4 ms·

Agile got widespread adoptions because of the micromanagement undertone of it, starting with the daily scrum. It's a slippery slope, way to easy to over do. The

by lalos 5y ago

Agile got widespread adoptions because of the micromanagement undertone of it, starting with the daily scrum. It's a slippery slope, way to easy to over do. The risk is it starts something to be gamed/incentivized instead of actual progress.

balp 5y ago
Agile and Scrum isn't the same thing. Even if Scrum in someways are agile. The "original" agile process, or the first videspread variant XP didn't mention any dailies. Scrum as such is much a way to adopt XP into a large cooperate environment.
rualca 5y ago
> Agile got widespread adoptions because of the micromanagement undertone of it, starting with the daily scrum. I would put things differently: micromanagers leveraged the agile and scrum buzzwords to justify and convey an aura of legitimacy to micromanaging. I mean, how many orgs forced daily meetings where workers are forced to enumerate what they did and delivered in a short time frame, but mysteriously left out the part where a feedback cycle exists to revise plans other than performance evaluation plans?
- smitty1e 5y ago
  Agile lives and dies by communication. Both amplitude and SNR matter, and have always been present in the proper ratios in the best engineering. Agile is very open to attack when it veers from a list of useful practices to try out in a given context and instead turns into dogma.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  > workers are forced to enumerate what they did and delivered in a short time frame This is one example how processes supercede people even though that is against the original agile manifesto.
- jq-r 5y ago
  Agreed completely. I was (and still are) on couple of different companies and teams practicing "Agile" and those daily standups are more like daily blamefests. God forbid you get stuck somewhere and need someone's help. Then you have to apologize because everyone thinks that you're lazy or incompetent and holding everyone down. Also if people wanted to know what I did yesterday, they could have a peek at the tickets they want us to keep up to date but no, they want us to say it anyway. Also that stupid "do you have any blockers" question. No I don't have any blockers, it is this bullshit technology/service everyone wants to use today, and discard tomorrow which I somehow need to be an expert of with 30 min of looking at some incoherent manuals. It seems to me, that all these buzzwords and meetings are just a way to always keep you "busy" (or at least looking busy), to always have some kind of fire below your feet so you don't "slack off" (or have a bit of free time to actually gain or sharpen the skills you need for the same company...). I'm just tired of this. In a way, good teams will be good, and bad teams will be bad, doesn't really depend on whatever process they have.
arendtio 5y ago
I think the fuss about the daily scrum is a perfect example of what is wrong with many Agile transformations. Often it seems that people talk about the 'micromanagement' and 'wasted time' as if they would not enjoy the daily. To me this is a warning, that something within the setup is not right. In general, micromanagement requires hierarchy, but I don't recall from the Scrum Guide [1] that a manager should be present or that directions should be given. So who is managing who? If done right, there should be absolutely no reason why there should be negative emotions involved: The devs get together and talk about their work and the challenges they want to share. It is about fostering communication. [1] https://scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html#daily-scrum https://scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html#daily-scrum
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  > negative emotions involved Because the daily standup can only be X minutes, someone always gets cut off, causing negative emotions.
  - pantalaimon 5y ago
    I'd say the much more common negative emotion is when you didn't manage to get the work done you had planned to do/spending way too long on a task and having to justify that in front of the team.
    - teamonkey 5y ago
      This smacks of a dysfunctional work environment, to be honest, and I don't think scrums are the problem.
arendtio 5y ago
One of the problems with Scrum is that it describes something close to a process (Plan > Dailys > Review > Retro > Repeat), while the Agile Manifesto states 'Individuals and interactions over processes and tools'. On the one hand, it is the reason why Scrum is so successful in corporate environments, on the other hand it is also somewhat non-agile. That is why I tend to call Scrum the least agile Agile Methodology and a good starting point for Agile transformations. Just don't forget to keep moving on as your Retros lead you the way.

by lalos 5y ago

balp 5y ago

Agile and Scrum isn't the same thing. Even if Scrum in someways are agile. The "original" agile process, or the first videspread variant XP didn't mention any dailies. Scrum as such is much a way to adopt XP into a large cooperate environment.

rualca 5y ago

> Agile got widespread adoptions because of the micromanagement undertone of it, starting with the daily scrum. I would put things differently: micromanagers leveraged the agile and scrum buzzwords to justify and convey an aura of legitimacy to micromanaging. I mean, how many orgs forced daily meetings where workers are forced to enumerate what they did and delivered in a short time frame, but mysteriously left out the part where a feedback cycle exists to revise plans other than performance evaluation plans?

smitty1e 5y ago
Agile lives and dies by communication. Both amplitude and SNR matter, and have always been present in the proper ratios in the best engineering. Agile is very open to attack when it veers from a list of useful practices to try out in a given context and instead turns into dogma.
TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
> workers are forced to enumerate what they did and delivered in a short time frame This is one example how processes supercede people even though that is against the original agile manifesto.
jq-r 5y ago
Agreed completely. I was (and still are) on couple of different companies and teams practicing "Agile" and those daily standups are more like daily blamefests. God forbid you get stuck somewhere and need someone's help. Then you have to apologize because everyone thinks that you're lazy or incompetent and holding everyone down. Also if people wanted to know what I did yesterday, they could have a peek at the tickets they want us to keep up to date but no, they want us to say it anyway. Also that stupid "do you have any blockers" question. No I don't have any blockers, it is this bullshit technology/service everyone wants to use today, and discard tomorrow which I somehow need to be an expert of with 30 min of looking at some incoherent manuals. It seems to me, that all these buzzwords and meetings are just a way to always keep you "busy" (or at least looking busy), to always have some kind of fire below your feet so you don't "slack off" (or have a bit of free time to actually gain or sharpen the skills you need for the same company...). I'm just tired of this. In a way, good teams will be good, and bad teams will be bad, doesn't really depend on whatever process they have.

arendtio 5y ago

I think the fuss about the daily scrum is a perfect example of what is wrong with many Agile transformations. Often it seems that people talk about the 'micromanagement' and 'wasted time' as if they would not enjoy the daily. To me this is a warning, that something within the setup is not right. In general, micromanagement requires hierarchy, but I don't recall from the Scrum Guide [1] that a manager should be present or that directions should be given. So who is managing who? If done right, there should be absolutely no reason why there should be negative emotions involved: The devs get together and talk about their work and the challenges they want to share. It is about fostering communication. [1] https://scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html#daily-scrum https://scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html#daily-scrum

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
> negative emotions involved Because the daily standup can only be X minutes, someone always gets cut off, causing negative emotions.
- pantalaimon 5y ago
  I'd say the much more common negative emotion is when you didn't manage to get the work done you had planned to do/spending way too long on a task and having to justify that in front of the team.
  - teamonkey 5y ago
    This smacks of a dysfunctional work environment, to be honest, and I don't think scrums are the problem.

arendtio 5y ago

One of the problems with Scrum is that it describes something close to a process (Plan > Dailys > Review > Retro > Repeat), while the Agile Manifesto states 'Individuals and interactions over processes and tools'. On the one hand, it is the reason why Scrum is so successful in corporate environments, on the other hand it is also somewhat non-agile. That is why I tend to call Scrum the least agile Agile Methodology and a good starting point for Agile transformations. Just don't forget to keep moving on as your Retros lead you the way.