<story><title>Moving Past the Scaling Myth</title><url>https://michaelfeathers.silvrback.com/the-myth-of-scaling</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>ktRolster</author><text>Fred Brooks pointed out that with a small team of competent programmers, any organizational methodology will work.&lt;p&gt;If you pay attention, the best Agile systems focus on improving the skills of developers instead of forcing people to follow the &amp;#x27;steps&amp;#x27; or a formula.</text></comment>
<story><title>Moving Past the Scaling Myth</title><url>https://michaelfeathers.silvrback.com/the-myth-of-scaling</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>wpietri</author><text>This makes a lot of sense to me. At the very least, I think that most American organizations undergo a substantial cultural transition as they scale, so it makes sense we&amp;#x27;d also need a process transition.&lt;p&gt;The problem I see is that people aren&amp;#x27;t really willing to be honest about the cultural transition that happens, so we also can&amp;#x27;t be honest about the process transition.&lt;p&gt;I think Agile-ish approaches work very well in startups, because the structure is pretty flat, and the goals are shared. But as companies grow, they tend to become what I think of business feudalism: hierarchical, control-oriented, territorial. For that, it makes sense you need different processes. And I think large company Agile is in effect Waterfall with a faster cadence, so you get that different process. But nobody will admit it. &amp;quot;We&amp;#x27;re doing Agile,&amp;quot; they say, with too-bright eyes and gritted teeth.&lt;p&gt;What I wonder is: what if instead of killing the peer culture and the human-centered process as we scaled, we kept them?</text></comment>