473

We all knew it

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] onoki@reddthat.com 197 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] best_username_ever@sh.itjust.works 83 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] RagnarokOnline@programming.dev 63 points 5 months ago

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.)

[-] Serinus@lemmy.world 35 points 4 months ago

It's almost like the methodology is less important than the people.

[-] francisfordpoopola@lemmy.world 20 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] RagnarokOnline@programming.dev 16 points 4 months ago

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).

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024
473 points (89.2% liked)

Technology

59038 readers
3190 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