5 ms·

Does any one have good (as in: known to actually have had a positive effect in the past) insights on how to convince your manager(s) that (at least their versio

by kleiba 8y ago

Does any one have good (as in: known to actually have had a positive effect in the past) insights on how to convince your manager(s) that (at least their version of) "agile" is not helping the company? My wife works in a company where the managements seems to be quite "proud" to apply "agile methods" but in my wife's opinion, it's more BS bingo than producing a measurable boost in productivity, quality, or any other desirable metric. It is her impression that they are forced to adhere to certain routines even when the benefit is questionable. For instance, every morning at 9pm the whole department has a "daily scrum meeting", but most of the time there's nothing important to report from the day before for a lot of people, so it tends to lead to either embarrassment, pressure, or to people making crap up just so they have something to say. Needless to say that this doesn't lead to "team building". That's just one example. So, either the specific way "agile" is executed in my wife's company is just stupid, or the whole methodology is perhaps not applicable to their setup -- or something else. But it seems that the current practice is just a gigantic waste of time, yet the management is so proud of their "agile" way. How could this situation be improved? Any tips?

soperj 8y ago
From what I've seen is that Agile doesn't ever end up working when it's driven from Management. They only care because it's supposed to be more productive, but they don't want to actually adopt any of the measures that make it more productive.
- nielgaard 8y ago
  But it is always driven from management. When was the last time a group of developers decided all by themselves that they needed a development framework to get work done? And isn't it funny how management never uses any agile framework to do their own stuff. Could you imagine the board of directors putting Fibonacci cards on their foreheads when deciding on budgets or earnings forecasts?
codeflo 8y ago
I know what you describe is common, but the purpose of the daily really isn’t to boast about your heroic achievements of yesterday, or give a status report to management. That part should be cut out entirely much of the time. A better idea is to plan the current day, identify where someone could use help, where two people need to coordinate more closely or on what issues further discussion is needed and with whom. If there’s nothing to discuss because everyone is already on the same page, that’s great, cut the meeting short and start working. Also, depending on your setup, people who can never usefully work together on anything probably shouldn’t be part of the same daily standup. I’ve seen several cases where this meeting was way, way too large.
- yebyen 8y ago
  That's exactly what it's for. To put a finer point on it, a daily stand-up meeting should be no more than 15 minutes long, and about three specific things. Each person should talk about exactly these three things (or less, if you can say that one or more of them are not known or relevant yet): 1. What am I working on now 2. What is in the way of getting this thing done 3. What will I work on next The value of the stand-up comes from the replies you can get from your other team members when they hear your report... (1) "I know something that you need to know in order to get that done well, or done at all" ... (2) "I can help with that thing you've identified which is in your way" ... (3) "Here's something you will need, let's get it ready for you..." or alternatively "That's not going to go well because XYZ isn't ready yet, so maybe plan to work on this other thing instead" If these things aren't coming out of your daily stand-up meetings on a regular basis, then something about how your group is doing them is wrong. Talking about what you did yesterday, that is already over and done with (as you say), provides absolutely no value ... unless you know from a previous stand-up that someone was actually waiting for that thing. But if you really knew that already, you should tell that person directly, as there's really no reason to save it for the stand-up unless there just wasn't another opportunity.
  - Aloisius 8y ago
