3 ms·
This rings true to me. The way scrum works in practice is a, forgive my language, perverse inversion where the process has become the goal and the outcomes are
by Lutger 3y ago
This rings true to me. The way scrum works in practice is a, forgive my language, perverse inversion where the process has become the goal and the outcomes are less important.
I worked with 4 weeks, 2 weeks and 1 weeks sprints, and with 'just kanban' as well. I now work with Shape-Up, where the build cycle is 4 to 6 weeks, but rather than having a backlog we just have a defined (and designed) problem solution and get to create user stories (or whatever) when we need it and often fill in a significant amount of detail as we start tackling the problem space.
We started working in pairs, sometimes but not always pair programming, so most of the planning work is just with your buddy and fairly ad-hoc, it doesn't cost the whole team. This works pretty well.
But a good team will invent an ad-hoc 'process' on the fly as is required to solve problems, without descending into chaos.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> But a good team will invent an ad-hoc 'process' on the fly as is required to solve problems, without descending into chaos. This is the heart of agile, but rarely gets implemented, in part because the Agile advocacy was not largely directed at the people who make the decisions that make implementation possible, but at people who lack that power.
- wpietri 3y agoFor sure. XP looked at first glance to be heavily prescriptive. But the initial set of practices were always meant as a starting point for a team. The notion was to give them a safe context in which to experiment and adapt. That was never really compatible with large companies, where managers need to feel in control and appear actively responsible for success. It also wasn't compatible with a top-down desire for "legibility". So in practice we end up with uniform process that's a bad fit for individual breeds