4 ms·

At every former company, where we tried to use Agile or sprints, we ended up reaching a system where we just had basically "one big rolling sprint". Every two w

At every former company, where we tried to use Agile or sprints, we ended up reaching a system where we just had basically "one big rolling sprint". Every two weeks, only a few tasks were actually done, and every task got pulled into the next "sprint". Combine this with the fact that we weren't delivering any artifacts at the end of the sprint, so we didn't have any feedback from stakeholders and weren't really iterating either.

JimDabell 3y ago
> we ended up reaching a system where we just had basically "one big rolling sprint". But there’s no such thing as “one big rolling sprint” though. If it’s “one big rolling…” then it can’t be a sprint. It’s like dehydrated water. It’s conceptually incoherent. To untangle the wording of this, when you say your process became “one big rolling sprint”, what you’re actually saying is that you stopped using sprints, aren’t you?
- atoav 3y ago
  How can it be a sprint if nobody is running? /s
- zo1 3y ago
  Also known as the No True Scotsman argument https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman. "You weren't doing real Agile™". The only reason I'm posting this is because we have had similar things happen in almost every attempt at using sprints. They're just not suited for any sort of formal/business context where you don't have absolute and frankly religious buy-in to the concept.
  - 261582335426158 3y ago
    It is a fallacy only if in support of "Trying to use sprints will improve your organization", it would not be a fallacy if in support of "The benefit of sprints are real but only if used properly" where properly is defined in some clear a priori way.
  - JimDabell 3y ago
    The “No true Scotsman” fallacy is when you introduce unrelated criteria to disqualify something that would ordinarily be a member of a group. It’s perfectly reasonable to point out that somebody who was not born in Scotland, does not have Scottish family, does not hold any kind of British citizenship, and has never even set foot in Scotland is not, in fact, a Scotsman. That’s not a fallacy. A sprint is a discrete period of time in which discrete software development tasks happen. A “rolling sprint” is conceptually void. You can’t have a discrete period of time that lasts indefinitely any more than you can have dehydrated water. The “rolling” part and the “sprint” part are mutually exclusive. I’m not even saying that they weren’t “doing real Agile” – I’m pointing out that what is being described has literally no meaning at all. You can’t be good or bad at it because it’s a meaningless term.
    - tacozilla 3y ago
      The purpose of language is to communicate, and audiodude did that quite effectively given the fact I chuckled when I read their comment, because I knew exactly what they meant. A "rolling sprint" might be an oxymoron, but it certainly isn't conceptually void. It quite literally does have meaning considering I and many others clearly understood the point he was making through his personal anecdote.
BaseballPhysics 3y ago
Sounds like you would've been better off with kanban. Did you ever consider switching?
- jimbob45 3y ago
  In my experience, the people choosing between Scrum and Kansan are not the ones participating in the Scrum/Kanban. Modern leadership attempts to take away as much agency as possible and wonders why everyone hates them.
  - js8 3y ago
    > Modern leadership attempts to take away as much agency as possible and wonders why everyone hates them. Not that I disagree, but I think it's not modern. In the past, it was probably simply much more accepted that the agency is taken away by authorities, that's just how life is. I think people grew much less tolerant of that recently (which honestly I think is a good development), and more willing to question authorities in general. The hate part then comes from nostalgia.
  - BaseballPhysics 3y ago
    First, that wasn't my question, nor was it you I was asking. But sure, let's go with this. Frankly, this reeks of empty cynicism and we can do better than that around here. Your experience is also far from universal. In my previous company I was part of the leadership core and not only did teams have agency to decide what process to use, we were actively encouraging teams to consider alternatives since our practices had become pretty frozen over time (old habits, etc). Maybe your problem is you just found yourself at shitty companies. The world is a big one out there.
YZF 3y ago
From my experience it can work. I've worked on a team where we got really good at estimating, had really useful planning sessions, a good backlog. Worked pretty well and had some advantages in terms of getting the team to be engaged and take ownership. The problem with Agile in general is that it can easily be twisted around to make anything you want. A great team doesn't need agile methods, but it can use them and still be great, and possibly even get some improvement with careful use. Agile intended to fix organizations but organizations don't want to be fixed, and certainly not by a bunch of software people...
ssss11 3y ago
In my experience I’ve found (1) some teams don’t embrace it, (2) some teams don’t break down large tasks or (3) it’s not suited to the work. Each of these result in your rolling sprint. I absolutely hate seeing buzzwords for the sake of them but often the work simply doesn’t work well with sprints.
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
That sounds like a lack of discipline and retrospection. This is also the problem I have with scrum; people don't stick to the process, and cite how the agile manifesto says that the process isn't important. But this is a misconception. Stick to the process (religiously) at first, then assess how it works. In this case: you did not meet your sprint goals, which either meant you overcommitted (meaning the next sprint you pick up less work), the tasks did not meet the definition of ready (that is, they could not be finished in a single sprint), or you had impediments that weren't solved on time. All of those need to be spoken out loud during a retrospective session, and action undertaken. Not having any artifacts isn't the issue, you still need to set a moment to stop your work, review what has been done, consider what went well and what could be better, learn and improve. If the learning is that scrum doesn't work for you - and you can show that you did it properly - then there's other processes that might work better for you, as suggested.
- lloydatkinson 3y ago
  How typical to blame it on the devs instead of leadership.
  - siva7 3y ago
    I don't see where parent puts blame but let's not act like all devs are angels
siva7 3y ago
That’s a sign of ineffective product management and bad feedback culture. When the foundation lacks, agile can’t be done successfully. I’ve seen what you described a few times but also many times where it works as long as the foundation is good.

