6 ms·

These types of replies always strike me as No True Scotsman fallacies, which are rife in Agile & Scrum. “No true Scrum team would do X.” “No functional team w

by mlthoughts2018 8y ago

These types of replies always strike me as No True Scotsman fallacies, which are rife in Agile & Scrum. “No true Scrum team would do X.” “No functional team would disempower people...” At some point though, Agile & Scrum cannot be propped up like that. When the same failures happen again and again all across the industry, it’s time to admit that the tool facilitates that failure. The tool (Agile & Scrum) is the correlate here. Somehow it’s always showing up co-located with these problems, but we’re never honest enough to step back and admit maybe, sometimes, with enough evidence, correlation can be related to causation in this case.

lispm 8y ago
A poor organization will find out how to fail in many processes. The problems are much deeper than at the scrum level.
- conatus 8y ago
  Basically this. If the ecosystem in which scrum (or any process) is embedded is hostile then it will fail. But so will everything else, in time.
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  This just trades one non-falsifiable defense for another. First it’s “no true Scrum implementation would have property X.” Now it’s “any observable badness of Scrum was just ambient badness of an already bad company bleeding into Scrum.”
  - lispm 8y ago
    > no true Scrum implementation would have property X. That's not the point. Scrum does not say anything how good your organization is. Scrum won't fix these problems. Thus you can have a great Scrum setup and still fail. Of course you can have bad management and a 'true scrum implementation'. Your mistake is to assume that Scrum fixes all kinds of management practices or that 'true scrum' also means all kinds of other things, which it does not. It's also unlikely that specifically bad management practices are especially caused by Scrum - it might have some negative effects in some organizations - it might have positive effects in some other organizations. Scrum is simply not sufficient to be successful - if we want to be successful Scrum might be a good tool in a certain domain, but we also need to address the other issues/topics/practices/processes. Most of that stuff is very independent from using Scrum or not.
    - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
      What? I don't assume Scrum should or can fix bad management practices. I'm saying adding Scrum to already-bad management practices is like throwing gas on the fire. Scrum doesn't help. Also, if Scrum is only some kind of special snowflake process that only works when applied in sociologically perfect companies, well then it's useless. I'd rather use custom, ad hoc, duct-taped together management practices that get the job done even in the midst of bad corporate sociology.
      - lispm 8y ago
        > What? I don't assume Scrum should or can fix bad management practices. What? Scrum fixes all bad management practices? > I'm saying adding Scrum to already-bad management practices is like throwing gas on the fire. There we need evidence that it is actually so. Haven't seen any convincing data for that. > Scrum doesn't help. The sentence before claimed something else: Scrum makes it worse, quickly. > Also, if Scrum is only some kind of special snowflake process that only works when applied in sociologically perfect companies, well then it's useless. True, but that's not the case. Scrum can be used with advantage in average to good companies - but the reality is that good software product development is not that easy and has many ways to fail - for example the software could have a huge security problem, it could have architectural problems, it might not earn enough money, etc. - nothing which the scrum process will fix. There are many areas on the management and other levels, which scrum does not address: payment, office, product, market, hiring, ethics, ... Scrum is really on a tiny framework addressing a few basic things in small team organization. > I'd rather use custom, ad hoc, duct-taped together management practices that get the job done even in the midst of bad corporate sociology. Personally I'd rather work in a company willing to learn how to successfully develop software in some reproduceable way.
        mlthoughts2018 8y ago
