5 ms·

> I can visibly tell the devs walking out of the room spend more time worrying about "velocity" and "organisation of work" than the money making work that needs

> I can visibly tell the devs walking out of the room spend more time worrying about "velocity" and "organisation of work" than the money making work that needs to be done. It almost feels like the agile process gives them "one more job" of picking the doable things from the list of stuff that needs to be done so they look better than their peers with better velocity. Classic symptom of managers using agile as a (micro)management tool. Velocity, burndown charts, etc. are meant to be used by the team as a self-calibration tool. Managers do not get a say in what they think the velocity should be, either for the team or for individuals. If they do so, they create an incentive (let's be blunt, an overwhelming incentive) for the team/individuals to game them and that way lies madness. (As an aside, the best response I've ever seen to this type of dysfunction is a team who simply decided to retcon the charts on the fly to make the work committed to match the work done. Management was happy that the burndown chart was right on target, developers were free to be fully productive instead of worrying about what their velocity looked like; it was a win-win solution all around.)

dcminter 10y ago
I was once on a project where an "agile" team, at the behest of their managers, held a sprint "to improve velocity." I kid you not. I will add that I was not on that team. Our scrum master, who was excellent, shielded us entirely from the management madness.
- ci5er 10y ago
  What was the idea behind this? Spending some dedicated time knocking through some accumulated crud? (I think people call it 'technical debt' these days). Is that a bad thing?
  - dcminter 10y ago
    Nope. That I could have respected and would have made some sense. It was code for "the team will work longer hours and over the weekend so that an arbitrary number is higher."
    - ci5er 10y ago
      Hmmm. Weird. That sounds like people trying to engage in "growth hacking". I wonder if someone's bonus was tied to it. If they were really serious about "velocity" (for whatever reason; some are legit), they'd divide by man-hours, not weeks, anyway, and have actuals going back 3+ months (6+ is better) to baseline their sitrep before they started knob-twiddling.
      - dcminter 10y ago
        This was just "work long hours to get the project back on track" being communicated as "improve velocity" with about as much success as you'd expect and less understanding than you're projecting.
hectormalot 10y ago
I've seen Jira tickets about creating Jira tickets :) In large lines I agree with this comment. Micromanagement of Agile teams is detrimental. Implicitly, the message is that managers should leave their teams to work in peace? The question I have: assume you are that manager. You have 5 agile teams working on 5 client projects. One team seems to get work done much slower than the other teams. What do you do? (And how does one actually track progress of an agile team to begin with? Story points can vary wildly across teams).
- serge2k 10y ago
  > I've seen Jira tickets about creating Jira tickets :) So long as it's one:many.
  - sethammons 10y ago
    Or one to one where the first is a spike that will take time to determine what should go into the second (discovery, learning, experiment, further estimations). You would not want to commit to a unit of work without some idea of what it entails in Agile. The alternative is Programming Mother Fucker where you just dive in and see where it takes you. The business side usually prefers more predictability. The developers usually prefer to Just Getting It Done (tm).
- RandomOpinion 10y ago
  > And how does one actually track progress of an agile team to begin with? You've hit upon the key question: you want a progress metric that's in-line with productivity. IMO, assessing that comes down to evaluating whether functionality/code delivered (at a high level) per sprint is reasonable, evaluating whether the task breakdown the team is operating against is sensible and whether tasks are being accomplished in a reasonable amount of time relative to their difficulty, the skills of the person doing them, etc. In other words, the evaluation needs to be specific and include the circumstances: Saying "Why did implementing XYZ take longer than one would normally, even taking into account ABC?" is going to result in fixing the real issue whereas saying "Why is your velocity number so low?" is going to result in "fixing" the number. That, in turn, requires the manager to either possess solid software engineering skills or have access to someone possessing those skills who can make the assessment in their place. And, yes, it's a lot more work. But, as has been amply documented, attempting to manage off a single number (a self-reported number, no less), simply doesn't work.

dcminter 10y ago

I was once on a project where an "agile" team, at the behest of their managers, held a sprint "to improve velocity." I kid you not. I will add that I was not on that team. Our scrum master, who was excellent, shielded us entirely from the management madness.

ci5er 10y ago
What was the idea behind this? Spending some dedicated time knocking through some accumulated crud? (I think people call it 'technical debt' these days). Is that a bad thing?
- dcminter 10y ago
  Nope. That I could have respected and would have made some sense. It was code for "the team will work longer hours and over the weekend so that an arbitrary number is higher."
  - ci5er 10y ago
    Hmmm. Weird. That sounds like people trying to engage in "growth hacking". I wonder if someone's bonus was tied to it. If they were really serious about "velocity" (for whatever reason; some are legit), they'd divide by man-hours, not weeks, anyway, and have actuals going back 3+ months (6+ is better) to baseline their sitrep before they started knob-twiddling.
    - dcminter 10y ago
      This was just "work long hours to get the project back on track" being communicated as "improve velocity" with about as much success as you'd expect and less understanding than you're projecting.

hectormalot 10y ago

I've seen Jira tickets about creating Jira tickets :) In large lines I agree with this comment. Micromanagement of Agile teams is detrimental. Implicitly, the message is that managers should leave their teams to work in peace? The question I have: assume you are that manager. You have 5 agile teams working on 5 client projects. One team seems to get work done much slower than the other teams. What do you do? (And how does one actually track progress of an agile team to begin with? Story points can vary wildly across teams).

serge2k 10y ago
> I've seen Jira tickets about creating Jira tickets :) So long as it's one:many.
- sethammons 10y ago
  Or one to one where the first is a spike that will take time to determine what should go into the second (discovery, learning, experiment, further estimations). You would not want to commit to a unit of work without some idea of what it entails in Agile. The alternative is Programming Mother Fucker where you just dive in and see where it takes you. The business side usually prefers more predictability. The developers usually prefer to Just Getting It Done (tm).
RandomOpinion 10y ago
> And how does one actually track progress of an agile team to begin with? You've hit upon the key question: you want a progress metric that's in-line with productivity. IMO, assessing that comes down to evaluating whether functionality/code delivered (at a high level) per sprint is reasonable, evaluating whether the task breakdown the team is operating against is sensible and whether tasks are being accomplished in a reasonable amount of time relative to their difficulty, the skills of the person doing them, etc. In other words, the evaluation needs to be specific and include the circumstances: Saying "Why did implementing XYZ take longer than one would normally, even taking into account ABC?" is going to result in fixing the real issue whereas saying "Why is your velocity number so low?" is going to result in "fixing" the number. That, in turn, requires the manager to either possess solid software engineering skills or have access to someone possessing those skills who can make the assessment in their place. And, yes, it's a lot more work. But, as has been amply documented, attempting to manage off a single number (a self-reported number, no less), simply doesn't work.