    15 minutes? Even 5 minutes is long. With an average 7 person scrum team, they should take no more than 3 minutes. I disagree talking about yesterday provides no value. Talking about yesterday, in my experience, dramatically improves people's ability to accurately identify and prioritize what they have to do today. Plus, it provides a forum to communicate unexpected interruptions that may need to be dealt with by the scrum master.
loriverkutya 8y ago
I found myself in the same situation multiple times. There were times, when I was just trying to convince people we should do things differently and wasting less time. It was never working. Nowadays, I just find a new company.
bahmboo 8y ago
Standup is one area where the engineers can affect the culture and the outcome. Expect that at the beginning of a project they can be long but as time goes on they can be quite short. Neither is good or bad, but it's important to keep things succinct. Hopefully rotate who leads the standup - even every day. Probably unpopular opinion but anyone should be able to politely ask that some subjects be handled 'offline'. Well run standups are great tools for productivity. It's not a meeting and it's not conversation. It's discovery. It's having your teammates back. EDIT: also keep in mind different personalities. Some people just aren't socially comfortable with the format. That's totally fine and hopefully team lead or standup lead will engage them directly after the standup and propagate any relevant info.
Aloisius 8y ago
They don't follow the "what you did yesterday, what you plan on doing today, is there anything blocking you" pattern? And the whole department is on one scrum team? No one should lack for something to say or have to make anything up. It is a simple status synchronization with your team. The only pressure anyone should be under is remembering what they did the day before and prioritizing what to do today.
- kleiba 8y ago
  No and yes for your two questions respectively (although I'm not 100% sure about the "no" to the first question). That's what I meant when I said that their interpretation of agile seems really pointless. It seems like it's more important to have the "agile" label stuck to themselves than whether whatever they think that labels stands for brings about any positive effects.
  - Aloisius 8y ago
    Well that's awful. Do they have retrospectives? That is when I would have my teams go over what went poorly (and well) and how to improve the system - including things like how meetings are run.
kleiba 8y ago
Guys - thanks very much for your input but note my original question. I know that what you say is right about why what they do in my wife's company is not the way things should be done. But my question was: what can be done to improve a situation like that? And not just specifically for my wife, I'm asking the more general question for others who are in similar situations. The example I gave about the daily meetings was just that: an example, meant to illustrate why my wife thinks that it seems more important for their managers to pat their backs about using "agile methods" than to actually know what they're doing. That said - I'd also like to point your attention to another commenter here who pointed out that the original authors of the agile manifesto were actually trying to achieve a less strictly structured work methodology. However, I get from your comments about how a daily meeting "is supposed to be done" that some of you seem to indeed have pretty strict ideas about what constitutes agile and what doesn't. So that is kind of an interesting observation in itself, I think.
iovrthoughtthis 8y ago
If it’s not safe to say “I got nothing done yesterday” at your standup then it’s a waste of time. Stand-ups are not about accountability, they are about discovery. If people are talking about anything other than; what I did, what my impediments are and what am I planning to do then they are wasting time. Book an actual meeting after the standup to discuss things. If there are too many people to remember to book meetings after the stand up, your stand up is too large. It can take < 60 seconds for each person in a stand up to cover the 3 questions. If people take longer they should be more concise and focus on only the important things. We probably don’t need the nitty details. It’s ok to practice this.