        > What? Scrum fixes all bad management practices? What are you saying here? I was questioning your original statement that I mistakenly thought Scrum should fix bad management practices. I do not think that, and no part of that is a criticism of Scrum. The criticisms are other things. Your follow-up just seems confused about your own parent comment. > "There we need evidence that it is actually so. Haven't seen any convincing data for that." I've seen a lot of that evidence, in threads like this, in the original post, and also empirical evidence in my own work experience with Scrum as both a developer and a manager across several organizations of various ages and sizes. I'm not asking anyone to take my word for it though. I'm happy to look into randomized controlled studies about effectiveness of engineering teams with or without Scrum. Much like with open-plan offices, I'm confident the evidence shows zero efficacy (despite huge planning overhead costs and time wasters) for using Scrum even after controlling for whatever confounders you think are the scapegoats for Scrum's badness. It's a good thing we don't have to worry about what you've seen as our standard of evidence for discussing this topic, and we're free to make useful written arguments and discussions, like the linked post in the OP, that also appeal to important qualitative aspects of the problem, like how developers are disempowered, or how management always misuses Scrum-related progress tracking data. > "The sentence before claimed something else: Scrum makes it worse, quickly." This is pedantic to the point of making me suspect you're just trolling to argue with anyone who doesn't like Scrum. Yes, indeed, two different sentences claimed two separate but compatible and related things. Shocking! > "True, but that's not the case. Scrum can be used with advantage in average to good companies" You're demanding evidence but then just making equally unsubstantiated claims in the opposite direction. What's to say that instances of well-delivered software you've seen weren't done in spite of Scrum rather than because of it. That would need evidence too. And particularly because Scrum requires a far-reaching and globally prescriptive implementation (e.g. do team planning exactly this way and exactly on this timeline, estimate your workload exactly like this, use exactly these meetings, etc.) it strongly suggests the burden of proof is on Scrum proponents to explain why this is better than customized, individually and organically developed workflows that teams use because they are demonstrably working for them. > "Scrum is really on a tiny framework addressing a few basic things in small team organization." This is abject nonsense. Even a framework that did nothing but prescribe that teams must do some form of estimation every X weeks would be hugely overbearing bloatware. Scrum goes so much further, prescribing a huge overhead of different meetings, a bunch of specific named positions that have to have specific responsibilities in teams, and overbearing principles that superficially look small in writing but really are huge bureaucratic nightmares, like mandating that all teams should be cross-functional, which is totally disconnected from business realities in many cases, especially for teams whose sole business value is highly specialized domain area. > "Personally I'd rather work in a company willing to learn how to successfully develop software in some reproduceable way." This presumes that there always exists some "reproducible way", and that it is one-size-fits-all for the a whole company. You're just denying the premise that customized, situation-specific or team-specific workflows could be the right way. It's fine if you want to deny that claim as a personal preference or opinion, but you're just taking that as your own assumption, and then tacitly basing various claims about the superiority of Scrum on this built-in, hidden assumption.
conatus 8y ago
Well, sure it stumbles into this fallacy but so does the roll out of any process involving humans that has a set of normative criteria with a given critique in hand. I always feel this fallacy is a weak response as norms can always be applied well or less well. This is what makes them norms. I've seen it work very well. I've seen it work badly. Where it has worked badly it was because the process was not fully understood, badly implemented and not iterated upon. For reasons I can detail on reflection. These are explicable and fixable reasons that given the right company ecosystem and desire to honestly reflect upon them and fix them could have been fixed. A bad process tout court would never see highly effective result in some cases.
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  But if a given norm is always applied badly, it’s disingenuous to say it’s not the norm’s fault. It obviously is. Even if it’s a good norm in theory, if it doesn’t survive contact with human sociology in practice, then it’s disingenuous verbal gymnastics to say “but the norm itself is good, it was just misapplied constantly and nobody, despite huge effort, could stop it from being misapplied.” And Scrum is misapplied so often that this clearly applies, and renders whatever “spirit” of “true” Scrum irrelevant.
  - nradov 8y ago
    The norms aren't always applied badly. I have existence proofs of the norms being applied well in multiple different teams.
    - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
      Quoting from my parent comment, > "And Scrum is misapplied so often that this clearly applies ..." It's not about always being misapplied. Just that it's misapplied so often that in the larger scale decision making, it's a problem with Scrum. I don't deny there are isolated examples in which Scrum is applied well and works well. I also don't care, unless those examples represent the majority of cases in most average companies.

