4 ms·

I actually like scrum but would say most people I have worked with have no clue what it is about. My scrum master for example mindlessly follows 'the rules' but

I actually like scrum but would say most people I have worked with have no clue what it is about. My scrum master for example mindlessly follows 'the rules' but does little to actually improve our teams productivity. They just make sure we do the meetings, fill in the right form in the retro, etc. Same with the sprints, we 'plan' our work in two weeks, when it won't fit, we just split it in part 1 & 2. We don't actually have working software at the end of the sprint, but we did it in two weeks right? It's a cargo cult. To me scrum is a bunch of guidelines that can give you some framework to start from, you try it out, and you see what works, what doesn't. You iterate on the process just as you iterate on the code, no fixed rules, but not too loose neither. But ambiguity, nuance, and context never work well in a corporate setting... I don't think we need a better process, we need better middle management.

packetlost 4y ago
I'm in the same boat. The way my team operates grew mostly organically, with the only 2 things that were more-or-less set were the 2-week sprints and the end-of-sprint retrospectives; and even those were brought up as things we can change if we aren't getting value out of them. When used this way, it's basically setting a cadence for trial and error and figuring out what works and what doesn't. This is especially important when teams grow and scale out, as things that may have worked for a team of 6 won't work for a team of 12.
nmstoker 4y ago
Completely agree. It's the mindless nature that's the red flag here. I met a guy who came across as quite fluent in these meetings but quickly you would realise he didn't know what any of it meant - it was like the Chinese Room. With that little connection with anything it was impossible for people to pick up basic errors, it was just rote learning and soon it spread to others; no one was equipped to make sensible suggestions as they couldn't see the big picture and didn't really know what the things they did were actually for let alone the "why" ("Oh, so we're building a ship... to float on the water? Thanks!", turns back to keyboard, resumes vacant look)

packetlost 4y ago

I'm in the same boat. The way my team operates grew mostly organically, with the only 2 things that were more-or-less set were the 2-week sprints and the end-of-sprint retrospectives; and even those were brought up as things we can change if we aren't getting value out of them. When used this way, it's basically setting a cadence for trial and error and figuring out what works and what doesn't. This is especially important when teams grow and scale out, as things that may have worked for a team of 6 won't work for a team of 12.

nmstoker 4y ago

Completely agree. It's the mindless nature that's the red flag here. I met a guy who came across as quite fluent in these meetings but quickly you would realise he didn't know what any of it meant - it was like the Chinese Room. With that little connection with anything it was impossible for people to pick up basic errors, it was just rote learning and soon it spread to others; no one was equipped to make sensible suggestions as they couldn't see the big picture and didn't really know what the things they did were actually for let alone the "why" ("Oh, so we're building a ship... to float on the water? Thanks!", turns back to keyboard, resumes vacant look)