True, but I think we can separate the idea from the person/company.
The problem statement is very well written. The Director of Engineering rotating because they can’t deliver, and the battle between Product and Engineering.
Conclusion is rushed, but it boils down to what agile advocates at the core: product manager and QA need to be in the room along with engineering.
It is until they hear daily about the challenges, first hand, and they see the struggle that it makes sense. Does not matter how many reports the PM does, first have seeing why technical debt is making things slow is invaluable.
Only addition I would add is: there is a reason why sprint waterfalls exist. You can’t iterate forever, and someone needs to play the role of the mature person that knows when something is good enough and needs to be shipped. I think Agile as a framework is at its limits. We need something that lets us run the engineering but at the same time becomes more predictable to business.
The problem statement is very well written. The Director of Engineering rotating because they can’t deliver, and the battle between Product and Engineering.
Conclusion is rushed, but it boils down to what agile advocates at the core: product manager and QA need to be in the room along with engineering.
It is until they hear daily about the challenges, first hand, and they see the struggle that it makes sense. Does not matter how many reports the PM does, first have seeing why technical debt is making things slow is invaluable.
Only addition I would add is: there is a reason why sprint waterfalls exist. You can’t iterate forever, and someone needs to play the role of the mature person that knows when something is good enough and needs to be shipped. I think Agile as a framework is at its limits. We need something that lets us run the engineering but at the same time becomes more predictable to business.