4 ms·

Been in agile team for about a year now, the only good thing I feel is the stand-up meetings, that reminds everyone to stay on track, and update the status each

by ausjke 7y ago

Been in agile team for about a year now, the only good thing I feel is the stand-up meetings, that reminds everyone to stay on track, and update the status each morning(also press you ahead, can not be too lazy due to this daily update thing, especially for old lazy engineers like me), also, a quick exchange of ideas in the standup can make a day more productive once a while. This is the major if not the only thing I'm going to keep for the future.

vbtemp 7y ago
Fascinating. The worst thing about agile I feel is the stand-up meeting. It encourages people just to say stuff and posture as being busy. I feel it encourages the worst part about agile -- that input (work) is more important than results (a working product).
- himynameisdom 7y ago
  If the team isn't relaying how their work is progressing towards the sprint goal, the daily scrum ends up turning into a status meaning, negating its intended purpose. The daily scrum is a planning meeting. It's meant to help the team understand the big picture scoped to 1 sprint while helping each other achieve a shared commitment.
- smileysteve 7y ago
  I've been on a variety of teams that do this differently. I once blew up when multiple people said that they were in [the scrum] meetings the day before; this is an example of saying things to account for your time, not to ensure the team is on the same page! I personally try to correct from this problem by asking questions whenever work may relate to me, and being very familiar with the backlog to know how things will coordinate. But also, I rant when people tell me about meetings without any conclusions for the team.
  - dane-pgp 7y ago
    > I once blew up when multiple people said that they were in [the scrum] meetings the day before; this is an example of saying things to account for your time Have you considered the possibility that your temperament or personality might be the reason that multiple people on your team feel they have to pre-emptively justify themselves to avoid angry criticism? A meeting where people have to stand in front of their peers and potentially admit their failings can be quite anxiety-inducing if team members can't be trusted to respond in a professional manner.
    - smileysteve 7y ago
      "blew up" and "rant" implied more than intended; The team reacted really positively to the feedback and adjusted accordingly; The team became really healthy at preemptively pairing and parallelizing work, but - to your point adding personalized fun to the standup.
jrochkind1 7y ago
I have seen managers thinking the best thing about "agile" is enforcing staff discipline and maximal productivity ("stay on track", "press you ahead", "can not be too lazy"). It usually leads to a process that it really is still waterfall, but with, like, total surveillance and constant stress and developers being treated as interchangeable widgets. It is sad to me to see a non-manager saying this is somehow the part they _like_. The best experience I've had with agile processes was also one of the least stressful and most relaxing workplaces I've been in. I knew what I had to work on, I could trust that it was the _right_ thing to work on that wouldn't be a waste of time, and I had no pressure to "push myself", what could get done in work hours was what could get done in work hours, and sometimes you had to schedule some R&D/exploration time too. (The analogy of "sprint" is actually alarming when you think about how it's used -- you can only "sprint" for a short distance, you can't do back-to-back springs for 20 miles, the human body doesn't work that way!) I think that may actually be one of the fundamental divides in "agile", whether someone is trying to use it as a productivity tool to "press ahead" developers who would otherwise be "lazy", to squeeze out the maximum possible work out of them, being unconcerned if you burn them out cause you can just replace them with another commoditized developer slotted into the "scrum".
- himynameisdom 7y ago
  I would agree the word "sprint" can conjure up a bad picture, but the agile manifesto clearly states the team should work at a sustainable pace. Nowhere in the Scrum Guide does it say you must work at a breakneck speed. Inputs for sprint planning include the relevant empirical data (velocity, burn down/up etc.) to help with planning. In my experience, these data points are used to measure productivity, which is dangerous. Companies end up measuring success by outputs, rather than outcomes. Business units need to stop weaponizing Agile and realize they too need to change in order to inspect and adapt towards building things people want.
  - jrochkind1 7y ago
    I agree that it is not inherent to Agile. (I'm more suspicious of "scrum", but I'll believe you that it's not either). Like I said, I've had GREAT experiences with agile practices, my _favorite_ workplaces have been using agile practices. Also terrible ones. Knowing that the terrible ones were "doing agile wrong" didn't make them less terrible. I even said very explicitly "It turns into a process that is more like waterfall, but..." So I'm a bit perturbed by your response insisting that this is not inherent to agile. When I was pretty explicit in saying that too. LOTS of companies _saying_ their doing agile result in misery, even worse than before they pretended to do agile. On the other hand, doing agile well can be wonderful. In order to figure out how to make more of the wonderful than the terrible, we have to get _beyond_ just pointing out that "the agile manifesto clearly states". Cause it's clearly stated that already, and it hasn't stopped the terrible.

