sudhakarrayav

AFAIK building software is a collaborative event. What I mean by that is, most of the time, we learn what works better as we get into the process of building it. So, the ideal world you are expecting is not practical. Even if some work can be specified to that level of clarity and details, it is better to build a tool that takes in this structured spec and build the feature.

But, I hear your concern about working in a setup which feels ineffective. My suggestion would be to pick teams that are small (2 - 3 devs) with a well defined goal. Keep your interactions effective and short with this small group.

Standups and iteration planning meetings have value. Unfortunately many follow it as just rituals instead of seeing the real reason behind doing them and the value it provides. You don't need to call them as standup or IPM as long as what they are achieving are met in your project. That is the whole point of being agile.

I grew skeptical the moment I read "single-blind" test. So, the researchers know which group is what and that could involuntarily lead them to pick for what they are leaning to find (given it is funded by a coffee company)

Think of big fun parties with large displays. If what you project there dances with the tunes played in there, It will be interesting

Me too. My wife (housewife) and I was discussing about swapping jobs as we both envied the other's

True that. But the intention of building Bahmni is different. It's primary focus was to get the EMR for resource constrained (in terms of money, computer skilled people).

I was part of the team which build it for about an year and can definitely say it did change the medical eco-system in such places

Catchy & Informative