4 ms·

The consultants behind AM are always hired by managers. I'm sure they agree what they do get for the money. Also being in same team with a stakeholder, you mini

by loopz 6y ago

The consultants behind AM are always hired by managers. I'm sure they agree what they do get for the money. Also being in same team with a stakeholder, you minimize coordination cost and adjust goals and plans according to value. The only thing with Agile, is there's no room for a management class inside such teams. So yes, empowering the team with all those responsibilities, this puts more in the hands of the people providing actual solutions. Though, the paperwork can be handled by staff. Managers facilitating this will be more like an overall PM for multiple efforts. This across functions, as that is how you can get most value and improve culture. Such work is actually worth higher compensation too!

rualca 6y ago
> Also being in same team with a stakeholder, you minimize coordination cost and adjust goals and plans according to value. I'm not sure we are on the same page regarding what "being on the same team" means, and thus what the problems and challenges are. Agile argues in favour of shared responsibility through the direct participation of stakeholders. Yet, that does not mean that clients and product owners and team leaders and junior developers don't have goals and responsibilities and resources that need to be otimized, and more importantly that there is no accountability. In agile you still have different stakeholders with their own goals. You still have work that needs to be done and prioritized. You still have to decide what needs to be done in a given time frame. That's what a manager does. Agile does not make that go away.
- loopz 6y ago
  I only take some issue in last two paragraphs. I'll only mention for Agile teams, not other kinds: In Agile team, the team is responsible. Management decides how to reach accountability, though in practice the team together can pull through more. Agile team wants stakeholders in team, or close to team. Team plans work according to agreements with stakeholders, but can never ever be forced to do anything against their explicit agreement. Which is why there's no room for management on the team. Agile teams sets managenent in their rightful place, and may work well when workloads, accountability and additional complexity are balanced within reason. Ensuring this for org, is too big for each team (indians). So chiefs are still needed around. Vs projects: Agile teams isn't suited in all circumstances. There might be important stakeholders, costs, dates, hard known requirements, regulatory and coordination needs, that makes projects more suitable methodologies. Projects are temporary and manager-lead (PM on team), however. Having a manager or PM in team though, isn't an Agile team. You need servant leaders on team, and managers wield too much power and information imbalance.

by loopz 6y ago

rualca 6y ago

> Also being in same team with a stakeholder, you minimize coordination cost and adjust goals and plans according to value. I'm not sure we are on the same page regarding what "being on the same team" means, and thus what the problems and challenges are. Agile argues in favour of shared responsibility through the direct participation of stakeholders. Yet, that does not mean that clients and product owners and team leaders and junior developers don't have goals and responsibilities and resources that need to be otimized, and more importantly that there is no accountability. In agile you still have different stakeholders with their own goals. You still have work that needs to be done and prioritized. You still have to decide what needs to be done in a given time frame. That's what a manager does. Agile does not make that go away.

loopz 6y ago
I only take some issue in last two paragraphs. I'll only mention for Agile teams, not other kinds: In Agile team, the team is responsible. Management decides how to reach accountability, though in practice the team together can pull through more. Agile team wants stakeholders in team, or close to team. Team plans work according to agreements with stakeholders, but can never ever be forced to do anything against their explicit agreement. Which is why there's no room for management on the team. Agile teams sets managenent in their rightful place, and may work well when workloads, accountability and additional complexity are balanced within reason. Ensuring this for org, is too big for each team (indians). So chiefs are still needed around. Vs projects: Agile teams isn't suited in all circumstances. There might be important stakeholders, costs, dates, hard known requirements, regulatory and coordination needs, that makes projects more suitable methodologies. Projects are temporary and manager-lead (PM on team), however. Having a manager or PM in team though, isn't an Agile team. You need servant leaders on team, and managers wield too much power and information imbalance.