4 ms·

If you mean can a strong team follow an agile methodology and be successful, then definitely. If you mean can an agile methodology make a weak team successful,

If you mean can a strong team follow an agile methodology and be successful, then definitely. If you mean can an agile methodology make a weak team successful, then I doubt it. I haven't seen a methodology that creates vision and discipline which are far more important than how you model your workflow.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
Your "strong team" has to include product and engineering management, though, not just engineers. If you don't have management that "gets it", they're going to ruin the team's ability to actually be agile, because they're going to try to be "agile" according to some bureaucratic process.
- mindcrime 4y ago
  If you don't have management that "gets it", they're going to ruin the team's ability to actually be agile BINGO! I'd posit that a LOT (maybe most) teams that claim to be using Scrum or another "agile" methodology are totally screwing the pooch for this exact reason - management doesn't really "get it" and layers all of their shitty bureaucratic nonsense on top of the core agile methodology. That's the fault of shitty managers, not the fault of the methodology.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    Well... yes, but it's not easy for the managers. There is a fundamental, total disconnect between the world of PERT charts and the agile world. That disconnect happens somewhere. If your manager gets agile, does their manager? Their manager's manager? Somewhere there has to be someone who can go both ways - who can be "agile down" and "non-agile up". If you don't have that person, then you get some flavor of "PERT chart agile", which isn't actually agile at all.
    - mindcrime 4y ago
      Truth. In actuality, it's best if the understanding of "agile" extends literally all the way to the CEO (and board). Not sure how many companies can claim this today though.
    - hahnbee 4y ago
      What does it even mean for everybody to "get it"?
hahnbee 4y ago
That's interesting. I feel like the whole point of implementing something as bureaucratic as scrum is specifically to have high visibility over individuals that could be slacking and keeping them in check (AKA components of a weak team). If your team is already high performing and successful I would be of the opinion that they don't need to follow the scrum framework. Although I agree with you in that I'm not sure if implementing scrum will necessarily mean that it will make a weak team successful.
treis 4y ago
IMHO if they follow the principles of agile or scrum it will make a weak team better. Simply shipping something no matter how small every 2-4 weeks can fix a whole swath of problems. Or if not fix at least bring them to light.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

Your "strong team" has to include product and engineering management, though, not just engineers. If you don't have management that "gets it", they're going to ruin the team's ability to actually be agile, because they're going to try to be "agile" according to some bureaucratic process.

mindcrime 4y ago
If you don't have management that "gets it", they're going to ruin the team's ability to actually be agile BINGO! I'd posit that a LOT (maybe most) teams that claim to be using Scrum or another "agile" methodology are totally screwing the pooch for this exact reason - management doesn't really "get it" and layers all of their shitty bureaucratic nonsense on top of the core agile methodology. That's the fault of shitty managers, not the fault of the methodology.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  Well... yes, but it's not easy for the managers. There is a fundamental, total disconnect between the world of PERT charts and the agile world. That disconnect happens somewhere. If your manager gets agile, does their manager? Their manager's manager? Somewhere there has to be someone who can go both ways - who can be "agile down" and "non-agile up". If you don't have that person, then you get some flavor of "PERT chart agile", which isn't actually agile at all.
  - mindcrime 4y ago
    Truth. In actuality, it's best if the understanding of "agile" extends literally all the way to the CEO (and board). Not sure how many companies can claim this today though.
  - hahnbee 4y ago
    What does it even mean for everybody to "get it"?

hahnbee 4y ago

That's interesting. I feel like the whole point of implementing something as bureaucratic as scrum is specifically to have high visibility over individuals that could be slacking and keeping them in check (AKA components of a weak team). If your team is already high performing and successful I would be of the opinion that they don't need to follow the scrum framework. Although I agree with you in that I'm not sure if implementing scrum will necessarily mean that it will make a weak team successful.

treis 4y ago

IMHO if they follow the principles of agile or scrum it will make a weak team better. Simply shipping something no matter how small every 2-4 weeks can fix a whole swath of problems. Or if not fix at least bring them to light.