3 ms·
Every pitch I've heard for Scrum promised increased productivity. I've seen consultants come in and show slides like "10x increase in output per employee" (and
by avian 9y ago
Every pitch I've heard for Scrum promised increased productivity. I've seen consultants come in and show slides like "10x increase in output per employee" (and then refuse to answer what exactly that means in terms of code produced).
Maybe it's not some philosophical goal, but it's definitely something that's advertised a lot in practice. I've come to treat the fact that they use Scrum as a minus in potential employers.
- UK-AL 9y agoThe biggest issue with pushing for pure productivity is that it makes your team unpredictable and inconsistent. One sprint, yes you may get more out of them if you pressure them. But on the next sprint? Your team has mentally clocked out. In practise going for consistent and sane pace increases productivity over the long term than trying to pressure your team. So yes, it can increase productivity but not in a naïve way.
- mooreds 9y agoI thought the goal wasn't more productivity, but rather more consistency. The goals of agile, as I have seen them pitched, were always about the business having more insight about speed and control of the why, and the developers having more control over the how. That said I have never worked in a place that fulfilled all the agile agenda.
- marcosdumay 9y agoAgile is about finishing the antagonism around the developers and product owners that appears when the product is badly specified or the business is risky. I have no idea what Scrum is about. Most people claim it's a way to fulfill the above paragraph, but then half of its formalism would have to be dropped. Anyway, as badly named as sprints are, they are one of the formalisms that wouldn't need dropping.