I don’t know man. For the past 6 months we went with approach “Fuck scrum, let’s just work”. It didn’t go well. We were really disorganized, everyone going their own direction, things being overlooked, …
When a new colleague joined recently, he suggested taking more structured (scrum-like) approach. Things improved immediately.
Like I don’t know how you want to call it - scrum, kanban, whatever, I don’t care. But you need some structure in your team and you need some meetings where you talk about status, about looking back at things, about plans for next weeks, …
My only requirement for team processes is that they be mostly up to the team. Absolutely some type of structure is needed. If something isn’t working for the team, they need to have agency to address that, whether it means adding, removing, or changing something.
Scrum Teams are cross-functional, meaning the members have all the skills necessary to create value each Sprint. They are also self-managing, meaning they internally decide who does what, when, and how.
That’s not a throwaway sentence - it is fundamental to how scrum works and that is reinforced throughout the scrum guide.
Every conversation about Agile and/or Scrum being “the worst”, after some prodding it turns out that their company has refused to read or implement one or several of the fundamental principles, often without even being aware that was an essential requirement. You’re baking a cake and you decided to not use any butter, that’s on you champ, don’t blame the fucking recipe.
The biggest valid criticism of scrum is that the thing that makes it so great - its structural empowerment of individual teams - is also what makes it structurally incompatible with any traditional top-down management style. The company must fundamentally be (re-)organized to have a flat corporate structure within its R&D department - most are simply incapable of mustering the necessary changes, if only because too many middle managers’ jobs are at stake. So they call their middle managers “POs” or “Scrum Masters” and wonder why their version of Scrum sucks.
My understanding is that Scrum is a tool box. You figure out what tools fit for your team. The problem arises when people are in charge that don’t understand the what the team is doing or the toolset provided by Scrum. They then try to use every tool and it goes poorly.
My team has moved to a thing we call “ScrumBan” and it’s worked pretty well. There still are 15-min Dailies, and a Review and a Retrospective each Sprint, but we cut almost all meetings that are about sitting around and “planning” tasks (aka awful 7-hour meetings where everyone just zones out and guesses random story point numbers). Instead, tasks are planned and moved to the board on demand and never in the presence of the entire team. It gives everyone so much more time to just focus on their work.
I don’t know man. For the past 6 months we went with approach “Fuck scrum, let’s just work”. It didn’t go well. We were really disorganized, everyone going their own direction, things being overlooked, …
When a new colleague joined recently, he suggested taking more structured (scrum-like) approach. Things improved immediately.
Like I don’t know how you want to call it - scrum, kanban, whatever, I don’t care. But you need some structure in your team and you need some meetings where you talk about status, about looking back at things, about plans for next weeks, …
My only requirement for team processes is that they be mostly up to the team. Absolutely some type of structure is needed. If something isn’t working for the team, they need to have agency to address that, whether it means adding, removing, or changing something.
Well, yeah, that’s what Scrum is. From the guide which takes maybe 10 minutes to read
That’s not a throwaway sentence - it is fundamental to how scrum works and that is reinforced throughout the scrum guide.
Every conversation about Agile and/or Scrum being “the worst”, after some prodding it turns out that their company has refused to read or implement one or several of the fundamental principles, often without even being aware that was an essential requirement. You’re baking a cake and you decided to not use any butter, that’s on you champ, don’t blame the fucking recipe.
The biggest valid criticism of scrum is that the thing that makes it so great - its structural empowerment of individual teams - is also what makes it structurally incompatible with any traditional top-down management style. The company must fundamentally be (re-)organized to have a flat corporate structure within its R&D department - most are simply incapable of mustering the necessary changes, if only because too many middle managers’ jobs are at stake. So they call their middle managers “POs” or “Scrum Masters” and wonder why their version of Scrum sucks.
A. k. a., “Pieces Of shit”.)
The companies I worked for just kept doing shit the same way they always had but renamed everything with terms borrowed from agile.
My favorite approach to team processes was to work entirely alone and do everything by myself.
a true team player. prob mvp too.
I can get behind that sentiment.
My understanding is that Scrum is a tool box. You figure out what tools fit for your team. The problem arises when people are in charge that don’t understand the what the team is doing or the toolset provided by Scrum. They then try to use every tool and it goes poorly.
My team has moved to a thing we call “ScrumBan” and it’s worked pretty well. There still are 15-min Dailies, and a Review and a Retrospective each Sprint, but we cut almost all meetings that are about sitting around and “planning” tasks (aka awful 7-hour meetings where everyone just zones out and guesses random story point numbers). Instead, tasks are planned and moved to the board on demand and never in the presence of the entire team. It gives everyone so much more time to just focus on their work.