me reacting to another "SAFe-like Agile is bad" video - tuning the amount of...
me reacting to another "SAFe-like Agile is bad" video
- tuning the amount of process a team needs is hard. Intra-team & the teams customers are not going to agree on what level of process creates value. So it will always be wrong.
- the bureaucracy isn't for the ICs, it is for giving the nontechnical chain of command warm fuzzies. What gives me warm fuzzies? Unit tests & build scripts. The chain of command can't evaluate that.
Self-replies
There are roughly 2 models for selling software
- Tech companies (e.g. Google makes Chrome), (ex)-developers are the Board, Prez, VP all the way down the org chart.
- Big Org hires a "Service" company (GM or US Gov't hires Booze Allen)
The 2nd is managed by the non-technical bureaucracy. Prolly no one else can be the customer, but the project quality & risks suffers for the seam between a non-technical org and a technical org.
COTS? That is the idea that no Service company can write code for another company, it's just impossible. I think the world isn't so pessimistic, still, the Service model of writing code is inherently risky & suboptimal.
& we blame it on SAFe or Waterfall or Federal SDLC, but that imho, is what you get when a nontech org is Board, Prez, VP all the way down except the code monkey, who doesn't understand the cause of the pain but sees the SDLC or SAFe cattle prod that he's constantly poked with.