Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

56231Re: [scrumdevelopment] Well done waterfall+agile

Expand Messages
  • Aaron Seipel
    Nov 11, 2012
      What you're describing really seems like the normal way most old-school waterfall teams adapt to Agile.  You start small and prove the benefits to management, so you can adopt more Agile practices.  I've gone through this process myself.  It takes time to convert the masses, but it isn't impossible.  The only advise I have is adding a single product owner to your team early will make your Agile adoption will be much smoother.  Depending on the environment, this can be very difficult...
      Good luck,
      Aaron Seipel

      From: George Dinwiddie <lists@...>
      To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 8:54 PM
      Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Well done waterfall+agile

      On 11/8/12 7:00 PM, marcodorantes wrote:
      > Hi all,
      > I am looking for articles or papers that talk about the details of
      > how to successfully execute a development project with a waterfall
      > façade to the upper-management layer and an agile approach for the
      > development team. All is new in the project: the team, the users, the
      > application, the technology. Note that with «waterfall» I mean strict
      > sequential stages of requirements, analysis, design, coding, testing,
      > deployment to production, and three months of maintenance; along with
      > a fixed-price/fixed-scope contract, and a single Gantt chart as part
      > of the signed contract. This Gantt chart will work as the criteria
      > for payments at the end of each stage against stated deliverables in
      > the contract.
      > I have heard, from time to time, that some teams have done precisely
      > that and very well done. Yet, I have not checked the evidence to
      > believe it.
      > Could you point to those articles or papers, or experiences?

      I've seen a number of teams who think they're doing Agile development,
      but are, instead, trying to burn through a fixed backlog by using
      iterative processes. Theoretically, that could work. It would even give
      you a better indicator of progress (or lack of it). I've never seen it
      go well, however. It has all the fragility of waterfall plus the
      frustration of not being allowed to use what you learn as you go.

      If you can't change the backlog, it's not, by any means, Agile under the
      covers. It's still waterfall, even if you use some practices that are
      commonly associated with Agile.

      - George

      * George Dinwiddie * http://blog.gdinwiddie.com
      Software Development http://www.idiacomputing.com
      Consultant and Coach http://www.agilemaryland.org

    • Show all 27 messages in this topic