to development, agile works great. But if the people writing the cards suck at their job, well then the project isn’t going to go well.
But then bad management is going to suck no matter what methodology is used.
You’re right on. We have some good expertise left over from our previous methodology which was both waterfall and siloed so bad feature documents don’t cause too much problem, but once our expertise retires (and we’re not makeing new experts as the silos were removed) the features will need to great to get decent products
And bad management is the biggest thing to make a job miserable
I don’t take it as mocking or anything, I know that some devs in my team preferred waterfall. I’m just saying there are aspects of agile I really enjoy
Waterfall makes higher quality software in many circumstances. It’s optimised for quality.
Agile is optimised for speed explicitly at the expense of quality. Whatever methodology you can only pick two between development speed, cost, and quality
There are some instances in which waterfall is not only entirely appropriate, but also the best possible choice in terms of work organization.
There are some instances in which agile is the best fit. Likewise kanban.
Different domains have different optimal workflows.