this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024
477 points (89.3% liked)

Technology

59174 readers
3103 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
477
Study finds 268% higher failure rates for Agile software projects (www.theregister.com)
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
116 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

We all knew it

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 65 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Today, new research conducted for a new book, Impact Engineering, has shown that 65% software projects adopting Agile requirements engineering practices fail to be delivered on time and within budget, to a high standard of quality. By contrast, projects adopting a new Impact Engineering approach detailed in a new book released today only failed 10% of the time.

All you need to know about this study.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It almost sounds like a project team that is actually and actively looking to solve known and recurring problems instead of "just do whatever everyone else is kind of doing" might be why they are successful.

It's the difference between "how should we go about this" vs "see how we go" regardless of what you label those approaches as.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think the take away should be:

new research conducted for a new book, Impact Engineering,

By contrast, projects adopting a new Impact Engineering approach detailed in a new book released today only failed 10% of the time.

So the people who want to sell you 'Impact Engineering' say 'Impact Engineering' is better than Agile.... Hardly an objective source.

Even if they have success with their 'Impact Engineering' methodology, the second it becomes an Agile-level buzzword is the second it also becomes crap.

The short of the real problem is that the typical software development project is subject to piss poor management, business planning, and/or developers and that piss poor management is always looking for some 'quick fix' in methodology to wave a wand and get business success without across the board competency.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Oh yeah. I totally agree that the source has its own objective. I wasn't supporting their specific approach at all.

You are right that the key take away is somene saying "I think my own idea, which I happen to be selling a book about, is great, here are some stats that I have crafted to support my own agenda"

The point I was making was simply that people who care enough to try something, anything, with thought (like looking for a new methodology to try out) are likely to be more successful.

Like a diet. The specific one doesn't matter so much. It's the fact that you are actually paying attention and making a specific effort.

load more comments (1 replies)