Study finds 268% higher failure rates for Agile software projects
Study finds 268% higher failure rates for Agile software projects
In praise of knowing the requirements before you start cranking out code
We all knew it
You're viewing a single thread.
Wtf is Agile ? I can't get my head around that.
It is a methodology to develop software quickly. It has some good things about it. But it can be very heavy on meetings and agile idealists are not very flexible. As many of the other comments say, a mixture of agile and some other methodology or starting with agile and developing your own process that works for your team or project is the best way of managing a project. I don't understand why so many people don't seem to write requirements when using agile. Even with agile I will not start coding until I have relatively clear requirements. It is not too bright to start speculative development without really knowing where you are going. https://agilemanifesto.org/
But it can be very heavy on meetings and agile idealists are not very flexible.
Seems a little ironic haha
Right? I find agile purists to be some of the least flexible people I've ever met. They are the exact opposite of agile. To be fair though, I have found that a good scrum master can be worth their weight in gold. You always know the status of a project and the individual stories. It can be very, very helpful.
I don’t understand this… How do you code if you don’t know where you’re coding for? Am I the only one that thinks that sounds crazy?
Commonly you will have a relatively broad goal of providing some functionality by the time a project is done. Every sprint, commonly two weeks, you concentrate on producing a piece of functionality that will get you closer to that goal. At the end of a sprint, many teams are expected to have what's called a minimally viable product that is technically usable. The problem with that concept is MVP almost always becomes production. That results in poor coding that is hard to support. It almost always involves rework later on, often when something is already in production. And you are not crazy. Not having a clear idea of what you're coding for is wasteful and very inefficient.
Agile is not about being quick, it's about delivering what the customer actually wants. When you do Waterfall you gather all the requirements, then you sit down and code the thing. Only to find out months or years later that you delivered crap as the customer didn't even know themselves what they wanted.
With agile you take it one step at a time. What is important now? Get the requirements for this feature, deliver it in the next two weeks (or at least a part of it). Then the customer, which can be an actual customer, or your internal Product Owner, or a Product Manager looks it over. If the whole thing is perfect? Nice, carry on to the next thing.
Often you find out some detail was overlooked, or a new requirement came up, or the design didn't fully work out. So pack it into the next sprint and do it better. You'd never get this feedback if you gather "all" requirements first and then just try to go from start to finish.
Agile certainly has its upsides when done right, unfortunately there's not a lot of companies who manage to do so (like most I've been part of). Despite being messy at times, it's still better than Waterfall. There's too many meetings either way.
I like your point about the idealists. IMHO, agile has some merits, rooted in psychology. For example, during stand up to say what your plans are for the day. Same for the sprint and quarter. It helps with communication. I don't like the thing where everything needs to be a deliverable thing. I'll poke my eyes out if I need to sit through another example of building a skateboard, scooter, bike, truck. Try that example with something real like a bridge or house. It ends up in a lot of throwaway work. Now try doing that in a highly regulated field like government or finance where you really can't iterate due to oversight and regulatory compliance.
Oops, this turned into a rant. Well at least agile pays the bills. There's a lot of money to be made in prolonging the problem.
Traditionally (as in 20+ years ago), software got developed according to the Waterfall model or V-model or similar. This required a documentation of all the requirements before a project could be started. (Certain software development fields do still work that way due to legal requirements.)
This was often a failure, because the requirements did not actually match what was needed, not to mention that the real requirements often shifted throughout development.
Agile, on the other hand, starts out development and figuring out the requirements pretty much in parallel. The customers get a more tangible picture of what the software actually looks like. The software developers also take over the role of requirements engineers, of domain experts, which helps them make more fitting software architecture decisions. And you can more easily cancel a project, if it turns out to not be needed anymore or whatever (which is also why a cancellation percentage is misleading).
The trouble with Agile, on the other hand, is that projects can get started with really no idea what the goal even is, and often with not enough budget reserved to actually get them completed (obviously, that may also be a failure state; if the project is promising enough, customers will find the money for it somewhere).
Also, you do spend a lot of time as a software dev in working out those requirements.But yeah, basically pick your poison, and even if people like to complain about Agile methology, it's what most of the software development world considers more successful.