3 ms·

We can start by recognizing that scrum and agile cannot replace actual development talent. When companies throw additional scrum masters and project managers in

We can start by recognizing that scrum and agile cannot replace actual development talent. When companies throw additional scrum masters and project managers into a failing project, the project only fails faster. People first, tools second, and then process.

pempem 4y ago
^ this is agile. at least "people first" - then its process and tools. Tools are last, because there are always new tools and the way you do something should be somewhat consistent within a team/org even if the tools aren't While scrum/agile does not = more developers, it can be leveraged to actually grow a developer's career and skills when done well.
- rawgabbit 4y ago
  As a technophile, I always disagree with that sentiment. Michelangelo cannot sculpt the Pieta with a sledgehammer and sticks. These days we need highly specialized tools to do our work. These highly specialized tools require specialized developers. The only alternative to this is low code/no code tools. Low code/no code is great for green field projects, as you can ensure a steady pipeline of such developers.
  - pempem 4y ago
    oh my. In a world of continously created saas pursuing bits of walletshare and department budgets endlessly I would say there is a small % of tools that are specialized and uniquely required. There's also a TON of tools that are preference based selection. Michelangelo sculpted with one set of tools and painted with another. Klimt may have had some overlap with one and none with the other set. Neither was being doggedly pursued by salespeople or having decisions about tools made by their bosses. IMO: Its not an apt metaphor in the slightest.
bladelessninja2 4y ago
One of the first things Scrum says is that you need to have a team with skills that ensures the job done. Same with Agile: literally says about "motivated individuals" and "self-organizing teams". So, arguably, you are not talking about Scrum nor Agile in those failing projects - you just share this naive view I saw in some managers: "we just put scrum master here and thus we have scrum implemented".
- rawgabbit 4y ago
  I was not referring to "motivated individuals". I was referring to developers with actual technical skills and actual experience with the tools used by the development team. What I often see is management being told we can hire the cheapest developers with zero experience and throw in scrum/agile... and we will achieve the same outcomes. The result is a mountain of tech debt and pagers going off at all hours at the day.
  - bladelessninja2 4y ago
    Well, scrum literally says that the team should have skills needed to get the job done, so you can still defend scrum, whereas agile says about putting people's interactions over processes and about pursuing technical excellence, so creating tech debt is still not agile. So, I'm not sure if we can agree on that, but, arguably, I believe it is not scrum or agile that are failing, but management who doesn't want to be agile or/and follow scrum. This is my experience numerous talk I had on escalated level when my team was rising issues with management.
marsven_422 4y ago

pempem 4y ago

^ this is agile. at least "people first" - then its process and tools. Tools are last, because there are always new tools and the way you do something should be somewhat consistent within a team/org even if the tools aren't While scrum/agile does not = more developers, it can be leveraged to actually grow a developer's career and skills when done well.

rawgabbit 4y ago
As a technophile, I always disagree with that sentiment. Michelangelo cannot sculpt the Pieta with a sledgehammer and sticks. These days we need highly specialized tools to do our work. These highly specialized tools require specialized developers. The only alternative to this is low code/no code tools. Low code/no code is great for green field projects, as you can ensure a steady pipeline of such developers.
- pempem 4y ago
  oh my. In a world of continously created saas pursuing bits of walletshare and department budgets endlessly I would say there is a small % of tools that are specialized and uniquely required. There's also a TON of tools that are preference based selection. Michelangelo sculpted with one set of tools and painted with another. Klimt may have had some overlap with one and none with the other set. Neither was being doggedly pursued by salespeople or having decisions about tools made by their bosses. IMO: Its not an apt metaphor in the slightest.

bladelessninja2 4y ago

One of the first things Scrum says is that you need to have a team with skills that ensures the job done. Same with Agile: literally says about "motivated individuals" and "self-organizing teams". So, arguably, you are not talking about Scrum nor Agile in those failing projects - you just share this naive view I saw in some managers: "we just put scrum master here and thus we have scrum implemented".

rawgabbit 4y ago
I was not referring to "motivated individuals". I was referring to developers with actual technical skills and actual experience with the tools used by the development team. What I often see is management being told we can hire the cheapest developers with zero experience and throw in scrum/agile... and we will achieve the same outcomes. The result is a mountain of tech debt and pagers going off at all hours at the day.
- bladelessninja2 4y ago
  Well, scrum literally says that the team should have skills needed to get the job done, so you can still defend scrum, whereas agile says about putting people's interactions over processes and about pursuing technical excellence, so creating tech debt is still not agile. So, I'm not sure if we can agree on that, but, arguably, I believe it is not scrum or agile that are failing, but management who doesn't want to be agile or/and follow scrum. This is my experience numerous talk I had on escalated level when my team was rising issues with management.

marsven_422 4y ago