3 ms·

Well, the act of timing changes everything. it will affect the total duration as people will deliberately hurry up. That is actually a good idea, but it's the

by vfc1 7y ago

Well, the act of timing changes everything. it will affect the total duration as people will deliberately hurry up. That is actually a good idea, but it's the first time I heard about it. In most companies, this is not done. Also, it's not just the literal time of the meeting. It's the time people spend waiting for the meeting, chatting, reading email instead of working on their main task for the day. It's about the interruption cost and the disruption of what you were doing, not about the literal cost in minutes. Also, most developers don't have a saying in how much work is assigned to them. Usually, they are over assigned already and the cost of the standup is not accounted for in how long tasks should take. Add all standups of a week, and you have half a morning of work per week down the drain. That's a lot and again that is literal total time only, and does not account for interruption cost.

Quarrelsome 7y ago
I don't literally state we're on a clock, its just that Microsoft teams tells me how long the call takes and its pretty much 10 minutes every time (usually a little less). I would argue that if you don't have your stand-ups at a consistent time with everyone ready to go (and then back to work) or have enough time to spare 10 minutes a day then that isn't a healthy work environment. I personally view the negative connotations with stand ups here as a "DAE hate stand-ups?" circlejerk where people get to drag all their concerns about work into a bin of "standup" and blame standups for these issues. Maybe the organiser doesn't respect the start time, maybe you have a "waffler" and nobody has the spine to tell them to be more concise, maybe your IT department sucks so the calls are always full of technical issues. I would assert that a healthy well-run stand up has none of these issues. I get that they're more value for some than others and not everyone is into them but objectively they're very useful tool for the health of the group as a whole. Specifically I would encourage more senior members of staff to acknowledge the value they give to more junior members of staff. For some of them the standup is a golden opportunity to seek guidance and acknowledgement.
surt666 7y ago
If work are assigned to devs, then you are not doing agile anyway. It's supposed to be a pull system of tasks

by vfc1 7y ago

Quarrelsome 7y ago

I don't literally state we're on a clock, its just that Microsoft teams tells me how long the call takes and its pretty much 10 minutes every time (usually a little less). I would argue that if you don't have your stand-ups at a consistent time with everyone ready to go (and then back to work) or have enough time to spare 10 minutes a day then that isn't a healthy work environment. I personally view the negative connotations with stand ups here as a "DAE hate stand-ups?" circlejerk where people get to drag all their concerns about work into a bin of "standup" and blame standups for these issues. Maybe the organiser doesn't respect the start time, maybe you have a "waffler" and nobody has the spine to tell them to be more concise, maybe your IT department sucks so the calls are always full of technical issues. I would assert that a healthy well-run stand up has none of these issues. I get that they're more value for some than others and not everyone is into them but objectively they're very useful tool for the health of the group as a whole. Specifically I would encourage more senior members of staff to acknowledge the value they give to more junior members of staff. For some of them the standup is a golden opportunity to seek guidance and acknowledgement.

surt666 7y ago

If work are assigned to devs, then you are not doing agile anyway. It's supposed to be a pull system of tasks