undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrramadass4y ago0 comments

>The agile manifesto was the problem. It's a vague as hell set of proscriptions that everybody could project their own ideas on to that got turned into a pseudo-religion.

thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU!

It is a useless set of vague platitudes which offered nothing but a sense of seeming aphoristic depth. How so many people fell for it is still a mystery to me. Instead of focusing on the core problem of Requirements gathering and Software Specification, well known trial-and-error approaches were dressed up as something profound and a whole industry was created out of thin air. People seem to have forgotten the works of Fred Brooks/Barry Boehm and that their iterative "Spiral Model" IS Agile. There is nothing new i could find in the "modern" Agile/Scrum movement except mindless emphasis on Processes/Tools which is insanity, eg; The position of "Scrum Master" is the very definition of a "Bullshit Job" and should be abolished forthwith.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

wheelinsupial4y ago· 1 in thread

> the core problem of _Requirements gathering and Software Specification_

Where I work there was a huge shift in this.

From Business analysts (BA), who usually had comp sci or engineering degrees, and an expectation to get PMP and CBAP / PMI-PBA / other BA certification to move up, were responsible for requirements.

Now we have product managers and scrum masters with a 1-3 day agile certification and no comp sci or engineering background who are responsible for requirements.

rramadassOP4y ago

My sympathies!

Nothing is worse than non-domain knowledgeable, non-technical people lording it over actual Technical Engineers who do the work.

I always recommend Dave Packard's 1960 "Speech to HP Managers" to every "Manager" - https://gizmodo.com/the-hp-way-how-bill-hewlett-and-i-built-...

Relevant Excerpt:

Over the years we have developed the policy that it is important for the supervisor to thoroughly know and understand the work of his group. A debate on this has been carried on by management people for years. Some say you can be a good manager without having the slightest idea of what you are trying to manage, that the techniques of management are all important. There are many organizations which work that way. I don't argue that the job can't be done that way but I do argue strongly that the best job can be done when the manager or supervisor has a real and genuine understanding of his group's work. I don't see how a person can even understand what proper standards are and what performance is required unless he does understand in some detail the very specific nature of the work he is trying to supervise. We have held closely to this philosophy and we intend to continue to do so. We expect you who are supervising to learn techniques of supervision and keep up to date. I want to emphasize you can supervise best when you know a great deal about the work you are supervising and when you know the techniques of supervision as well.

This is how great companies were built.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse