5 ms·

Does anyone see value in the huge emphasis on the "sprint" term? Advocates promote the word as a new way of working, but I see it as just adding confusion for

• sp332 11y ago
  Why would you say that whole sentence when you can just say "sprint"?
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  • BWStearns 11y ago
    "Project", "period", "effort", and other words are less techie/jargon sounding and communicate the idea.
    • sp332 11y ago
      I think they lose a lot of the meaning. And it's not like the government has any aversion to jargon! If we called it a "cyber-sprint" they'd eat it right up.
      • BWStearns 11y ago
        Agreed, but this wasn't really about Agile methodology as much as the generic notion of fast iteration, which can certainly exist outside a specific agile regimen. From my experience, if your government audience is not already familiar with a piece of jargon, then introducing it risks 1) distracting from what you're actually trying to communicate, 2) giving them a false sense of understanding that will later be unintentionally used as a bludgeon against you or others in some planning meeting (a slightly caricaturish example: "No! Sprints are two days, why are you doing two week sprints!?").
    • dragonwriter 11y ago
      "Project" has a lot of baggage with the audience, and implies a lot of things that the approach here is in contrast to, so would be particularly bad. "Period" doesn't connote activity, just time, so its not a great name for an activity. "Effort" is a perfectly generic name for an activity, and carries no connotations related to what is special about this activity; even (perhaps especially to those unfamiliar with its use in software development jargon) "sprint" carries connotations of a fast, focused effort over a short time frame, which is quite appropriate here.
  • kragen 11y ago
    "Sprint" only says the "short-term goal" part (along with "unsustainable pace"). You have to infer the "working session" part from context, and "cross-functional team" isn't even suggested by "sprint". And maybe you could even ditch the "unsustainable pace" part.
    • sp332 11y ago
      Yeah it's jargon, but kzhahou's complaint was that it wasn't complex enough.
      • kragen 11y ago
        My comment is not related to whether or not it is jargon or whether someone is going to confuse this kind of "sprint" with literal running. Perhaps you replied to the wrong comment by mistake, or just have no idea what I'm talking about.
        • sp332 11y ago
          I don't think anyone is going to confuse a "sprint" for literal running. You're going to have to learn the new term just like any other word: either from context or being given a definition.
  • kzhahou 11y ago
    Sprint is jargon and jargon alienates newcomers. One of the goals of this team is to teach the government a new way of working. The article title would be much better as: > "How a two-day cross-functional team moved an agency twenty years forward" I'll go even further and say that Agile terminology should be avoided as much as possible, as we have already seen it corrupted into anti-Agile in the enterprise. Stick to the basics (short work cycles, cross-functional teams, clear explicit goals, quick constant feedback, etc) and a new organization will better maintain the true intent of Agile, rather than mindlessly cargo-culting the structures (sprint, iterations, agile team, scrum board, etc).
    • sp332 11y ago
      It's possible to teach new ideas without using new words, but I don't think it's unreasonable to include new terms to indicate the new ideas.
    • brudgers 11y ago
      "Sprint" and "agile" are googlable. There is a stable body of literature to support a person adopting the terms when communicating about workflow processes...even a person who doesn't agree with their utility has the opportunity to at least know exactly what they are objecting to. "Sprint" connotates a methodology. "Cross functional team" barely describes personnel vaguely.
    • justinkramp 11y ago
      >as we have already seen it corrupted into anti-Agile in the enterprise I've definitely experienced this. A large waterfall development group decides to call themselves Agile. They start proclaiming their mutant fast-waterfall as the One True Agile, adopting terms and structures to appear Agile. Then you get invited to the hour-long "standups" attended by dozens of un-involved people, "stories" that amount to poorly worded system requirements, "grooming sessions" filled with chickens and "sprints" with development/release cycles that look oddly similar to what we had before they started calling themselves Agile. It's just a rapid waterfall. Call it "rapid waterfall," or just keep calling it "waterfall" and increase your velocity. It confuses things when people that have worked in Agile shops come around and try to understand what you're doing. Sidenote - I'd probably title the article "How a ten-person team moved a government agency forward twenty years in two days." The permalink says "spring" so "sprint" is an improvement on the draft title anyhow. :)
  • blakeyrat 11y ago
    Not everybody knows what the word "sprint" means in this context. (And it's not entirely a positive connotation-- after all, people can only sprint for so long before they collapse.)
