We all knew it
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.
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.
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.
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.
One standout statistic was that projects with clear requirements documented before development started were 97 percent more likely to succeed.
I’d like to work in that company.
Try medical software and devices. The requirements and specs are mandatory before doing anything. It’s actually very fun and I have less burnout thanks to this.
I couldn’t disagree more.
In medical I would end up being apart of endless retirement gathering meetings, then draft up the SOW doc only to have stakeholders change requirements when they were reviewing the doc. Then months later once the doc was finally finished and I could do the development, when UAT time finally came, they’d say the build wasn’t what they wanted (though it matched the written requirements).
Most of the projects I saw executed in the last 4 years either got scrapped altogether or got bogged down in political bs for months trying to get the requirements “just right”.
It was a nightmare. You could blame me, or the company, or bad processes all you want, but I’ve never had fun on a waterfall project, especially not in medical. (Though, in my opinion, we are severely understaffed and need like 4 more BAs.)
It’s almost like the methodology is less important than the people.
Do you think the problem is that the person driving the requirements doesn’t know what they actually want?
I think a good BA is critical to the process because lots of end users have no idea how to put their ideas onto paper.
I also think an MVP helps a lot because people can see and touch it which helps focus their needs.
I would say yes, the problem is stakeholders not having thought critically about what they really wanted from the project.
The motivation for projects were usually “regulatory told us we need to have this new metric for federal reporting”, or “so-and-so’s company can do this, why can’t ours” rather than, “we’d like to increase retention by 6% and here’s the approach we’ve researched to make that happen”.
I ended up experiencing that people in the highest positions weren’t experts in their field, but just people who had a strong intuition. This meant they would zero-in on what they wanted by trial and error rather than logic. Likewise, it meant they were socially adept enough so their higher-ups would never get mad at them when we finished “late and over budget”. People lower on the totem received that blame.
I think humans are just really bad at estimating and keeping their commitments, which is why I enjoy working with agile more. It’s a forgiving framework (imo).
No thanks. It’s way more fun to be part of the decision process. If a manager can anticipate all of the requirements and quirks of the project before it even starts, it’s probably going to be a really boring, vanilla project at which point it’s probably just better to but the software.ä somewhere else.
Creating something new is an art in itself. Why would you not want to be a part of that?
Also: Isn’t it cheating to compare the two approaches when one of them is defined as having all the planning “outside” of the project scope? I would bet that the statistics in this report disregard ll those projects that died in the planning phase, leaving only the almost completed, easy project to succeed at a high rate.
It would be interesting to also compare the time/resources spent before each project died. My hunch is that for failed agile project, less total investment has been made before killing it off, as compared to front loading all of that project planning before the decision is made not to continue.
Complementary to this, I also think that Agile can have a tendency to keep alive projects that should have failed on the planning stage. “We do things not because they are easy, but we thought they would be easy”. Underestimating happens for all project but for Agile, there should be a higher tendency to keep going because “we’re almost done”, forever.
no shit, I feel most people can function in just about any framework, so long as everyone knows what they are building. I’ve seen agile (and other frameworks to be fair) as the ‘solution’ to missing requirements too often. Sure we can get to work without them, but to what end?
Isn’t it more that people tend to use agile as an excuse for not having any kind of project plan.
It’d be interesting to know how many of those agile projects actually had an expert project lead versus just some random person who was picked who isn’t actually experienced in project management.
I’d say it’s that people tend to use Agile because consultants tell them they can be piss poor managers dealing with the crappiest developers and stupid business ideas and still make awesome stuff if they just make everything buzzword compatible.
I’d say projects without much of an upfront project plan can still be very successful, but it’s all about having a quality team, which isn’t something a two week ‘training and consultancy’ session isn’t going to get you, so there’s no big marketing behind that sort of message.
Agreed. We follow agile, and we have a team of product owners who know where the project is likely headed in the next 3 years. Our sprint to sprint is usually pretty predictable, but we can and do make adjustments when new requirements come in. The product team decides how and when to adjust priorities, and they do a good job minimizing surprises.
