Reply to post: If a team can't communicate adequately doing waterfall, they can't communicate doing agile.

So you're 'agile', huh? I do not think it means what you think it means

TJ930
Facepalm

If a team can't communicate adequately doing waterfall, they can't communicate doing agile.

No, you're just showing your ignorance off again, aren't you?

What size is the average Waterfall team?.. What size is the average Scrum, XP or Kanban Team?

The fact there are far fewer people in Agile Teams and there is far more transparency means there is nowhere to hide. It's pretty obvious in a Daily Stand-Up when a Team Member isn't pulling their weight and needs a talking to! Or when somebody has a blocker, they can more easily ask for help.

The fact that we are dealing with smaller chunks of work means that the shared understanding of the work in progress improves.

Also the fact that the team wins and loses together, sets its own targets, improves its own processes, is its own boss, de-emphasises job titles, typically co-locates teams and communicates with each other face-to-face, rather than through hefty documents, phase gates and sign-offs.

The cross-functional nature of teams also improves communication, reduces bottlenecks and reduces delay.

Yeah, you don't know what you're talking about, do you?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon