5 ms·

Scaling Agile at Spotify (2012) [pdf]

16 points by vilda 11y ago

rust4homoslol 11y ago
Gah, OK time to switch to Apple music.
- vskarine 11y ago
  What don't you like about the document?
vidoc 11y ago
Is there a Glassdoor kind of website that categorizes companies by the process they use? That would be pretty helpful...
- sportanova 11y ago
  It would be, until management sees the way that they're categorized and start faking votes / reviews. Then it would be an arms race on who can be the most Agile. Scrum -> Agile -> Agiler -> SUPER KANAGILEBAN MEGA!!!
jonesb6 11y ago
Still a great read. Probably the major reason why, when every year I cut down all my subscription services, Spotify remains.
sportanova 11y ago
"But so far, based on surveys and retrospectives, the scaling model seems to be working quite well!". Statements like that remind me of a North Korean election - "SUPREME LEADER ELECTED JOYOUSLY AND UNANIMOUSLY!". Grunts that don't like the newest management fad / reorg aren't looked upon kindly A great test for "could I work at this company?" is to ask "do they have full time Agile Coaches / Scrum Masters / etc.". If yes, then I'm moving on
- cvanlaw 11y ago
  I'm curious: Why do you consider Agile Coaches / Scrum Masters / etc. a red flag?
  - sportanova 11y ago
    I despise Agile, and if you have people whose full time jobs are to enforce Agile, then it's a big sign that it's not an environment I want to be in
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > if you have people whose full time jobs are to enforce Agile ...then you aren't whatever you call it, its not Agile, which has, as its first value: Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
      - sportanova 11y ago
        In the end it's impossible to criticize Agile because the way supporters frame it is that all good things are Agile, all bad things are not Agile and / or Waterfall. Goodness and Agile are inherently linked, so the presence of badness must mean that it is not Agile, or at least not properly practiced Agile. Agile as it's practiced by 99% of practitioners is more like "processes and tools over individuals and interactions". Infantile retrospectives, constant stand up status meetings, status meetings dressed up as "grooming" and "planning" where the only real (non)decision that's being made is how many "story points" should be assigned. You can barely go to the bathroom without filing a Jira
        dragonwriter 11y ago
        > In the end it's impossible to criticize Agile because the way supporters frame it is that all good things are Agile, all bad things are not Agile and / or Waterfall. Agile-as-defined is a fairly abstract set of priorities, it doesn't specify practices, so criticizing particular practices isn't criticizing it. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of it, still, particularly that its too ill-defined to concretely implement. Criticism of "Agile"-as-practices are generally misplaced, because there is no coherent unity in the practices people implement and apply that label too. Criticizing the various practices that people call "Agile" is better done by focussing on the actual practices that are being criticized than on "Agile". At least, if one is interested in usefully sharing experience in a way that informs and advances quality practices. If one is merely interested in emotional venting, then "Agile" is a fine target.

16 points by vilda 11y ago

rust4homoslol 11y ago

Gah, OK time to switch to Apple music.

vskarine 11y ago
What don't you like about the document?

vidoc 11y ago

Is there a Glassdoor kind of website that categorizes companies by the process they use? That would be pretty helpful...

sportanova 11y ago
It would be, until management sees the way that they're categorized and start faking votes / reviews. Then it would be an arms race on who can be the most Agile. Scrum -> Agile -> Agiler -> SUPER KANAGILEBAN MEGA!!!

jonesb6 11y ago

Still a great read. Probably the major reason why, when every year I cut down all my subscription services, Spotify remains.

sportanova 11y ago

"But so far, based on surveys and retrospectives, the scaling model seems to be working quite well!". Statements like that remind me of a North Korean election - "SUPREME LEADER ELECTED JOYOUSLY AND UNANIMOUSLY!". Grunts that don't like the newest management fad / reorg aren't looked upon kindly A great test for "could I work at this company?" is to ask "do they have full time Agile Coaches / Scrum Masters / etc.". If yes, then I'm moving on

cvanlaw 11y ago
I'm curious: Why do you consider Agile Coaches / Scrum Masters / etc. a red flag?
- sportanova 11y ago
  I despise Agile, and if you have people whose full time jobs are to enforce Agile, then it's a big sign that it's not an environment I want to be in
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > if you have people whose full time jobs are to enforce Agile ...then you aren't whatever you call it, its not Agile, which has, as its first value: Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
    - sportanova 11y ago
      In the end it's impossible to criticize Agile because the way supporters frame it is that all good things are Agile, all bad things are not Agile and / or Waterfall. Goodness and Agile are inherently linked, so the presence of badness must mean that it is not Agile, or at least not properly practiced Agile. Agile as it's practiced by 99% of practitioners is more like "processes and tools over individuals and interactions". Infantile retrospectives, constant stand up status meetings, status meetings dressed up as "grooming" and "planning" where the only real (non)decision that's being made is how many "story points" should be assigned. You can barely go to the bathroom without filing a Jira
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > In the end it's impossible to criticize Agile because the way supporters frame it is that all good things are Agile, all bad things are not Agile and / or Waterfall. Agile-as-defined is a fairly abstract set of priorities, it doesn't specify practices, so criticizing particular practices isn't criticizing it. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of it, still, particularly that its too ill-defined to concretely implement. Criticism of "Agile"-as-practices are generally misplaced, because there is no coherent unity in the practices people implement and apply that label too. Criticizing the various practices that people call "Agile" is better done by focussing on the actual practices that are being criticized than on "Agile". At least, if one is interested in usefully sharing experience in a way that informs and advances quality practices. If one is merely interested in emotional venting, then "Agile" is a fine target.