4 ms·
Without know any details I can easily say 20 managers in a room for an hour giving updates is for sure not “agile”. It also contributes to a lot of the other e
by social_quotient 5y ago
Without know any details I can easily say 20 managers in a room for an hour giving updates is for sure not “agile”.
It also contributes to a lot of the other examples in this convo chain. Bad agile is bad. Just like bad waterfall is bad.
A key tenant to agile is the reduction of inefficient processes. So in the next retrospective I would nominate that there are no longer weekly 20 person meetings.
- twic 5y agoOn the other hand, that's an hour during which none of those managers are bothering programmers.
- social_quotient 5y agoTrue and believe me I get the point… but the scrum master job is supposed to play defense so people don’t bother the dev team.
- jcims 5y agoIt just sounds like a scrum of scrums on a tricky project. I'm on a major project now where there are 80-90 people across around a dozen workstreams trying to stay coordinated on a fast moving project in a highly regulated industry. We usually wrap in 20-30 mins but it has definitely taken hour in the past just due to the sheer number of interdependencies and hard gates.
- social_quotient 5y ago20-30 sounds reasonable. And should more in the weeds discussion be needed it should become the source of specific follow ups. It’s the standing 1 hour meeting where some people leave thinking it’s a waste of time. The waste is what agile is about, or not about. If it’s productive, needed, or even just healthy then it’s appropriate IMO. Thx for sharing.
- emperorcezar 5y agoAh yes. They are no true Scotsman.