This is getting awful now. More red tape in an AI age
Who is tired of how bad this rollout has gone? Product owners have no clue as well as STS leaders. The engineers suffer
Together with this plus GCC and stuck in PCF nothing can stop the death of the engg culture
STS is run by third class state university grads and indian mo--ns. And it Shows.
@gn You are making too much sense. It's obvious you've put more thought into this than our dear STS leaders.
We can't have anyone challenging the edicts from Schwab High Command!
Beg for forgiveness and fill out additional Clarity timesheets this weeks to atone.
@gn Board likes when the CIOCTO use the buzzwords. No clue what they mean or how to apply them correctly. So we have modified agile, textbook agile, apply to all projects in one size fits everything, to have project management take the blame. The Board is too ignorant. The executives aren't made accountable. But the beatings will continue!
I've noticed Schwab tends to force nearly every project through the same modified Agile framework regardless of whether it's a good fit. In many cases that creates more process, more meetings, and more frustration than actual delivery.
A common misconception is that Agile is the right answer for every project. Agile works best when requirements are evolving, customer feedback is frequent, and work can be delivered incrementally. That's why it excels in software development.
Where Agile often struggles is in highly predictable infrastructure work with long lead times, fixed dependencies, and tightly coordinated cutovers. Examples include:
In these cases, much of the scope is known upfront, dependencies must be sequenced carefully, and success depends more on planning and coordination than iterative feature delivery. Many organizations find that Kanban, traditional project management, or a hybrid approach works better than Scrum-style sprints.
Another issue is resource allocation. Agile teams are generally intended to be stable, dedicated teams rather than individuals split across multiple competing projects. In practice, however, many organizations—including Schwab from what I've observed—assign people to multiple projects simultaneously. That creates context switching, reduces throughput, and undermines many of the benefits Agile is supposed to provide.
The budgeting discussion is more nuanced. Agile challenges the traditional model of locking scope, schedule, and funding a year in advance. Mature Agile organizations often move toward funding products or value streams rather than fixed project scopes because priorities and requirements change as teams learn more.
The issue isn't Agile itself. The problem is applying a single methodology to every type of work and then implementing it inconsistently. Different projects have different characteristics. Software feature development, infrastructure migrations, regulatory initiatives, and operational work don't all benefit from the same framework. When process becomes more important than outcomes, delivery suffers.
Next year? Agile waterfall deployments! Argyle coding! AIAI.
Just remember. Every year we say it can't get worse. And every year we are wrong.