It works pretty well imo, and it hinges on the product team knowing what they’re doing.
Isn’t it more that people tend to use agile as an excuse for not having any kind of project plan.
I’d say it’s more about continuously milking customers on projects that never seem to end. I’ve never done software project management, but I have seen it’s “tenets” applied to other types of projects. The results were arduous - to say the least.
I’ve seen it being done even on internal projects though. Things within an organization.
It tends to be that they start developing a feature and then someone comes along and says, ooh wouldn’t it be nice if it did x, so they modify it to have x feature. Then someone decides it should be able to sync with Azure (there’s always someone that wants that), so Azure sync is added, but now that interferes with x, so that has to be modified so that it can sync as well. Then we get back to original product development which is now 3 weeks behind schedule.
Repeat that enough times and you can see why a lot of this stuff fails.
Even internal projects have a facet of ‘milking customers’ even those customers are internal. There’s a rather large internal team that has managed to last years by milking the fact their stuff always sucks but any moment when they are challenged about their projects they always have a plan to fix all that’s wrong within ‘3 months’.
During my project management days one of the things I learned the hard way is to nail down exactly what something has to deliver and getting everybody involved to sign onto it in black and white - if you don’t, disaster follows.
Agile seems literally designed to make this impossible.
I’m always sceptical about results like these. I was told that waterfall always failed when I’d worked on successful waterfall projects with no fails. The complaints about waterfall were exaggerated as I think are complaints about agile. The loudest complaints seem to always be motivated by people trying to sell sonething
My crazy wacko conspiracy theory - software development is just a really weird discipline, most of the people in the field are bad at it, and it doesn’t have the same amount of standardization and regulation that other engineering fields have, so doing it “right” looks a lot fuzzier than doing, say, civil engineering “right”.
The biggest thing though is that most people are bad at it. It’s really hard to evaluate high level organizational concepts like waterfall vs. agile when we still have developers arguing over the usefulness of unit tests.
I so agree with you. Especially that software engineering is not like actual engineering. Ironically that’s the first point of the agile manifesto - is all about the people and interactions, not the tools and processes. That’s why I’m leery about these grand claims about agile failures when half the time they mean scrum and just doing scrum isn’t agile (see point one of the manifesto)
I think it’s more that they are trying to solve the problem by changing the dev team processes, when the biggest factor of success is developing the RIGHT thing. But since most tech managers have risen up from the ranks of devs, and they have a hard time understanding that other people have valuable skills they don’t, they have no idea how to hire good designers and refuse to listen to them when they happen to get one.
Ignoring the success and failure of agile and waterfall. Waterfall was just a way more enjoyable development experience for me. That would probably change if the cycle was lower though. Also doesn’t help that many managers I’ve had don’t follow the rules of agile/SCRUM. Seems like people use it as an excuse to be able to change things on any given day but those cycles are supposed to be planned, not the plans.
Yeah actually i hadn’t thought about that aspect of it, but I did enjoy waterfall projects much more.
It seems very biased to say the least. A title like that would be ok if it was comparing agile to pre-existing models like waterfall. A valid title for this would have been "new sw development methodology seems to have a much lower failure rate than agile dev. "
ALSO I would like to see the experiment repeated by independent researchers.
"new sw development methodology seems to have a much lower failure rate than agile dev, claims people who stand to make money if new sw development methodology has a lower failure rate. "
Not gonna read it because we, elsewhere in engineering land, have been forced to eat Agile shit from the water hose to make us better and faster. Fucking hell! I can’t re-compile a mirror if it comes out wrong!
I hope “New Impact” includes hammers.
Oh well, time to switch back to the waterfall model I guess
lol, no.
deleted by creator
I haven’t read the article yet, but surely they can’t be juxtaposing waterfall as the alternative to agile. The modern alternative, especially in small to medium businesses, would be kanban.
Kanban is Agile. They are pushing Impact Engineering.