JimDabell 3y ago

> we ended up reaching a system where we just had basically "one big rolling sprint". But there’s no such thing as “one big rolling sprint” though. If it’s “one big rolling…” then it can’t be a sprint. It’s like dehydrated water. It’s conceptually incoherent. To untangle the wording of this, when you say your process became “one big rolling sprint”, what you’re actually saying is that you stopped using sprints, aren’t you?

atoav 3y ago
How can it be a sprint if nobody is running? /s
zo1 3y ago
Also known as the No True Scotsman argument https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman. "You weren't doing real Agile™". The only reason I'm posting this is because we have had similar things happen in almost every attempt at using sprints. They're just not suited for any sort of formal/business context where you don't have absolute and frankly religious buy-in to the concept.
- 261582335426158 3y ago
  It is a fallacy only if in support of "Trying to use sprints will improve your organization", it would not be a fallacy if in support of "The benefit of sprints are real but only if used properly" where properly is defined in some clear a priori way.
- JimDabell 3y ago
  The “No true Scotsman” fallacy is when you introduce unrelated criteria to disqualify something that would ordinarily be a member of a group. It’s perfectly reasonable to point out that somebody who was not born in Scotland, does not have Scottish family, does not hold any kind of British citizenship, and has never even set foot in Scotland is not, in fact, a Scotsman. That’s not a fallacy. A sprint is a discrete period of time in which discrete software development tasks happen. A “rolling sprint” is conceptually void. You can’t have a discrete period of time that lasts indefinitely any more than you can have dehydrated water. The “rolling” part and the “sprint” part are mutually exclusive. I’m not even saying that they weren’t “doing real Agile” – I’m pointing out that what is being described has literally no meaning at all. You can’t be good or bad at it because it’s a meaningless term.
  - tacozilla 3y ago
    The purpose of language is to communicate, and audiodude did that quite effectively given the fact I chuckled when I read their comment, because I knew exactly what they meant. A "rolling sprint" might be an oxymoron, but it certainly isn't conceptually void. It quite literally does have meaning considering I and many others clearly understood the point he was making through his personal anecdote.

BaseballPhysics 3y ago

Sounds like you would've been better off with kanban. Did you ever consider switching?

jimbob45 3y ago
In my experience, the people choosing between Scrum and Kansan are not the ones participating in the Scrum/Kanban. Modern leadership attempts to take away as much agency as possible and wonders why everyone hates them.
- js8 3y ago
  > Modern leadership attempts to take away as much agency as possible and wonders why everyone hates them. Not that I disagree, but I think it's not modern. In the past, it was probably simply much more accepted that the agency is taken away by authorities, that's just how life is. I think people grew much less tolerant of that recently (which honestly I think is a good development), and more willing to question authorities in general. The hate part then comes from nostalgia.
- BaseballPhysics 3y ago
  First, that wasn't my question, nor was it you I was asking. But sure, let's go with this. Frankly, this reeks of empty cynicism and we can do better than that around here. Your experience is also far from universal. In my previous company I was part of the leadership core and not only did teams have agency to decide what process to use, we were actively encouraging teams to consider alternatives since our practices had become pretty frozen over time (old habits, etc). Maybe your problem is you just found yourself at shitty companies. The world is a big one out there.

YZF 3y ago

From my experience it can work. I've worked on a team where we got really good at estimating, had really useful planning sessions, a good backlog. Worked pretty well and had some advantages in terms of getting the team to be engaged and take ownership. The problem with Agile in general is that it can easily be twisted around to make anything you want. A great team doesn't need agile methods, but it can use them and still be great, and possibly even get some improvement with careful use. Agile intended to fix organizations but organizations don't want to be fixed, and certainly not by a bunch of software people...

ssss11 3y ago

In my experience I’ve found (1) some teams don’t embrace it, (2) some teams don’t break down large tasks or (3) it’s not suited to the work. Each of these result in your rolling sprint. I absolutely hate seeing buzzwords for the sake of them but often the work simply doesn’t work well with sprints.

Cthulhu_ 3y ago

That sounds like a lack of discipline and retrospection. This is also the problem I have with scrum; people don't stick to the process, and cite how the agile manifesto says that the process isn't important. But this is a misconception. Stick to the process (religiously) at first, then assess how it works. In this case: you did not meet your sprint goals, which either meant you overcommitted (meaning the next sprint you pick up less work), the tasks did not meet the definition of ready (that is, they could not be finished in a single sprint), or you had impediments that weren't solved on time. All of those need to be spoken out loud during a retrospective session, and action undertaken. Not having any artifacts isn't the issue, you still need to set a moment to stop your work, review what has been done, consider what went well and what could be better, learn and improve. If the learning is that scrum doesn't work for you - and you can show that you did it properly - then there's other processes that might work better for you, as suggested.

lloydatkinson 3y ago
How typical to blame it on the devs instead of leadership.
- siva7 3y ago
  I don't see where parent puts blame but let's not act like all devs are angels

siva7 3y ago

That’s a sign of ineffective product management and bad feedback culture. When the foundation lacks, agile can’t be done successfully. I’ve seen what you described a few times but also many times where it works as long as the foundation is good.