Patricia AasMay 25
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 threadMorten GrøftehaugeMay 25
@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
@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 threadMarcel WaldvogelMay 25

@Patricia @drgroftehauge
Someone was explaining the "breaking into subtasks" as "reduce uncertainty". I found this a much better analogy.

For some parts, we will still have high uncertainty, but we have isolated it better.

Show threadPatricia AasMay 25
@marcel @drgroftehauge is it useful tho?
Show threadMarcel Waldvogel

@Patricia @drgroftehauge
It is useful for me as a mental model.

(But the way we use "agile" in our company, I don't think any mental model helps, though.)

May 25 at 7:54pmWeb
Show threadPatricia AasMay 25
@marcel @drgroftehauge lol