3 ms·

"Sprints" are a very bad name, giving the impression that the team is always running, which is a bad for morale and quality. In reality, they are just "cycles".

"Sprints" are a very bad name, giving the impression that the team is always running, which is a bad for morale and quality. In reality, they are just "cycles". I see them like CPU cycles, but for a team. They are a heartbeat keeping team members in sync. It's all about answering what's my next task when I'm done with the current one. If you I work alone, or in a very small team, with no external stakeholder, then I can answer that "just in time" and don't need cycles. But if I work in a larger team and/or with external stakeholders, then it's not practical to do this "just in time", gathering everyone to decide what should be the next task, every time a team member completes a task. In that case, we need to batch the planning work. That's what cycles are for. I agree with the author that too often the process feels unnecessarily bureaucratic, and I really dislike the "sprint" terminology, but I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Cycles still have a purpose.

rcktmrtn 4y ago
> "Sprints" are a very bad name, giving the impression that the team is always running, which is a bad for morale and quality. In reality, they are just "cycles". Agree. Actually, my first experience with Agile used the term "iteration" instead of "sprint" which I thought made much more sense. Everywhere else I've been has used the word "sprint". I suppose a "sprint" does includes three parts: start, run, stop; parallel to an iteration of the development cycle: branch, develop, reintegrate. My paranoid, anti-management brain still thinks the fact that sprint for most people is associated primarily with speed rather than starting/stopping is a feature, not a bug. In this case idea of always being in a "sprint" is inherently stupid and insulting. Anyway, another word to file alongside "grooming" for Agile words with unpleasant associations.
- ngrilly 4y ago
  Yes, "iteration" is another good alternative. Good point on the start/run/stop semantic, but like you wrote, I guess most people associate sprint with speed more than starting/stopping :)

rcktmrtn 4y ago

> "Sprints" are a very bad name, giving the impression that the team is always running, which is a bad for morale and quality. In reality, they are just "cycles". Agree. Actually, my first experience with Agile used the term "iteration" instead of "sprint" which I thought made much more sense. Everywhere else I've been has used the word "sprint". I suppose a "sprint" does includes three parts: start, run, stop; parallel to an iteration of the development cycle: branch, develop, reintegrate. My paranoid, anti-management brain still thinks the fact that sprint for most people is associated primarily with speed rather than starting/stopping is a feature, not a bug. In this case idea of always being in a "sprint" is inherently stupid and insulting. Anyway, another word to file alongside "grooming" for Agile words with unpleasant associations.

ngrilly 4y ago
Yes, "iteration" is another good alternative. Good point on the start/run/stop semantic, but like you wrote, I guess most people associate sprint with speed more than starting/stopping :)