Someone shared this on Mastodon so I'll just repost my thoughts from there. (Bonus for Lemmy, I was forced to squeeze all my thoughts into 500 characters, so this is the most succinct I've been on this site!)

Pretty incredible how little people seem to understand these. For one thing, every method other than waterfall is a subtype of agile methodology. The major distinction is that waterfall has a series of phases from design through building, testing, and delivery that attempts to plan the whole project up front. Agile methods focus on smaller iteration cycles with frequent, partial deliverables.

Something like kanban is designed for continuous delivery: we want to go to mars weekly.

LEAN development is a scam though, that one is accurate.

[–] magic_lobster_party@kbin.run 47 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

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 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] magic_lobster_party@kbin.run 5 points 3 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.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)