Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. PO
    primarykey
    data
    text
    <p>Firstly, if we just agree that the right question is more like "agile" vs "waterfall"... </p> <p>As a former development manager, my primary view of this is actually somewhat different. I love the "engineering practices" benefits of agile methods, such as burndows, JIT design etc. However, studies show that the correlation between process choice and success rate is less than many might expect (<a href="http://www.ambysoft.com/surveys/success2007.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">one example</a>). Sure, Agile is fairly consistently shown to be somewhat better, but it is not clear if the studies adjust for the fact that you tend to have better developers on agile projects - either because better developers tend to push for Agile or because Agile tends to attract better developers.<br> If you look at some of Cockburn's stuff, it is quite clear that the main success driver for software projects is <strong>the quality of the people on the project</strong> - not the process. </p> <p><a href="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51M2PWD2H8L._SL500_AA240_.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Agile Software Development http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51M2PWD2H8L._SL500_AA240_.jpg</a><br> See <a href="http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0321482751" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Cockburn's book</a> for some really good fundamental explanations of this (it is not a how-to book, rather something that explains the underlying concepts and why you should do agile).</p> <p>In my opinion, Agile methods help <strong>create an environment in which excellent programmers want to work</strong>. Because they are part of the process, because they are allowed to use their brains, etc.<br> As a business you are therefore <strong>more likely to attract and retain top-notch people</strong> which means you are <strong>more likely to have a successful project</strong>. </p> <p>At a business level, that is really the justification - everything else is all very well and good, but this is the one thing that matters to the bottom line and the one thing you can sell up the chain. It is well known that really good developers are many times more productive than average developers, but they don't cost many times more. So, if you can attract and retain really good developers you get more output for the same money. Oh, and you'll have a lot more fun in the process. </p> <p>Better environment => Better Developers => More successful projects</p> <p><strong>One word of caution</strong>; If you happen to have a team of average developers with no obvious bright sparks, I would be concerned about implementing Agile. At least, don't expect it to solve your problems - you are likely to get the same kind of results (after the bedding-in period), though with the benefits of the burndown. But Agile depends on having really good developers who really know what they are doing and who are constantly updating their skills - or at least a team that includes some people like that. Agile was invented by a bunch of guys who are legendary programmers and very, very smart people. </p>
    singulars
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    plurals
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. VO
      singulars
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
    2. VO
      singulars
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
 

Querying!

 
Guidance

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload