> what if we substitute something else for story points?
Then that new thing becomes the new measure, you change what you do to meet that measure, and things are screwed up again.
The author's final paragraphs describe implementing a complex process that an intelligent team has to use in a nuanced way. And somehow simultaneously declares that the original problem was story points, one single aspect of a complex process, and not the fact that there's a complex process that nobody understands or follows correctly.
You know how Toyota gets TPS to work so well? They do one thing, well, at a time, repeatedly.
Product development sucks because it's trying to do a million things once, constantly changes its mind, doesn't train its workers, and conflates designing, engineering, assembling, and operating, as one giant "thing". Then it wonders why it can't keep track of time.
Then that new thing becomes the new measure, you change what you do to meet that measure, and things are screwed up again.
The author's final paragraphs describe implementing a complex process that an intelligent team has to use in a nuanced way. And somehow simultaneously declares that the original problem was story points, one single aspect of a complex process, and not the fact that there's a complex process that nobody understands or follows correctly.
You know how Toyota gets TPS to work so well? They do one thing, well, at a time, repeatedly.
Product development sucks because it's trying to do a million things once, constantly changes its mind, doesn't train its workers, and conflates designing, engineering, assembling, and operating, as one giant "thing". Then it wonders why it can't keep track of time.