• itsmo (unregistered) in reply to sdebaun
    sdebaun:
    This is hilarious to people who are somewhat versed in Agile.

    To those that aren't: An Agile process would not have a document that looked like that. The whole idea of Agile is that you're not planning "that way". You're dealing with batches of concrete features on a periodic basis (e.g. weekly).

    "Strange women lying in ponds distributing due dates is no basis for a system of project management!"

    Bad music analogy: it's like a club owner saying they're going to change from reggae to country, so they hire a reggae band to play reggae covers of country songs.

    no - that's not funny either.

  • (cs) in reply to Steve The Cynic
    Steve The Cynic:
    Of course, the somewhat free-wheeling nature of most Agile processes does not sit well in an ISO-9001 environment, especially the "eww, gross, let's fix it" approach to refactoring, but what do I know?
    No friggin joke...
  • itsmo (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    nasch:
    frits:
    Effete Hipster:

    Ugh, doesn't anyone understand irony?

    http://theoatmeal.com/comics/irony

    He's got at least one thing right, riding jet skis is a lot more fun than debating irony. And that's from someone who likes arguing.

    I do not like arguing!

    oh yes you do

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Steve The Cynic
    Steve The Cynic:
    Of course, the somewhat free-wheeling nature of most Agile processes does not sit well in an ISO-9001 environment, especially the "eww, gross, let's fix it" approach to refactoring, but what do I know?
    I worked in an agile shop (scrum) that was ISO-9001 certified and I don't think we got a single non-compliance for the entire time I worked there. Despite this, the agile methodology was not the best choice for that particular project. I like agile in principle but only when it is a suitable practice for the task at hand.
  • (cs)

    Hey, at least they're using actual project management software for managing their waterfall project, instead of troweling a thick layer of custom styling on an Excel spreadsheet to make it look like MS Project (but not act like it).

    I'm convinced that a large number of PMs are employed only so VPs of Development won't be lonely at status meetings.

  • gef05 (unregistered) in reply to Frank

    "Miracle X in liquid form isn't working sir." "Is there an alternative?" "Yes. Miracle X in tablet form." "Thank god. Crush it into a powder, and mix with it water - NOW."

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to Webster
    Webster:
    Agile (adj)

    1. Software project sponsored by someone unable to properly define the requirements

    2. Software project developed by people unable to properly analyze requirements or create a development plans

    Oh, and here I thought the definition was: "Name attached to any software tool, book, or other software-development related product produced by a company whose marketing VP read in a magazine somewhere that Agile was the latest way cool thing."

    Remember when every new product, book, methodology, etc was called "object-oriented"? Or for your older folks, when every new product was called "structured"?

    Captcha: "acsi" Chararacter encoding scheme used by dyslexics.

  • boog (unregistered) in reply to Jay
    Jay:
    Webster:
    Agile (adj)

    1. Software project sponsored by someone unable to properly define the requirements

    2. Software project developed by people unable to properly analyze requirements or create a development plans

    Oh, and here I thought the definition was: "Name attached to any software tool, book, or other software-development related product produced by a company whose marketing VP read in a magazine somewhere that Agile was the latest way cool thing."

    You are correct, but that definition is typically listed under the word "extreme". It's basically the same word; "agile" is just a slightly newer dialect.
  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Marc Vertido
    Marc Vertido:
    They're using the Waterfall model to implement the Agile model...that's why this isn't funny at all and makes perfect sense, since the beginning of the article says they currently use Waterfall method and are investigating Agile. Why anyone thinks this was worthy of an article is beyond me. Why the fuck do I even read this site anymore? Aren't there any alternatives that aren't as shitty?
    Fixed that for you.
  • Schol-R-LEA (unregistered)

    TRWTF is that they were claiming to use Waterfall initially to begin with. Despite the long 'history' it supposedly has, 'Waterfall Process' is not the classic development model; it is the classic development strawman against which all 'new' methodologies compare themselves, something that has been true since Waterfall was first (accidentally) introduced by Royce in 1972. No one has ever used Waterfall in it's strict form because strict Waterfall isn't a viable approach to software development and was never meant to be one. Anyone who claims otherwise should look more closely at what was actually being done, as they will soon find that the linear 'cascade' is/was being subverted at many points in the process - actions taken out of order, different parts of the projects operating at different stages, stepping back to undo mistakes, etc. are always part of any larger project, software or otherwise.

    immitto - all the people claiming to have 'improved' on Waterfall are just imitating Royce, who did it first - before 'waterfall' was even named!

  • Don't understand all of this at all (unregistered) in reply to Cbuttius

    I wish you be my project manager sir. -)

  • anon (unregistered) in reply to jeremy
    jeremy:
    Dan:
    Dan: I worked with one. She was fired for performance reasons.

    Honest.

    Worked with one what? A bint, or a real project manager?

