• @CanadaPlus
    link
    -11
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    NASA also built the space shuttle, which was a plane that couldn’t fly by itself (as it was supposed to), was slower to turn around and more expensive than older equivalent technologies, and blew up all the astronauts 1.5% of the time.

    I mean, they’re great at other things - who else could have made the JWST work flawlessly with one opportunity - but they’re a definite source of hype, and they do something very particular and specialised. Beware endorsements.

    Edit: Fuck you, I’m right. Keep 'em coming.

    I don’t even care about Agile either way. This just isn’t a good argument for it.

      • @CanadaPlus
        link
        5
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Yep. They’re probably better than anyone at making a complex system with literal moving parts that works 100% of the time, the first time. On a nearly unlimited budget, with a decades-long schedule. In an institution and culture that’s now a been around a lifetime, staffed with top-notch people.

        That’s all perfect for what NASA does, but I wouldn’t recommend a management system that NASA uses to just anyone, just 'cause “da astronauts” use it. Not any more than I’d recommend drinking your own distilled piss to anyone.

        I don’t really have an opinion on Agile, even, I just have a problem with selling it this way.

        • magic_lobster_party
          link
          fedilink
          4
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          That’s fair enough. The common misconception is that waterfall is great for space missions, when in reality NASA is doing agile.

          I agree that not everybody is NASA, so what works for them doesn’t necessarily work for everyone.

    • @snek_boi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I can see you’re frustrated by the downvotes and pushback you’ve received. It’s understandable to feel defensive when your viewpoint isn’t well-received. I appreciate you sharing your perspective, even if it goes against the majority opinion here.

      Your points about the space shuttle program’s challenges are valid and worth discussing. It’s important to note the timeframes involved though. The shuttle was developed in the 1970s, well before agile methodologies emerged in the 1990s and 2000s.

      Interestingly, one could argue that NASA may have used agile-like practices in the space shuttle program, even if they weren’t labeled as such at the time. However, I did a quick search and couldn’t find much concrete evidence to support this idea. It’s an intriguing area that might merit further research.

      Regarding modern agile approaches, while no method is perfect, many organizations have found them helpful for improving flexibility and delivering value incrementally. NASA’s recent use of agile for certain projects shows they’re open to evolving their methods.

      I’m curious to hear more about your thoughts on software development approaches for complex engineering projects. What do you see as the pros and cons of different methodologies? Your insights could add a lot to this discussion.

      • @CanadaPlus
        link
        16 months ago

        I can see you’re frustrated by the downvotes and pushback you’ve received. It’s understandable to feel defensive when your viewpoint isn’t well-received. I appreciate you sharing your perspective, even if it goes against the majority opinion here.

        Thanks for the kind words. FWIW I’m doing fine, this feels like a worthy fight. I know a bad appeal to authority when I see one.

        Interestingly, one could argue that NASA may have used agile-like practices in the space shuttle program, even if they weren’t labeled as such at the time. However, I did a quick search and couldn’t find much concrete evidence to support this idea. It’s an intriguing area that might merit further research.

        There’s somebody else in the thread talking about the Apollo missions and Agile. Uhh, here, because I don’t know if federated comment links are supported yet. There’s no source for that already provided, though.

        What do you see as the pros and cons of different methodologies? Your insights could add a lot to this discussion.

        Honestly no. Sorry to undercut you a bit, but I’m not going to be the Dunning-Kruger guy. I know that I don’t know project management.

        • @snek_boi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          25 months ago

          I appreciate your candor about not wanting to speak on topics outside your expertise. That’s commendable. I wonder if we can still talk with the understanding that we may not know it all. I truly believe curiosity is able to sidestep many of the problems related with ignorance.

          You’re right to be cautious about appeals to authority. My intention wasn’t to suggest NASA’s use of Agile validates it universally, but rather to counter the OP comic’s implication that Agile is inherently incapable of achieving significant goals like space exploration.

          Regarding Agile-like practices in earlier NASA projects, you’re correct that concrete evidence is limited. However, we can analyze their approaches through the lens of Agile principles. Scrum, for instance, aims to foster characteristics found in high-performing teams: clear goals, information saturation, rapid feedback loops, adaptability to changing requirements, and effective collaboration. These elements aren’t exclusive to Scrum or even to modern Agile methodologies. The key is recognizing that effective project management often naturally gravitates towards these principles, whether formally adopting Agile or not.

          It’s an interesting area for further research: have complex engineering projects historically incorporated elements we now associate with Agile? If so, how?

          Your skepticism is valuable in pushing for a more nuanced understanding of project management across different domains.