Ehhhh…Kanban is much older than Agile even if they tried to subsume it and say it’s an agile technique, so that’s sort of right. But kanban vs “scrum” - which virtually everyone means when they say “agile” - is fair.
Within my company there is a mix of Scrum and Kanban, so Agile != Scrum.
I don’t think it makes much sense to say “We are switching from Agile to Kanban”, but “We are switching from Scrum to Kanban” does make sense (at least to me)
Feels like the old php metric. PHP had a ton of great code and successful projects but it also attracted very bad devs as well as very inexperienced devs leading to a real quality problem.
Honestly kinda see thing in a lot of JavaScript applications these days. Brilliant code but also a ton of bad code to the point I get nervous opening a new project.
My point? It may be a tough pill but it’s not the project framework that makes projects fail, it’s how the project is run.
I witnessed a huge number of failed projects in my 25-year career. The cause was almost always the same: inexperienced developers trying to create a reusable product that could be applied to imagined future scenarios, leading to a vastly overcomplicated mess that couldn’t even satisfy the needs of the original client. Made no difference what the language or framework was or what development methodology was utilized.
I’ve seen a lot of contractors over promising timelines too. “No matter how hard you push and no matter what the priority, you can’t increase the speed of light.”
But yeah exactly.
Agile falls into the category of how the project is run
No it’s a set of tools you can use to run a project.
My point is that a lot of people use “agile” to mean not planning or don’t put guard rails on scope and they fail. That’s not agile, it’s just bad PM
Agreed.
Being Agile is being flexible. To do that you need to plan for multiple contingencies. Resulting in more planning, not none.
“agile” is being flexible. Being “Agile” more often than not means your company’s incompetent management paid some hack consultants to come in and bless your flavor of stupid bureaucracy as “Agile”.
Yeah, look at the most prolific language at a given time. There’s your crappy projects or your soon-to-be-crappy projects. What are the universities and ‘coding academies teaching’? That’s going to be the crappiest stuff in the world when those students come out.
So too it goes with ‘management’, the popular ‘self-help’ style crap of the moment is what crappy teams will adopt, and no matter what methodology it is, that crap team is still crap, and it will reflect on that methodology.
A more proper title would be “study finds 268% higher failure rates for poorly planned software projects”.
“Agile” as a word is mostly an excuse of poor planners for their poor planning skills.
Yeah, Agile isn’t really at fault here. If done right - if you’ve got a scrum master, a proper product owner, proper planning and backlog grooming, etc. - it works really well. The problem is some companies think Agile is just “give the devs some pie-in-the-sky hopes and dreams, let 'em loose, and if they don’t give half a dozen execs exactly what they want (despite their massively conflicting ideas on what they want), cancel the project.”
In my experience it’s just kanban, but make the devs feels guilty between sprints for not meeting their goals.
Absolutely It’s so management can say “your velocity was down 15% this sprint” and not feel bad about it instead of saying “work more” It’s plausible deniability for demanding unpaid overtime
In one the worst “poor planning” projects I’ve been in the product owner just kept sneaking in new “high priority” issues to the top of the backlog throughout the sprint. I don’t think we had a single sprint where we ended up with fewer open issues in the backlog than when we started.
Needless to say, he was the main reason why I quit.
Yeah, Agile isn’t really at fault here. If done right
This is what ticks me off about the “Agile” brand, it’s chock full of no true Scotsman fallacy (if a team failed while doing “Agile”, it means they weren’t being “Agile”).
I can appreciate sympathizing with some tenets as Agile might be presented, but the popularity and consultancy around it has pretty much ruined Agile as a brand.
Broadly speaking, any attempt to capture nuance of “best practices” into a brand word/phrase will be ruined the second it becomes “popular”.
This isn’t a case of No True Scotsman. There really is a right way and a whole lot of wrong ways to do Agile development. Any team that calls itself an Agile team that doesn’t actually follow the processes properly is doing it wrong and will fail.
