OK, here's the deal: "agile" *cannot* fail!
Preposterous?
Here's why "agile" cannot fail: it is a set of tools that can be adapted to your needs. You may do better or worse with them. In that sense you may fail to benefit from them, or you may simply prefer not to use them. Or you may benefit from them. In either case it is you suffering or benefiting, not "agile".
If you think "agile" can fail, there is a different problem to talk about.
But "agile" cannot fail in the same way "hammer" cannot fail. (Thanks, Ed, for the analogy.)
2 comments:
Flight control systems and medical software aren't programmed with "agile" methodologies, and they don't necessarily fail either.
So "agile" succeeds on projects where "agile" succeeds, especially when it's changed and redefined as whatever you succeed with. Mmkay.
Well, at least it's better than the breathless all-or-nothing demands of XP (I have the original XP book -- it makes good comedy now)
I don't know about flight control, but there is a ton of medical software 'programmed with "agile" methodologies'.
No reason flight control could not be 'programmed with "agile" methodologies'.
What would lead you to think otherwise?
Post a Comment