    • madeofpalk 11y ago
      Hence why you have short sprints before you 'take a break' (of zero days) and start again.
• at-fates-hands 11y ago
  The term is starting to change though. The last two large scale projects I've been on have changed from using the term "sprints" to "iterations" I'm guessing because it's like you said, it encompassing a clearly understanding of what will be happening over the specified time frame.
  • dragonwriter 11y ago
    > The last two large scale projects I've been on have changed from using the term "sprints" to "iterations" "Iterations" is definitely more appropriate than the Scrum use of "sprint" for each cycle in a continuous cyclical pattern of development. OTOH, the "sprint" here was not such a cycle, and is actually something for which "sprint" is a better term than "iteration".
• sandworm101 11y ago
  'Sprint' also implies something unsustainable. It suggests that this rate of change is a short-term thing with a defined goal. It does not suggest any broad change in policy.
  • tbrownaw 11y ago
    'Sprint' also implies something unsustainable. That does not seem to be how it is used in the popular / consultantified version of scrum. Which is the most likely source of hearing it used within context.
    • foota 11y ago
      I think parent was saying that that is what it implies to the uninformed reader.
  • bloat 11y ago
    Don't forget that a sprint is followed by a period of rest and recuperation, i.e. the retrospective and planning period. Only then does the next sprint really begin. So in that sense the metaphor is valid, and you can keep sprinting indefinitely.
    • cmdkeen 11y ago
      I never found the planning period at all restful or recuperative. One of the reasons I'm falling out of love with Scrum is the relentless pressure of sprinting.
  • s_kilk 11y ago
    Nah, just fire the starting pistol again every hundred meters and call it a new sprint. /s
• brudgers 11y ago
  In the best of circumstances, sprints are in contrast to marathons. Realisticly, the death march is the point of reference. For a team using development by marathon changing time scales is likely to increase flexibility and navigation. A team operating in death marches is perhaps in need of change...one of those rare cased where "we must do something and this is something" might be a reasonable approach.
• ianstallings 11y ago
  You're a perfect fit for government! Object to something meaningless and then make a conflict out of it. We should make a committee to discuss what words to use and then go forward. I'll book a conference room.
• dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Does anyone see value in the huge emphasis on the "sprint" term? What huge emphasis? > Advocates promote the word as a new way of working, but I see it as just adding confusion for the audience it's trying to reach. Not really: the term is a fairly precise metaphor for exactly what it is (nicely, moreso than the usual use of "sprint" as software development jargon -- if anything, its more confusing to people with experience in development with the use of the term for one in a series of continuous cycles that it would be for the target audience than it would be for people without that experience.) > That is, if I'm a person entrenched in government and want to learn about this new way people are working, and I see the word SPRINT everywhere, I might assume it's some complex new idea. Its used 8 times in the article, and the whole article explains how it works. > But it's not -- it's just a time period with goals. Not really; actually a key part was not having concrete goals going in (beyond deliver something that provides value in the timebox given) and defining specific goals by the team as part of the work effort. This actually is an important contrast to lots of other work styles, where a work effort, timeboxed or not, has very specific goals defined by people distant from the work effort before the team is gathered to execute. > The real win in this short project came from having a cross-functional team in the room, in a working session with a clear short-term goal. Arguably, the real win came from having a cross-functional team including the primary users in the room, in a working session, with a clear timebox and the freedom to define goals. But the piece isn't about presenting conclusions as to why the effort worked, but to provide facts about how the effort was done and that it worked.
  • spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
    You are so right about the "cross-functional team including the primary users in the room" Back in 94 I and another developer did a similar RAD/DSDM project for British telecom we delivered in 28 days what had been quoted as taking 2 years by another part of the company. I recon that that single month I did more for the company than he rest of my 15 year time with BT