Immortal_Haze posted:
I need you to come talk to some of the old fogies here lol. The comment I made earlier this week to a technical fellow... "After 8 years of doing the same process, we're expecting different results this time? We don't want to risk changing the process but would rather fail again using business as usual?"
Ex-remlocke posted:
switching from pure waterfall to an agile/waterfall mix was the best thing our team has ever done.
switching from pure waterfall to an agile/waterfall mix was the best thing our team has ever done.
I need you to come talk to some of the old fogies here lol. The comment I made earlier this week to a technical fellow... "After 8 years of doing the same process, we're expecting different results this time? We don't want to risk changing the process but would rather fail again using business as usual?"
Old people stuck in their ways are hard to work with (in other news.. see politics).. it's one of the reasons I won't work for the government directly as everyone has their habits and they don't want to change them.
A waterfall project will always run into problems that the Agile framework is prepared to handle. Change requests during the final test phases of waterfall seem to always happen. This usually happens when the product is unveiled to the client and they find something they needed 8 months ago but it isn't close to what they need to address their problems. Big changes to the requirements aren't supposed to take place 2 weeks before a release, when testing is wrapping up, yet it's common place in the waterfall methodology. Agile eliminates this problem by continuously reevaluating the business needs and tweaking the application where needed.
There are downsides to agile such as less documentation up front and a need for good project management between teams working on different functionality, but those are easily overlooked by the extra value that's generated.
-----signature-----
this.
what the **** is a Barack?! - DMX
what the **** is a Barack?! - DMX