lispm 8y ago

A poor organization will find out how to fail in many processes. The problems are much deeper than at the scrum level.

conatus 8y ago
Basically this. If the ecosystem in which scrum (or any process) is embedded is hostile then it will fail. But so will everything else, in time.
mlthoughts2018 8y ago
This just trades one non-falsifiable defense for another. First it’s “no true Scrum implementation would have property X.” Now it’s “any observable badness of Scrum was just ambient badness of an already bad company bleeding into Scrum.”
- lispm 8y ago
  > no true Scrum implementation would have property X. That's not the point. Scrum does not say anything how good your organization is. Scrum won't fix these problems. Thus you can have a great Scrum setup and still fail. Of course you can have bad management and a 'true scrum implementation'. Your mistake is to assume that Scrum fixes all kinds of management practices or that 'true scrum' also means all kinds of other things, which it does not. It's also unlikely that specifically bad management practices are especially caused by Scrum - it might have some negative effects in some organizations - it might have positive effects in some other organizations. Scrum is simply not sufficient to be successful - if we want to be successful Scrum might be a good tool in a certain domain, but we also need to address the other issues/topics/practices/processes. Most of that stuff is very independent from using Scrum or not.
  - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
    What? I don't assume Scrum should or can fix bad management practices. I'm saying adding Scrum to already-bad management practices is like throwing gas on the fire. Scrum doesn't help. Also, if Scrum is only some kind of special snowflake process that only works when applied in sociologically perfect companies, well then it's useless. I'd rather use custom, ad hoc, duct-taped together management practices that get the job done even in the midst of bad corporate sociology.
    - lispm 8y ago
      > What? I don't assume Scrum should or can fix bad management practices. What? Scrum fixes all bad management practices? > I'm saying adding Scrum to already-bad management practices is like throwing gas on the fire. There we need evidence that it is actually so. Haven't seen any convincing data for that. > Scrum doesn't help. The sentence before claimed something else: Scrum makes it worse, quickly. > Also, if Scrum is only some kind of special snowflake process that only works when applied in sociologically perfect companies, well then it's useless. True, but that's not the case. Scrum can be used with advantage in average to good companies - but the reality is that good software product development is not that easy and has many ways to fail - for example the software could have a huge security problem, it could have architectural problems, it might not earn enough money, etc. - nothing which the scrum process will fix. There are many areas on the management and other levels, which scrum does not address: payment, office, product, market, hiring, ethics, ... Scrum is really on a tiny framework addressing a few basic things in small team organization. > I'd rather use custom, ad hoc, duct-taped together management practices that get the job done even in the midst of bad corporate sociology. Personally I'd rather work in a company willing to learn how to successfully develop software in some reproduceable way.
      - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
        > What? Scrum fixes all bad management practices? What are you saying here? I was questioning your original statement that I mistakenly thought Scrum should fix bad management practices. I do not think that, and no part of that is a criticism of Scrum. The criticisms are other things. Your follow-up just seems confused about your own parent comment. > "There we need evidence that it is actually so. Haven't seen any convincing data for that." I've seen a lot of that evidence, in threads like this, in the original post, and also empirical evidence in my own work experience with Scrum as both a developer and a manager across several organizations of various ages and sizes. I'm not asking anyone to take my word for it though. I'm happy to look into randomized controlled studies about effectiveness of engineering teams with or without Scrum. Much like with open-plan offices, I'm confident the evidence shows zero efficacy (despite huge planning overhead costs and time wasters) for using Scrum even after controlling for whatever confounders you think are the scapegoats for Scrum's badness. It's a good thing we don't have to worry about what you've seen as our standard of evidence for discussing this topic, and we're free to make useful written arguments and discussions, like the linked post in the OP, that also appeal to important qualitative aspects of the problem, like how developers are disempowered, or how management always misuses Scrum-related progress tracking data. > "The sentence before claimed something else: Scrum makes it worse, quickly." This is pedantic to the point of making me suspect you're just trolling to argue with anyone who doesn't like Scrum. Yes, indeed, two different sentences claimed two separate but compatible and related things. Shocking! > "True, but that's not the case. Scrum can be used with advantage in average to good companies" You're demanding evidence but then just making equally unsubstantiated claims in the opposite direction. What's to say that instances of well-delivered software you've seen weren't done in spite of Scrum rather than because of it. That would need evidence too. And particularly because Scrum requires a far-reaching and globally prescriptive implementation (e.g. do team planning exactly this way and exactly on this timeline, estimate your workload exactly like this, use exactly these meetings, etc.) it strongly suggests the burden of proof is on Scrum proponents to explain why this is better than customized, individually and organically developed workflows that teams use because they are demonstrably working for them. > "Scrum is really on a tiny framework addressing a few basic things in small team organization." This is abject nonsense. Even a framework that did nothing but prescribe that teams must do some form of estimation every X weeks would be hugely overbearing bloatware. Scrum goes so much further, prescribing a huge overhead of different meetings, a bunch of specific named positions that have to have specific responsibilities in teams, and overbearing principles that superficially look small in writing but really are huge bureaucratic nightmares, like mandating that all teams should be cross-functional, which is totally disconnected from business realities in many cases, especially for teams whose sole business value is highly specialized domain area. > "Personally I'd rather work in a company willing to learn how to successfully develop software in some reproduceable way." This presumes that there always exists some "reproducible way", and that it is one-size-fits-all for the a whole company. You're just denying the premise that customized, situation-specific or team-specific workflows could be the right way. It's fine if you want to deny that claim as a personal preference or opinion, but you're just taking that as your own assumption, and then tacitly basing various claims about the superiority of Scrum on this built-in, hidden assumption.

conatus 8y ago

Well, sure it stumbles into this fallacy but so does the roll out of any process involving humans that has a set of normative criteria with a given critique in hand. I always feel this fallacy is a weak response as norms can always be applied well or less well. This is what makes them norms. I've seen it work very well. I've seen it work badly. Where it has worked badly it was because the process was not fully understood, badly implemented and not iterated upon. For reasons I can detail on reflection. These are explicable and fixable reasons that given the right company ecosystem and desire to honestly reflect upon them and fix them could have been fixed. A bad process tout court would never see highly effective result in some cases.

mlthoughts2018 8y ago
But if a given norm is always applied badly, it’s disingenuous to say it’s not the norm’s fault. It obviously is. Even if it’s a good norm in theory, if it doesn’t survive contact with human sociology in practice, then it’s disingenuous verbal gymnastics to say “but the norm itself is good, it was just misapplied constantly and nobody, despite huge effort, could stop it from being misapplied.” And Scrum is misapplied so often that this clearly applies, and renders whatever “spirit” of “true” Scrum irrelevant.
- nradov 8y ago
  The norms aren't always applied badly. I have existence proofs of the norms being applied well in multiple different teams.
  - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
    Quoting from my parent comment, > "And Scrum is misapplied so often that this clearly applies ..." It's not about always being misapplied. Just that it's misapplied so often that in the larger scale decision making, it's a problem with Scrum. I don't deny there are isolated examples in which Scrum is applied well and works well. I also don't care, unless those examples represent the majority of cases in most average companies.