by kleiba 8y ago

soperj 8y ago

From what I've seen is that Agile doesn't ever end up working when it's driven from Management. They only care because it's supposed to be more productive, but they don't want to actually adopt any of the measures that make it more productive.

nielgaard 8y ago
But it is always driven from management. When was the last time a group of developers decided all by themselves that they needed a development framework to get work done? And isn't it funny how management never uses any agile framework to do their own stuff. Could you imagine the board of directors putting Fibonacci cards on their foreheads when deciding on budgets or earnings forecasts?

codeflo 8y ago

I know what you describe is common, but the purpose of the daily really isn’t to boast about your heroic achievements of yesterday, or give a status report to management. That part should be cut out entirely much of the time. A better idea is to plan the current day, identify where someone could use help, where two people need to coordinate more closely or on what issues further discussion is needed and with whom. If there’s nothing to discuss because everyone is already on the same page, that’s great, cut the meeting short and start working. Also, depending on your setup, people who can never usefully work together on anything probably shouldn’t be part of the same daily standup. I’ve seen several cases where this meeting was way, way too large.

yebyen 8y ago
That's exactly what it's for. To put a finer point on it, a daily stand-up meeting should be no more than 15 minutes long, and about three specific things. Each person should talk about exactly these three things (or less, if you can say that one or more of them are not known or relevant yet): 1. What am I working on now 2. What is in the way of getting this thing done 3. What will I work on next The value of the stand-up comes from the replies you can get from your other team members when they hear your report... (1) "I know something that you need to know in order to get that done well, or done at all" ... (2) "I can help with that thing you've identified which is in your way" ... (3) "Here's something you will need, let's get it ready for you..." or alternatively "That's not going to go well because XYZ isn't ready yet, so maybe plan to work on this other thing instead" If these things aren't coming out of your daily stand-up meetings on a regular basis, then something about how your group is doing them is wrong. Talking about what you did yesterday, that is already over and done with (as you say), provides absolutely no value ... unless you know from a previous stand-up that someone was actually waiting for that thing. But if you really knew that already, you should tell that person directly, as there's really no reason to save it for the stand-up unless there just wasn't another opportunity.
- Aloisius 8y ago
  15 minutes? Even 5 minutes is long. With an average 7 person scrum team, they should take no more than 3 minutes. I disagree talking about yesterday provides no value. Talking about yesterday, in my experience, dramatically improves people's ability to accurately identify and prioritize what they have to do today. Plus, it provides a forum to communicate unexpected interruptions that may need to be dealt with by the scrum master.

loriverkutya 8y ago

I found myself in the same situation multiple times. There were times, when I was just trying to convince people we should do things differently and wasting less time. It was never working. Nowadays, I just find a new company.

bahmboo 8y ago

Standup is one area where the engineers can affect the culture and the outcome. Expect that at the beginning of a project they can be long but as time goes on they can be quite short. Neither is good or bad, but it's important to keep things succinct. Hopefully rotate who leads the standup - even every day. Probably unpopular opinion but anyone should be able to politely ask that some subjects be handled 'offline'. Well run standups are great tools for productivity. It's not a meeting and it's not conversation. It's discovery. It's having your teammates back. EDIT: also keep in mind different personalities. Some people just aren't socially comfortable with the format. That's totally fine and hopefully team lead or standup lead will engage them directly after the standup and propagate any relevant info.

Aloisius 8y ago

They don't follow the "what you did yesterday, what you plan on doing today, is there anything blocking you" pattern? And the whole department is on one scrum team? No one should lack for something to say or have to make anything up. It is a simple status synchronization with your team. The only pressure anyone should be under is remembering what they did the day before and prioritizing what to do today.

kleiba 8y ago
No and yes for your two questions respectively (although I'm not 100% sure about the "no" to the first question). That's what I meant when I said that their interpretation of agile seems really pointless. It seems like it's more important to have the "agile" label stuck to themselves than whether whatever they think that labels stands for brings about any positive effects.
- Aloisius 8y ago
  Well that's awful. Do they have retrospectives? That is when I would have my teams go over what went poorly (and well) and how to improve the system - including things like how meetings are run.

kleiba 8y ago

Guys - thanks very much for your input but note my original question. I know that what you say is right about why what they do in my wife's company is not the way things should be done. But my question was: what can be done to improve a situation like that? And not just specifically for my wife, I'm asking the more general question for others who are in similar situations. The example I gave about the daily meetings was just that: an example, meant to illustrate why my wife thinks that it seems more important for their managers to pat their backs about using "agile methods" than to actually know what they're doing. That said - I'd also like to point your attention to another commenter here who pointed out that the original authors of the agile manifesto were actually trying to achieve a less strictly structured work methodology. However, I get from your comments about how a daily meeting "is supposed to be done" that some of you seem to indeed have pretty strict ideas about what constitutes agile and what doesn't. So that is kind of an interesting observation in itself, I think.

iovrthoughtthis 8y ago

If it’s not safe to say “I got nothing done yesterday” at your standup then it’s a waste of time. Stand-ups are not about accountability, they are about discovery. If people are talking about anything other than; what I did, what my impediments are and what am I planning to do then they are wasting time. Book an actual meeting after the standup to discuss things. If there are too many people to remember to book meetings after the stand up, your stand up is too large. It can take < 60 seconds for each person in a stand up to cover the 3 questions. If people take longer they should be more concise and focus on only the important things. We probably don’t need the nitty details. It’s ok to practice this.