3 ms·
This. 1000x. This is definitely one of the pitfalls of poorly implemented scrum. For bigger companies, scrum tends to be a decision by the higher ups and implem
by yexponential 11y ago
This. 1000x. This is definitely one of the pitfalls of poorly implemented scrum. For bigger companies, scrum tends to be a decision by the higher ups and implemented by the lower ranks keeping middle management is disarray over their role in the change. Moreover as the author mentions agile is about people first, but followed by processes. If scrum teams don't have the power, or empowerment, to change the processes, to become more agile, to remove blockers/impediments, the team burns out / self destructs for the precise reason you mention about spending longer hours achieve the committed (not to mention the committed is affected by the deadlines which are manipulated by management/or worse, external stakeholders) in order to uphold their word/project. To me there is a flaw here.
I do believe scrum can be an effective tool for a few use cases, but people often underestimate the warning signs. "Scrum is easy to learn, but difficult to master." - https://www.scrumalliance.org/community/articles/2011/may/scrum-from-student-to-master https://www.scrumalliance.org/community/articles/2011/may/sc...
- snow_mac 11y agoThis is really the heart of it, I've really only worked in environments that have been top down as their implementation of scrum. When the engineer team got to decide, we picked Kanban. The lightest process for us. Scrum top down. I buy that. Bottom up? I'd give it a try, but the team needs the ability to say "no".