ShakyJake
<Donor>
- 8,292
- 20,752
Yeah, it feels that way. But we had a company come in and train us on SAFe and have been observing us for the past couple PIs. They haven't told us we're doing it wrong.
IT/Software career thread: Invert binary trees for dollars.
- Thread starter Traak
- Start date
Control
Silver Baronet of the Realm
- 4,622
- 12,813
Well, there's a lot of subjectivity in how you carry out a high level process. I'm sure there are a hundred ways to do things "correctly" while still making it a hellish process.
Maybe you're doing that flavor of "agile" correctly and it's just a shitty experience. There are plenty of ways to boost productivity (over some time span) that employees don't like.
Also possible that your trainers are shitty and don't actually know their source material (and quite likely that, even if they're solid, they've never used their process in actual practice themselves. Otherwise, why are they agile trainers instead of developers?).
Also possible that the process was "adjusted" by management.
If you think your input could have any impact on the process (or if you just want to be right for spite's sake), go grab and read all of the original source material and maybe some other agile flavors too. At least then you can be confident in who's fucking things up.
Although, I'll still stand behind the idea that if you're extensively planning every detail of your project and have hard deadlines imposed from the start, then you're just doing waterfall with extra steps (and labels that make management feel like they're being useful). I mean, it's literally saying, "we need exactly this feature list, implemented exactly this way, and completed by exactly this date... BUT we're going to use AGILE! <and then everyone clapped>"