4 ms·
I think it odd that some companies that say they practice Agile/Scrum still track hours. If the each team member commits to a certain amount of work, it doesn't
by JustSomeNobody 10y ago
I think it odd that some companies that say they practice Agile/Scrum still track hours. If the each team member commits to a certain amount of work, it doesn't matter if they put in 60 hours or 16 hours doing it.
Of course, there's meetings and fires, and so the dev should be available for that, but, in all, who cares about the number of hours?
- zzalpha 10y agoIf the each team member commits to a certain amount of work, If you're committed to Agile, I don't understand why you're talking about individual commitments at all. The team commits to sprint scope. The team succeeds or fails in meeting that commitment as a group. Beyond that the team should be free to figure out how the commitment is met. We have one team that works 10:30 to 6:30. Another that works more traditional 9-5 hours. One is largely remote. Another is co-located. They all produce high quality work at a solid, and most importantly consistent, rate. If we tried to force some work pattern on them, I doubt they'd be as successful.
- bitexploder 10y agoHours let you develop much better estimation models. Agile/Scrum isn't a silver bullet and it is valuable information for any development shop. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2007/10/26/evidence-based-scheduling https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2007/10/26/evidence-based-sch...
- doublescoop 10y ago> certain amount of work This is the crux. How does the business decide what's a reasonable amount of work to get done in a sprint? If the dev in the OP has time to work on his own stuff, why shouldn't the business ask for a bigger commitment in the next sprint?
- JustSomeNobody 10y agoThey can; that's why they track a team's velocity.