That doesn’t mean any team that’s doing it right will succeed, but it’s like riding a horse: If you only climb halfway up the horse and try to hold on while at a 90-degree angle, it’s not going to work, and it would be stupid to declare that the concept of horse-riding is broken. No, it’s not broken, you’re just an idiot who thought you could ride a horse while only halfway up, clinging desperately to its side.
Any team that calls itself an Agile team that doesn’t actually follow the processes properly is doing it wrong and will fail.
I mean, this statement is also weird, to imply that not following Agile implies failure. I’d say it’s quite possible for a team to “falsely” execute on Agile and still pull off success. However, if that story is prominent and successful, no one is going to make a peep about it not being “true Agile”, they’ll only do that when it’s a failure.
But really this detail is beside the point, that people want to use ‘Agile’ as shorthand for good methodology, but it’s the way of the world that any shorthand that is popular will get co-opted and corrupted to the point of uselessness. You end up with various “interpretations” and so the meaning is diluted.
Now at a glance, this may seem an innocuous scenario, ok, Agile doesn’t “mean” anything specific in practice because of people abusing it to their objectives, but it still carries the weight of “authority”. So if you have a criticism like “there’s way too many stupid pointless required fields in our Jira implementation, and there’s a super convoluted workflow involving too many stakeholders to walk a simple ticket to completion”, then you get chastised because “our workflow is anchored in Agile, and you can easily see online that Agile makes success, so you obviously don’t understand success”. You can try to declare “Individuals and interactions over processes and tools”, but then they’ll say “oh, but the stuff on the right is valuable, and it’s used to facilitate the interactions between people”. Thanks to Atlassian marketing, for a lot of the corporate world if you implement it in Jira, then it is, by definition, “Agile” and your peons can shut up because you are right.
Basically, things get ruined by trying to abbreviate. You may be able to cite the Agile manifesto as something specific enough yet still short, though it’s still wishy washy enough to not be able to really “win” an argument with someone when deciding how you are going to move forward.
Agreed. The problem is people mistake “zero planning and structure” to mean “agile”. Of course it fails.
Agile to me was always mini waterfall. You always know who’s doing what, why, and what success looks like on a 2 week sprint horizon. When you see people on a sprint without a clear understanding of what they are doing over the next couple of weeks - then you know your project is in trouble for sure.
The article even states this is a thinly veiled ad for some other “method”.
The agile manifesto is fantastic. Scrum can work wonders as a means for providing a framework to hang “agile principles” onto.
Most organizations don’t do “scrum” well or quickly lose sight of the “why” behind it.
Companies are gonna company at the end of the day. Process + bureaucracy + buzzwords + ill-informed management + vendors promises + shit customers/product owners = late projects.
Agile done right, works. The benefit agile has over waterfall(the process it replaced in a lot of places), imo, is that it’s predicated on working software, responding to change and working collaboratively/iteratively.
Imo waterfall is an imagined beast for most software devs today. I worked on many successful waterfall projects. It was nowhere as bad as the caricature that people imagine.
I’m all for and good eye rolling at institutional Agile (basically checkered with bad management who doesn’t know what to do, but abuses buzz words and asserts Agile instead), but this article has a lot of issues.
For one, it’s a plug for someone’s consultancy, banking on recognition that, like always, crappy teams deliver crappy results and “Agile” didn’t fix it, but I promise I have a methodology to make your bad team good.
For another, it seems to gauge success based on how developers felt if they succeeded. Developers will always gripe about evolving requirements, so if they think requirements were set in stone early, they will proclaim greatness (even if the users/customers hate it and it’s a commercial failure).
Move fast and break shit!
This article doesn’t make any sense. A project’s “success” can’t really be measured in any objective way like the article is implying. Even saying that a project is “on time” is a vague statement depending on the situation, and it’s not a good way to measure the quality of the end result or the efficiency of the development team.
Fun mental exercise - remove the formalism behind agile methodologies out of software development. How is that any different from driving another human being mad?
I have altered the specifications. Play I do not alter them any further.