by ausjke 7y ago

vbtemp 7y ago

Fascinating. The worst thing about agile I feel is the stand-up meeting. It encourages people just to say stuff and posture as being busy. I feel it encourages the worst part about agile -- that input (work) is more important than results (a working product).

himynameisdom 7y ago
If the team isn't relaying how their work is progressing towards the sprint goal, the daily scrum ends up turning into a status meaning, negating its intended purpose. The daily scrum is a planning meeting. It's meant to help the team understand the big picture scoped to 1 sprint while helping each other achieve a shared commitment.
smileysteve 7y ago
I've been on a variety of teams that do this differently. I once blew up when multiple people said that they were in [the scrum] meetings the day before; this is an example of saying things to account for your time, not to ensure the team is on the same page! I personally try to correct from this problem by asking questions whenever work may relate to me, and being very familiar with the backlog to know how things will coordinate. But also, I rant when people tell me about meetings without any conclusions for the team.
- dane-pgp 7y ago
  > I once blew up when multiple people said that they were in [the scrum] meetings the day before; this is an example of saying things to account for your time Have you considered the possibility that your temperament or personality might be the reason that multiple people on your team feel they have to pre-emptively justify themselves to avoid angry criticism? A meeting where people have to stand in front of their peers and potentially admit their failings can be quite anxiety-inducing if team members can't be trusted to respond in a professional manner.
  - smileysteve 7y ago
    "blew up" and "rant" implied more than intended; The team reacted really positively to the feedback and adjusted accordingly; The team became really healthy at preemptively pairing and parallelizing work, but - to your point adding personalized fun to the standup.

jrochkind1 7y ago

I have seen managers thinking the best thing about "agile" is enforcing staff discipline and maximal productivity ("stay on track", "press you ahead", "can not be too lazy"). It usually leads to a process that it really is still waterfall, but with, like, total surveillance and constant stress and developers being treated as interchangeable widgets. It is sad to me to see a non-manager saying this is somehow the part they _like_. The best experience I've had with agile processes was also one of the least stressful and most relaxing workplaces I've been in. I knew what I had to work on, I could trust that it was the _right_ thing to work on that wouldn't be a waste of time, and I had no pressure to "push myself", what could get done in work hours was what could get done in work hours, and sometimes you had to schedule some R&D/exploration time too. (The analogy of "sprint" is actually alarming when you think about how it's used -- you can only "sprint" for a short distance, you can't do back-to-back springs for 20 miles, the human body doesn't work that way!) I think that may actually be one of the fundamental divides in "agile", whether someone is trying to use it as a productivity tool to "press ahead" developers who would otherwise be "lazy", to squeeze out the maximum possible work out of them, being unconcerned if you burn them out cause you can just replace them with another commoditized developer slotted into the "scrum".

himynameisdom 7y ago
I would agree the word "sprint" can conjure up a bad picture, but the agile manifesto clearly states the team should work at a sustainable pace. Nowhere in the Scrum Guide does it say you must work at a breakneck speed. Inputs for sprint planning include the relevant empirical data (velocity, burn down/up etc.) to help with planning. In my experience, these data points are used to measure productivity, which is dangerous. Companies end up measuring success by outputs, rather than outcomes. Business units need to stop weaponizing Agile and realize they too need to change in order to inspect and adapt towards building things people want.
- jrochkind1 7y ago
  I agree that it is not inherent to Agile. (I'm more suspicious of "scrum", but I'll believe you that it's not either). Like I said, I've had GREAT experiences with agile practices, my _favorite_ workplaces have been using agile practices. Also terrible ones. Knowing that the terrible ones were "doing agile wrong" didn't make them less terrible. I even said very explicitly "It turns into a process that is more like waterfall, but..." So I'm a bit perturbed by your response insisting that this is not inherent to agile. When I was pretty explicit in saying that too. LOTS of companies _saying_ their doing agile result in misery, even worse than before they pretended to do agile. On the other hand, doing agile well can be wonderful. In order to figure out how to make more of the wonderful than the terrible, we have to get _beyond_ just pointing out that "the agile manifesto clearly states". Cause it's clearly stated that already, and it hasn't stopped the terrible.