Blogging Ottinger (tim)Sad XP story I heard
I recently heard about an XP project that had been started, was producing results, and was very successful. What’s sad about that? I heard that someone at C level (CIO, CEO, etc) heard about it and stopped it because he didn’t like the idea of having a different methodology. It wasn’t because of any problems with the project, just a problem with the idea of doing it that way.
(No, I’m not going to say where it allegedly happened or who told me).
On one hand, it’s sad because something that worked well was halted. The team was happy and productive, enjoying this new way. They were producing, and then they were made to stop.
On the other hand, it is sad because that guy really did have the right to choose what his company would do. I don’t tell those guys how to spend their money. The project was started under-the-covers, and kept a secret for a while, so this guy at the top had no idea that people were doing things he didn’t agree with.
So the saddest part is that I don’t know how to feel about this. I suppose that the XP team was being underhanded to some extent, but also that there was closed-mindedness about something that worked. I suppose it’s is what it is, and it’s hard to determine if either side was more right.
Maybe the sad part is that I can’t pick a side to root for.
I agree Tim. Both sides could fight it out for hours/days/weeks on who is right. Ultimately though, it comes down to what the boss wants. In a world where communication is key, leaving out the boss isn’t such a good idea.
Comment by Steve — 2006-December-8 @ 12:25
Yeah, it’s a case where you can see both sides. If you have a large organizations with different teams and groups working toward a common end product, you have to have a standard methodology. Especially with Sarbannes-Oxley; it mandates that you MUST have a standard SDLC across your organization. Of course, you can define your organization at a smaller level, but not smaller than an application.
What REALLY hurts is when you have a method that does’t work, and the whole organization knows it and decides to address it. But then, they put the same people in charge of the NEW methodology that are most vested inthe OLD methodology, so they buy neat new tools and hire expensive consultants, but wind up shoe-horning everything back into the old model. Which of course is WORSE, so upper management thinks the new methodology is a bust, even though it wasn’t ever used.
Can you tell I’ve been there? Repeatedly? Sigh…
Comment by Kris Cook — 2006-December-8 @ 03:07