Everybody is using Agile/Scrum in one way or other. But at times this in on paper in agreements. Do you think if a new process is need in this new age. Do we need to sketch out new framework.
Agile/Scrum is one of those things that are impossible to criticise. You can come up with a well-reasoned critique of a particular scrum deficiency and there's always some Scrum Expert that pops up to tell you that you're not doing "real scrum" and, therefore, your experience is invalid.<p>At the same time, I have now done software engineering for over a decade, in many roles and teams, and I have never seen Agile or Scrum to lead to the development of a good piece of software. I guess we were using it wrong.
Yes, but the problem is that the organisations will only listen to McKinsey and they have a motivation to not solve the problem but to merely adapt it and bill the client again.<p>Agile is one of the few significant shifts in business where the board members are unaware of the creators and don't hire them in to consult authentically. I think only Kent Beck was hired by Facebook at a somewhat senior level, and Ken Schwaber spoke at Google a couple of times for mega money. It really should be a thing where every manifesto signatory is a consultant to big business at board level.
My related comments recently: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37233790">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37233790</a><p>To your question:<p>- It depends on what you mean by "Agile"<p>- If you want to make sense of "original Agile", read "The Agile manifesto" (2001), it's 2 short pages, we can wait for you to get back.<p>- Criticisms of modern "agile" are actually the same as the problems that spawned that agile movement in the first place. It has become what it reacted against.<p>- There are practitioners of OG Agile still around and talking / Writing. Dave Farley for one.<p>- The scientific method <i>does not need to be replaced</i>, hard no. An experimental, incremental, iterative, learning framework is the way forward. The specific rituals of Jira-based scrum, those could go and not much of value would be lost.<p>If you're looking for a new framework, are you familiar with the <i>Accelerate</i> book? How about <i>Team Topologies</i> ? <i>The Goal</i> ?
Looking at most comments, you have people on one side accepting the Agile/Scrum to keep the project moving forward, not dwelling into to much details of the process while accepting delivery is most important.<p>On the other side, you have people calling the original Agile manifesto accurate theoretically.<p>My take on this right now is: yes, we have come long way with Agile/Scrum/(or any process), built incredible software, billed the customers and always accommodated customer changes.
We have come from daily standups to online sitdowns(something I just coined or was it there already :) ). People are hearing more voices then seeing faces. Literally, everyone is screaming AI in every enterprise.<p>Given so much data that exists about Agile/Scrum implementations and we have ways to measure it, I believe if someone comes up with a new idea which keeps the core idea of efficiently delivering new software to customers then I am ready to follow that. Just for a change.
The problem with real life implementations of scrum is: managers apply it in order to get poor performing teams to deliver.<p>This does not really work as it does not address the root cause of poor performance, which can vary greatly.<p>It’s never worked.
Personal experience is that although agile and scrum are widely used, most organisations use these as frameworks to build a custom approach. Biggest problem I always find is lack of accounting and governance transformation to support agile, these two are always typically waterfall, so then you end up with agile technologists versus waterfall business = waterfall with sprints. For agile to really work, every part of a business needs to adopt it, from board down.
hello,<p>in my experience, agile/scrum is great - in theory.<p>in "the wild"/in practices its mostly implemented in a way, which "pleases lower & upper mgmt" but doesn't take into account the features necessary for the team(s) to be able to work smoothly.<p>so: not agile/scrum need to be revisited, but the implementation of agile processes / scrum in companies/projects etc...<p>cheers,
t.<p>ps.: and lots of companies want to do "scrum" with far to few people / small projects - mostly situations, where imho. kanban with a backlog would be sufficient and especially more effective.