> I've worked waterfall and while I hated it at the time I'd rather go back to it. Today we move much faster but build the wrong thing or rewrite and refactor things multiple times.
My experience as well. Waterfall is like - let's think about where we want this product to go, and the steps to get there. Agile is like ADHD addled zig zag journey to a destination cutting corners because we are rewriting a component for the third time, to get to a much worse product slightly faster. Now we can do that part 10x faster, cool.
The thing is, at every other level of the company, people are actually planning in terms of quarters/years, so the underlying product being given only enough thought for the next 2 weeks at a time is a mismatch.
It’s possible to manage the quarterly expectations by saying “we can improve metric X by 10% in a quarter”. It’s often possible to find an improvement that you’re very confident of making very quickly. Depending on how backwards the company is you may need to hide the fact that the 10% improvement required a one line change after a month of experimentation, or they’ll fight you on the experimentation time and expect that one line to take 5 minutes, after which you should write lots more code that adds no value.
Agile isn’t a good match for a business that can only think in terms of effort and not learning+value. That doesn’t make agile the problem.
My experience in an agile firm was that they hired a lot of experienced people and then treated them like juniors. Actively allergic to thinking ahead.
To get around the problem that deliverables took more than a few days, actual tasks would be salami sliced down into 3 point tickets that simply delivered the starting state the next ticket needed. None of these tickets being completed was an actual user observable deliverable or something you could put on a management facing status report.
Each task was so time boxed, seniors would actively be upbraided in agile ceremonies for doing obvious next steps. 8 tickets sequentially like - Download the data. Analyze the data. Load a sample of the data. Load all the data. Ok now put in data quality tests on the data. OK now schedule the daily load of the data. OK now talk to users about the type of views/aggregations/API they want on the data. OK now do a v0 of that API.
It's sort of interesting because we have fully transitioned from the agile infantilization of seniors to expecting them to replace a team of juniors with LLMs.
I have so many thoughts:
Depending on the reality, either that company doesn't understand agile very well, or you didn't understand the importance of the small steps.
A plan is not made agile by being split into many small sequential steps; what would make this agile is learning from each step and being prepared to scrap steps 2-8 if step 1 turns out to be enough. Usually this attitude results in splits that make more sense and do add user value.
OTOH I've seen many experienced folks get tripped up because it's easy to get consumed and not evaluate work vs the customer value when you're in the middle of a big task.
For example on an internationalisation project a dev thought: "Every translation key is handled the same way in Rails, let me just do them all at once"; spent weeks with the appearance of no progress because they were working through many cases often slightly more complicated than imagined. They said out loud ~ "I'm not working just for the sake of a task board, the work needs to be done, let's be better than box ticking, it's all one logically consistent piece of work".
I had to interrupt to point out that most of the pages were either about to be deleted or were only needed later. Meanwhile we had tons of work that needed this person's attention on things that were of immediate importance.
It's also important to work in a way that a high number of PRs is not a penalty. It's a smell if we're motivated to reduce the number of PRs because shipping PRs feels difficult.
> and then treated them like juniors
You shouldn't put juniors in a strict short time box either. At least not for long.
People don't grow if they can't think about the results of their work. If if your juniors can't grow, you could as well not hire any.
Heh, sounds like Goodhart's law gone wild at that place.
Maybe. It might also have nothing to do with ill-conceived attempts at evaluation. I sometimes suggest teams work in steps that small (usually because they don't have the experience to handle something bigger) and it has nothing to do with evaluating the team. It has everything to do with them learning to move precisely and avoid mistakes.
Yes - how to complete story points without actually solving any problems
I think the bigger issue is that Waterfall is often not "Waterfall".
Sure there's a 3000 row excel file of requirements but during development the client still sees the product or slides outlining how the product works and you still had QA that had to test stuff as you made it. Then you make changes based on that feedback.
While Agile often feels like it's lost the plot. We're just going to make something and iterate it into a product people like versus figuring out a product people will like and designing towards it.
There's an abstraction level above which waterfall makes more sense, and below which [some replacement for agile but without the rituals] makes more sense.
I think Qs to ask are.. if the nature of user facing deliverable tasks are longer than a sprint, the tasks have linear dependencies, there are coordination concerns, etc
Sprints are just ritual though. The others... if you're that low I'd say you're past waterfall since you have well defined tasks while I feel a waterfall like approach is more for initial architecture.
Agile largely came about because we thought about where we wanted the product to go, and the steps to get there, and started building, and then it turned out that the way we thought we wanted to go was wrong, and all of that planning we did was completely wasted.
If you work in an environment where you definitely do know where you want the product to go, and the customer doesn't change their mind once they've seen the first working bits, then great. But I've never worked in that kind of environment.
It helps to at least write down requirements. And not requirements in that "it must use Reddis", but customer, user, performance, cost, etc requirements.
A one page requirements document is like pulling teeth apparently.
Oh yes, you want a vague idea of where you're going, and concrete plans for the next step. If you can't even get one-page requirements then something has gone very badly wrong.