Over the years, I began to realize a subtle but very important distinction. The alternative - "Waterfall methodology" meant that a client would often have to wait six months to see the product, and the unveiling at the end of that phase usually ended up with the customer hyperventilating in the corner somewhere.Īgile was hip, it was cool, and it involved Fibonacci Numbers. Meetings stay short, and having the customer in the room keeps them in the loop. Two weeks seems a reasonable amount of time to show demonstrable progress. When your team was that size, design could be done almost as a group activity. Many open source projects that did really cool things were done by small development teams of between a couple and twelve people, with the ideal size being about seven. If anything, beyond a certain point extra people just added to the communication impedance and slowed a project down.
The core principle was simple - you didn't really need large groups of people working on software projects to get them done. The Agile Manifesto, like most such screeds, started out as a really good idea.
0 kommentar(er)
