3 ms·

Ugh, this attitude is just the worst. There are a whole bunch of legitimate reasons that aspects of Scrum are useful to some teams. Like the planning poker thi

Ugh, this attitude is just the worst. There are a whole bunch of legitimate reasons that aspects of Scrum are useful to some teams. Like the planning poker thing –I work with a team of talented, experienced and professional developers, and we still have misconceptions about complexity that are revealed by the planning poker approach. The idea that 'if everyone just programmed it would be fine' is totally asinine.

scalatohaskell 10y ago
that's not how I meant it. Sure, plan it, however it suits you and the team. If planning poker works for you, great. But do you need to coat it under "Scrum", having special moderators such as Scrummaster and consultations every year how you are not doing scrum "enough". I don't advocate programming anarchy, but I don't like when managers treat programmers like some woodchoppers that they need to wrap fine grained process around, instead of having the team work the way it fits them best.
- matthewmacleod 10y ago
  I completely agree that 'agile' without being agile is just buzzword bingo, and I've been through it myself. Ultimately, plan however works for your team. But I do get the impression generally that there can be a lot of unjustified resistance to any kind of organisation among certain groups of developers; it pays to be open-minded about techniques that can work.
  - scalatohaskell 10y ago
    I think the resistance is not unjustified - mostly programmers are fed up with "these" things, since they always get misused against them (i.e. - estimations - you and me know how it works, that it's well, estimation - but in back there is manager who translates it in his excel to $$$ and time, and the second your 8point story is now day overdue you are being pushed to zones which only further damage the project down the road (costs which you will have to pay by overtimes, not the guy behind his excel). Does that mean estimation is bad? No. It's non-programmers who misuse it. Would team be better without estimation? Probably, since it wouldn't be misused by external elements, and we could just do our damn job). Perhaps the original agile was meant correctly, but as of today most organisations just use it to justify and coat (perhaps) same things agile was to be against. For me today Agile has so way too many faces. If it doesn't work, answer is always "you're not doing agile/scrum correctly). There are always reasons how you're not being agile enough, no matter how many times you fine-tune your "agile" on retrospectives, if there are managers and people misusing it against you, you could as well be better without it. What an incomprehensive piece of text I wrote. Sorry. I'm not native English speaker. If you're lucky non of this applies though, but you have to be lucky enough to work with lots of (prehaps we might say all) smart people across whole "chain of command".
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      When they ask for an "estimation", they are actually seeking a "quotation".
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
mattmanser 10y ago
Any links to those studies? Although don't think we're interested in scrum vs waterfall. We all agree that iterative development is better than waterfall.

scalatohaskell 10y ago

that's not how I meant it. Sure, plan it, however it suits you and the team. If planning poker works for you, great. But do you need to coat it under "Scrum", having special moderators such as Scrummaster and consultations every year how you are not doing scrum "enough". I don't advocate programming anarchy, but I don't like when managers treat programmers like some woodchoppers that they need to wrap fine grained process around, instead of having the team work the way it fits them best.

matthewmacleod 10y ago
I completely agree that 'agile' without being agile is just buzzword bingo, and I've been through it myself. Ultimately, plan however works for your team. But I do get the impression generally that there can be a lot of unjustified resistance to any kind of organisation among certain groups of developers; it pays to be open-minded about techniques that can work.
- scalatohaskell 10y ago
  I think the resistance is not unjustified - mostly programmers are fed up with "these" things, since they always get misused against them (i.e. - estimations - you and me know how it works, that it's well, estimation - but in back there is manager who translates it in his excel to $$$ and time, and the second your 8point story is now day overdue you are being pushed to zones which only further damage the project down the road (costs which you will have to pay by overtimes, not the guy behind his excel). Does that mean estimation is bad? No. It's non-programmers who misuse it. Would team be better without estimation? Probably, since it wouldn't be misused by external elements, and we could just do our damn job). Perhaps the original agile was meant correctly, but as of today most organisations just use it to justify and coat (perhaps) same things agile was to be against. For me today Agile has so way too many faces. If it doesn't work, answer is always "you're not doing agile/scrum correctly). There are always reasons how you're not being agile enough, no matter how many times you fine-tune your "agile" on retrospectives, if there are managers and people misusing it against you, you could as well be better without it. What an incomprehensive piece of text I wrote. Sorry. I'm not native English speaker. If you're lucky non of this applies though, but you have to be lucky enough to work with lots of (prehaps we might say all) smart people across whole "chain of command".
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    When they ask for an "estimation", they are actually seeking a "quotation".
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

mattmanser 10y ago

Any links to those studies? Although don't think we're interested in scrum vs waterfall. We all agree that iterative development is better than waterfall.