3 ms·
This helps me understand why this widely reviled thing, Scrum, might be useful. It separates planning and execution and tells you to do one at a time. Maybe tha
by civilized 4y ago
This helps me understand why this widely reviled thing, Scrum, might be useful. It separates planning and execution and tells you to do one at a time. Maybe that's useful for teams that are struggling to adaptively interweave the two. And maybe by mastering them separately, they could get a step closer to juggling them together.
- cuddlybacon 4y agoWhen I started my career, most teams at my company were doing waterfall. The team I was hired onto was one of a couple guinea pigs for scrum. The other teams would spend 6 weeks doing nothing but planning activities. After the planning was done, they'd do a 12 month dev cycle. Once that was done they would throw what they have over the fence for the QA cycle. That is the world scrum was introduced to. People already thought planning and separate and couldn't be mixed. Scrum dragged them closer to interweaving them. People resisted, saying it was reckless and unprofessional. They looked at this and thought "so the plan is we don't plan anymore? we just wing it?". I think Agile has won enough that perhaps many specific processes meant to bridge the gap are now dragging people away from being more Agile.
- urthor 4y agoReally, I don't think that old world approach changed much with Scrum. The root cause is that most people are honestly not too amazing at this corporate teamwork thing. External frameworks like Scrum can improve things 10-20%, maybe.