←back to thread

378 points todsacerdoti | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
aeon_ai ◴[] No.44984252[source]
AI is a change management problem.

Using it well requires a competent team, working together with trust and transparency, to build processes that are designed to effectively balance human guidance/expertise with what LLM's are good at. Small teams are doing very big things with it.

Most organizations, especially large organizations, are so far away from a healthy culture that AI is amplifying the impact of that toxicity.

Executives who interpret "Story Points" as "how much time is that going to take" are asking why everything isn't half a point now. They're so far removed from the process of building maintainable and effective software that they're simply looking for AI to serve as a simple pass through to the bottom line.

The recent study showing that 95% of AI pilots failed to deliver ROI is a case study in the ineffectiveness of modern management to actually do their jobs.

replies(8): >>44984371 #>>44984602 #>>44984660 #>>44984777 #>>44984897 #>>44986307 #>>44989493 #>>44995318 #
TremendousJudge ◴[] No.44986307[source]
> Executives who interpret "Story Points" as "how much time is that going to take"

aside, but I have yet to meet a single person (dev, qa, pm, exec) who doesn't do this.

replies(1): >>44986668 #
Quarrelsome ◴[] No.44986668[source]
so nobody understands why we use "story points" instead of time estimates? I feel like some people do appreciate that its not about the number of points but the quantitive difference between the items up for work.
replies(1): >>44991637 #
1. ricardobeat ◴[] No.44991637[source]
In my experience the vast majority has completely abandoned the idea of story points or team velocity, they are just an (unnecessary) proxy value for time estimates. And god forbid you suggest something like planning poker to make the estimates somewhat accurate.