The author is also hyping up waterfall too much. Agile was created because waterfall has its shortcomings (e.g. the team realizes too late that what they’re building isn’t what the customer wants).

But I also think it also represents how poorly implemented these ideas are. People say they do agile/kanban/scrum, but in reality they do some freak version of these.

[–] Geth@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So often it's waterfall planning and execution with agile names for roles and meetings.

[–] magic_lobster_party@kbin.run 4 points 5 months ago

It’s barely waterfall planning either. Often there’s no planning, at least no coordinated one.

Currently at my current workplace we lack coordinated planning between teams. It seems like everybody is working in their own directions and it can take months until we get feedback from other teams. Mostly a product management problem.

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I agree, but agile and scrum are not meant to be followed to the letter no matter what. So people are doing it right if they notice some part of the process should be changed to make it work for them.

[–] MonkderDritte@feddit.de 1 points 5 months ago

Except they often only appear to work.

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago

The amount of people who say they do agile/kanban/scrum but have never talked to a customer/end user, let alone released something, is frightening