    In this case he was referring to a real project manager. I would imagine that this lady, while trying to be effective at her job, was probably probably stepping on the toes of some knee jerk, egotistical, incompetent, but politically savvy and entrenched manager whose people/resources were involved in the project and he probably didn't "feel" the project was being managed the way he thought it should be.

  • Mystagogue (unregistered)

    I notice in discussions like these, there are only 3 recognized possibilities: Agile, Cowboy, or Waterfall. Indeed, I'm curious why everyone is certain this non-Agile Gantt chart is Waterfall? Waterfall means that you cannot back-track or revisit prior steps. From a Gantt chart alone, I have no way of knowing if the PMO is unwilling to backtrack. Why does no one recall Spiral or Iterative development in these discussions?

  • ACoder (unregistered)

    Not getting into the Pros and cons of Agile however its really scary how many people don't understand what Agile actually means. You do understand its not a Methodology right??

    Its a set of principals NOT a methodology

    http://agilemanifesto.org/

    XP, Scrum etc are Agile Methodologies Agile itself is a state of mind :)

  • Dan (unregistered)

    Sorry but without more of the schedule I have to say this isn't a WTF. They are going from Waterfall to Agile. The PM or whoever is merely following current process (Waterfall) in making the transition. If you notice, there isn't anything in the schedule other than figuring out what Agile is, and training people in it.

  • (cs) in reply to boog
    boog:
    jasmine2501:
    You can't tell by looking at them. Our PM does a nice job though - I have encountered this twice, and both of them work at my current employer. Good management can really make the difference. A good project manager will do all the things listed in the long post above. In addition to that, he keeps us all in a good mood - he planned a party today for pirate day. As a manager, he does keep the rest of the company from asking us to do the impossible... it is a very nice change of pace to be able to go in to your job every day and know that you're not going to be asked to do the impossible, that your tasks are well-defined, and the result will be appreciated by the business stakeholders, because the PM has managed their expectations appropriately. It completely removes the adverse sentiment between IT and other departments. Due to good management, the IT department is seen as part of the whole company and we actually work together with other departments to accomplish the same goals - that is a complete reversal from other places, where the IT department is often seen as "a service group that keeps me from getting any work done"
    So what's the deal? Is your PM reading your comments or something?

    Hehe... possibly. But it's all true.

  • (cs) in reply to Mystagogue
    Mystagogue:
    Why does no one recall Spiral or Iterative development in these discussions?

    Because that would be admitting that "what we actually do" isn't actually called Agile.

  • sammy (unregistered) in reply to JamesQMurphy
    JamesQMurphy:
    I don't get it. "Agile" doesn't mean "without process." It means a different process than traditional waterfall. You still need processes, artifacts, training, and all that stuff.

    You're absolutely right.

    On the other hand, when you are told that you need to identify all of the tasks necessary to develop each feature, prior to any kind of coding being done, and have each user story complete prior to the beginning of the first sprint...

    Let's just say that I have some first-hand experience of companies saying, "Oh, we do Agile," when they really mean "We do Waterfall, only now you have to report to me every day."

  • Bootstrap Bill (unregistered) in reply to Dazed
    Dazed:
    Marc Vertido:
    They're using the Waterfall model to implement the Agile model...that's what's funny about this.
    A number of people here need to think about what they're writing. What is this group supposed to use to implement Agile? Agile? i.e. a method that hasn't been implemented yet? How many of you will order your next computer using your next computer?

    How many of you have used a 'C' compiler written in 'C'? How about a Java compiler written in Java? etc

  • The G man (unregistered) in reply to JamesQMurphy
    JamesQMurphy:
    I don't get it. "Agile" doesn't mean "without process." It means a different process than traditional waterfall. You still need processes, artifacts, training, and all that stuff.

    Not so. The whole point of being agile is that you add exactly as much of that ceremony as you require for the current project. If it happens that you don't need any of it - and that does happen, sometimes - then you don't need it, and you don't add it. The words "you need" or "you must" have no place in an agile methodology. On a +particular project+ those terms may come up, with first-person pronouns, but that's all.

  • The G man (unregistered)

    ITT: A lot of people declaring war on straw, because they don't +get+ agile

  • (cs) in reply to Bootstrap Bill
    Bootstrap Bill:
    How many of you have used a 'C' compiler written in 'C'? How about a Java compiler written in Java? etc
    I use a Haskell compiler written in Haskell almost every day. In your comment you haven't stated your point in the best possible way, but you've stated it most excellently in your chosen nick.
  • CurtCharlesPDX (unregistered)

    Or, working as a contractor to the US Gov't. They want Agile for all it's benefits, but they demand progress be tracked with Earned Value Management (EVM). The tools to track progress against plan? MS Project and Cobra. So, gotta have a detailed waterfall plan but also gotta manage thru SCRUM. So, it's pretty much SCRUM in name only...

Leave a comment on “In a Barrel”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article