3 ms·

Well all I can say is that I've seen multiple teams implement scrum and this improve overall team productivity, usefulness to the wider organisation and general

Well all I can say is that I've seen multiple teams implement scrum and this improve overall team productivity, usefulness to the wider organisation and general happiness amongst all members of the team. I have no evidence to suggest that it was anything but adding the framework to the mix that caused these effects. And the more the processes were adhered to by the letter of the framework (i.e. all meetings were adhered to, stand ups were understood well etc), the better the results have been. Of course one could argue that the improvements were the result of some other phenomena. But it certainly seems that the equation seems to have worked and turned teams around. Scrum wasn't in the mix before and now it is things are much improved. By the way I'd in no way advocate a one-size fits all solution. Sometimes other techniques might be as effective or more effective. I'd not say you should agree another way is definitely better if your team is humming along. Why would I?

mlthoughts2018 8y ago
I wish more Scrum-advocates shared your opinion. Hey, if Scrum is working for some team, I would be the last person to ask them to change it. I know how much I hate it when I have a workflow that is succeeding and then management arbitrarily makes me switch to Scrum. So I would not want to do that to people who are doing great with Scrum. The reason I feel the need to deeply question it though, is that most managers don't express the attitude you expressed. Most often they see a workflow as something they need to enforce unilaterally, and that it should function to commoditize the underlying teams. Given that this is how it's practiced almost everywhere, it's fair to ask why is that? Is there anything intrinsic to Scrum that makes that mistake easier? Or at least, is there something Scrum lacks which would make that mistake harder? And then to finally ask if someone is advocating for everyone to be happy switching to Scrum, and advocating that every possible problem with Scrum is not Scrum's fault but always just the misapplication of Scrum (like they are interpreting a religious text or something), then I think it's fair for me to say, "prove it" and ask for evidence that the extra operational overhead of Scrum is empirically shown to be cost-effective.
- conatus 8y ago
  Doubtless scrum can be imposed from above as a management tactic. This would open to more wider discussions about how power operates in workplaces. I don't know if there is anything intrinsic to Scrum that makes this more common as imposition but there are certainly risks involved in it that can push a negative power dynamic that is certainly possible in any undemocratic workplace. I'd have to reflect on this a bit more before answering. But in a couple of cases I've seen it was sought by the team "from below" to protect the quality of their work, make work more enjoyable and self-organised and basically work to more reasonable timescales. There is something to scrum being a toolbox you can use and having a brand. It means you can ask for a process and people know what you mean. Rather than say "I wish work was better".
  - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
    When it is sought by the team, consensus-wise, "from below" -- I would absolutely support it. That is the team telling you what works for them, not the management telling the team how it must work.

mlthoughts2018 8y ago

I wish more Scrum-advocates shared your opinion. Hey, if Scrum is working for some team, I would be the last person to ask them to change it. I know how much I hate it when I have a workflow that is succeeding and then management arbitrarily makes me switch to Scrum. So I would not want to do that to people who are doing great with Scrum. The reason I feel the need to deeply question it though, is that most managers don't express the attitude you expressed. Most often they see a workflow as something they need to enforce unilaterally, and that it should function to commoditize the underlying teams. Given that this is how it's practiced almost everywhere, it's fair to ask why is that? Is there anything intrinsic to Scrum that makes that mistake easier? Or at least, is there something Scrum lacks which would make that mistake harder? And then to finally ask if someone is advocating for everyone to be happy switching to Scrum, and advocating that every possible problem with Scrum is not Scrum's fault but always just the misapplication of Scrum (like they are interpreting a religious text or something), then I think it's fair for me to say, "prove it" and ask for evidence that the extra operational overhead of Scrum is empirically shown to be cost-effective.

conatus 8y ago
Doubtless scrum can be imposed from above as a management tactic. This would open to more wider discussions about how power operates in workplaces. I don't know if there is anything intrinsic to Scrum that makes this more common as imposition but there are certainly risks involved in it that can push a negative power dynamic that is certainly possible in any undemocratic workplace. I'd have to reflect on this a bit more before answering. But in a couple of cases I've seen it was sought by the team "from below" to protect the quality of their work, make work more enjoyable and self-organised and basically work to more reasonable timescales. There is something to scrum being a toolbox you can use and having a brand. It means you can ask for a process and people know what you mean. Rather than say "I wish work was better".
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  When it is sought by the team, consensus-wise, "from below" -- I would absolutely support it. That is the team telling you what works for them, not the management telling the team how it must work.