5 ms·

"Faster" (and "cheaper") are the problems here. I believe Scrum embedded this flaw in its very language by calling the iterative cycle "sprints". You don't run

by beat 8y ago

"Faster" (and "cheaper") are the problems here. I believe Scrum embedded this flaw in its very language by calling the iterative cycle "sprints". You don't run a marathon by breaking it into a bunch of sprints - sprinting in a marathon is foolish. But the language suggests speed. If the Scrum cycle were called "iterations" rather than "sprints", things would be a lot better. Language matters.

fatnoah 8y ago
>If the Scrum cycle were called "iterations" rather than "sprints", things would be a lot better. Agree. To me, the real value of Scrum when done right is the focus on delivering increments of value in a sustainable, repeatable way. Scrum provides a means and the existing hype/buzz/literature gives me some leverage in dealing with non-technical managers and getting them to buy-in to the process.
- beat 8y ago
  My favorite feature of Scrum on paper, as designed, is the idea that any change to the requirements for a sprint means the sprint ends right there, and a new sprint is started. It's great for "Just leave us the hell alone for two weeks, and we'll deliver what we promised we'll deliver over these two weeks". Of course, it never works that way. The sprint becomes an arbitrary schedule, and the work of the sprint becomes mutable. Ugh. Sudden, OMG THIS IS IMPORTANT WE MUST DO THIS RIGHT NOW changes in direction are the bane of productivity.
IggleSniggle 8y ago
This is an interesting language problem. I think part of the reason the words are “agile” and “sprint” is that it’s essentially a way for engineering to communicate iterative progress, convince management that yes, work is getting done, and that really, we’re moving as fast as we can. That there is deception in the wording is, imho, a pragmatic response to management never seeming to understand software development at face value. Eng: “No, we can’t move any faster. This is literally the best we can do. Doing this right, and doing it as fast as possible, involves care and intentionality.” Mgmt; “Can’t you just work more hours right now?” “No, that will not help.” “You guys are lazy. We regularly pull 70 hour weeks to get all the meetings and emails in.” “You know what? Next week, we are going to deliver x,y, and z. Promise. It may mean the overall vision takes longer to execute, but I want to show you how hard we work. We are getting a ton done. We are moving as fast as we can. We are sprinting! Now leave us alone and let us do the work necessary to execute the vision.” Mgmt: “Hey other managers, look how much MY team is kicking ass. They are delivering x, y, and z ON SCHEDULE AND AS PROMISED. They are sprinting, and they basically never tell me ‘no’! Sure, we don’t need y or z to execute the vision, but how else were we to know that? If we hadn’t tried it out? They just sigh and go back to their caves, EVERY WEEK. I’m the best manager.” It’s basically a way to educate about iterative development while giving management a way to save face, no matter how inefficient it may be. A healthy org could do it without the deception, but corporations are krakens.

by beat 8y ago

fatnoah 8y ago

>If the Scrum cycle were called "iterations" rather than "sprints", things would be a lot better. Agree. To me, the real value of Scrum when done right is the focus on delivering increments of value in a sustainable, repeatable way. Scrum provides a means and the existing hype/buzz/literature gives me some leverage in dealing with non-technical managers and getting them to buy-in to the process.

beat 8y ago
My favorite feature of Scrum on paper, as designed, is the idea that any change to the requirements for a sprint means the sprint ends right there, and a new sprint is started. It's great for "Just leave us the hell alone for two weeks, and we'll deliver what we promised we'll deliver over these two weeks". Of course, it never works that way. The sprint becomes an arbitrary schedule, and the work of the sprint becomes mutable. Ugh. Sudden, OMG THIS IS IMPORTANT WE MUST DO THIS RIGHT NOW changes in direction are the bane of productivity.

IggleSniggle 8y ago

This is an interesting language problem. I think part of the reason the words are “agile” and “sprint” is that it’s essentially a way for engineering to communicate iterative progress, convince management that yes, work is getting done, and that really, we’re moving as fast as we can. That there is deception in the wording is, imho, a pragmatic response to management never seeming to understand software development at face value. Eng: “No, we can’t move any faster. This is literally the best we can do. Doing this right, and doing it as fast as possible, involves care and intentionality.” Mgmt; “Can’t you just work more hours right now?” “No, that will not help.” “You guys are lazy. We regularly pull 70 hour weeks to get all the meetings and emails in.” “You know what? Next week, we are going to deliver x,y, and z. Promise. It may mean the overall vision takes longer to execute, but I want to show you how hard we work. We are getting a ton done. We are moving as fast as we can. We are sprinting! Now leave us alone and let us do the work necessary to execute the vision.” Mgmt: “Hey other managers, look how much MY team is kicking ass. They are delivering x, y, and z ON SCHEDULE AND AS PROMISED. They are sprinting, and they basically never tell me ‘no’! Sure, we don’t need y or z to execute the vision, but how else were we to know that? If we hadn’t tried it out? They just sigh and go back to their caves, EVERY WEEK. I’m the best manager.” It’s basically a way to educate about iterative development while giving management a way to save face, no matter how inefficient it may be. A healthy org could do it without the deception, but corporations are krakens.