Patricia AasMay 25, 2025
This whole Agile Coach debacle has helped me realize something that hadn’t fully landed with me before: agile started as a movement driven by builders to «build better», but it is largely dominated now with people who don’t know how to build and look at agile as a management process style. These are MBA-like folks who are trying to figure out how to manage an IT organization. But that wasn’t what agile was about. It was about a better way to build stuff, better stuff, by collaboration and not getting stuck in our ways.
Show threadMortenMay 25, 2025
@Patricia Yeah, the parts are good.
- Break projects into tasks and task into smaller parts
- Go quickly to a product (so you can talk to end user)
- Being attention to when you need something from coworker or vendor to progress
Show threadPatricia AasMay 25, 2025
@drgroftehauge Tbh I think «breaking something into subtasks» is often an illusion. Some things that we know how to do sure, but a lot of dev is figuring out stuff we don’t know and there is no way to break that down. And we have not been great at explaining that.
Show threadCartyBostonMay 25, 2025

@Patricia @drgroftehauge

Sorry if I am taking us afield, but *this* is what's valuable about "agile".

Simply allocate budget for the currently unknown - which more experienced engineers should be able to scope somewhat accurately.

Show threadPatricia AasMay 25, 2025
@CartyBoston @drgroftehauge it was in there in the beginning, but it’s almost always one of the first things to be abandoned by management, also the «stop doing what isn’t working» and actual retrospectives.
Show threadPatricia Aas
@CartyBoston @drgroftehauge in my experience, spending a few days taking a rough stab at something gives you more information than 5 weeks of thinking about it.
May 25, 2025 at 11:46amWeb