> I just don't understand why we have to veil common sense practices (like continuous improvement, good communication, shared goals, etc) in this vaguely culty, vague Japanese kind of dev ops propaganda.

I enjoyed the book personally. I think the key point it was trying to get across is that of all the things that look like "common sense" to people, the combination of these particular things is what is actually effective. it was never about blindly following some magic recipe, simply "here is a way of thinking about the overall task of project management that may be helpful, and here are some specific techniques that support it".

note that "if the project is behind we should make the engineers work 12 hours a day instead of 8" is common sense to a very large percentage of managers.

I don't know, to me, that was not literature, but a guidebook with examples.

Here is Bill, he's tired and overworked. If only he can focus on the important tasks and clear the clutter...

Here is Security guy. He is grumpy and is in a war with the developers because they don't follow his ancient and unworkable security practices. if only he could update his security practices to something more modern and cool.

Here is Maxine. She is a PO. Her team is given task after task and not allowed to focus. If only Maxine could protect her team from outside influence...

Here is CEO guy. His company is failing and he is trigger happy on ever changing initiatives and transformations, and nothing comes to fruition. IF only he could chart the course for his team, set performance metrics, and not change direction every 15 seconds...

Here is operations linux admin guy. He has a bunch of scripts that make the deploys when devs throw some new garbage over the fence to him. He is mad because the devs wrote yet another service in yet another language, making the ratio of devs to languages used 10 to 17. If only he and the devs could agree on a deployment standard or read about the wonders of k8s...

If this kind of preachy obvious rhetoric inspires somebody to take a deep hard look at themselves, recognize their flaws, and change, more power to them. However, I am simply allergic to patronizing narratives like this.

> note that "if the project is behind we should make the engineers work 12 hours a day instead of 8" is common sense to a very large percentage of managers.

Then out with managers like that. Most engineers can do their job without a pencil pusher standing over their shoulder and trying to "manage" them. However, there are only few managers who actually can do anything useful without underlings...

it was literally meant to be a guidebook with examples. I found that an entertaining way to present the material - if you were looking for literature or subtlety I can see why you would have found it patronising but personally I didn't feel talked down to when I read it.

If it was meant to be a guidebook with examples, why all the fuss about it?

You don't see people worshipping Cooking for Dummies, so why are we so cult-y about Scrum or The Phoenix Project. What's with the weird zen/Kung fu kind of vibe of it, as if they have just discovered sliced fknin bread?

Sadly, I genuinely think that for some people the Phoenix Project is an eye opener. Their enthusiasm on just discovering how to be a professional in the role they have been half assing for decades bugs the living crap out of me.

To me, reading TPP felt like reading a patronizing self help book. I found it nauseating, shallow, bland, and anyone expressing even a tinge of enthusiasm about it feels like an affront to my sensibilities.

> Their enthusiasm on just discovering how to be a professional in the role they have been half assing for decades

that is literally an entire genre of fiction - amateurs who have no idea what they are doing get a wise old teacher and shape up into a killer team. i suspect a lot of the enthusiasm for the book comes from the popularity of "people level up and the magic happens" stories.