As another commenter said, it’s difficult to compare “Agile in spirit”, but I’ve found that remarkably successful
Evolving the methodology to suit the team, product, and company in an additive way seems the best outcome I’ve seen.
Rarely will I have daily meetings, we can slack. Maybe twice a week hop on a call.
For story points I’ve seen models of using Fibonacci sequence, having 4 categories rated which then convert to points, or even (less desirable) 1:1 mapping to days of work. Personally I like the 4 categories approach, it feels less subjective as a whole despite each category being subjective to a degree
And in the end, if process gets in the way of productivity, I say go for it, we’ll either go back and document what happened or refine the process later (though rarely if ever have we skipped QA for good reason)
> Evolving the methodology to suit the team, product, and company in an additive way seems the best outcome I’ve seen.
This to me is the core of agile: the people doing the work have the flexibility to adjust to match their goals and needs. So much of the consultant-industrial complex comes down to finding ways to helping business people who aren’t willing to give flexibility or clear requirements ways to not do that which don’t sound like saying no.
Evolving the methodology to suit the team, product, and company in an additive way seems the best outcome I’ve seen.
Rarely will I have daily meetings, we can slack. Maybe twice a week hop on a call.
For story points I’ve seen models of using Fibonacci sequence, having 4 categories rated which then convert to points, or even (less desirable) 1:1 mapping to days of work. Personally I like the 4 categories approach, it feels less subjective as a whole despite each category being subjective to a degree
And in the end, if process gets in the way of productivity, I say go for it, we’ll either go back and document what happened or refine the process later (though rarely if ever have we skipped QA for good reason)