3 ms·

"Sure it can... If he lies every day about what he does, the longest he can go is one sprint before his work gets verified." That's not fixing bad communicati

"Sure it can... If he lies every day about what he does, the longest he can go is one sprint before his work gets verified." That's not fixing bad communication. That's wrapping it up in process, and calling it "good enough". The team communication, and probably its morale and output, still sucks. "etc. Pretty much what actually happens at a construction site" That communication happens continuously, throughout the day. If isn't happening continuously, throwing a standup at it ain't gonna fix it.

vannevar 15y ago
That's wrapping it up in process, and calling it "good enough". "Good enough" is certainly better than "not good enough". And it doesn't have anything to do with morale. The team's morale might be sky-high and they can still make mistakes because person A didn't know what person B was doing in a timely fashion. People have a tendency to overestimate their skills in general, and communication is no exception. Standups are just a form of insurance and cost almost nothing. Even if your team communicates like they're telepathic, 15 minutes a day in standup isn't going to hurt them. If isn't happening continuously, throwing a standup at it ain't gonna fix it. If I'm managing 5 job sites, I'm not there continuously. It might not be perfect, but once a day sure beats nothing. Most of the time when someone is doing something wrong, they don't know they're doing something wrong. No one is going to call me up and say, "Hey, I'm about to do something stupid and wanted to run it by you."
- itsreallynotme 15y ago
  "Good enough" is certainly better than "not good enough". In the scenario that you described, someone went from not communicating at all to lying every day, and getting "caught" at the end of a sprint. Standups didn't fix anything there. Also, there is a world of difference between calling something good enough, and it being good enough. If I'm managing 5 job sites ... once a day sure beats nothing If, as a manager of 5 teams, you feel like you need a direct, daily report of what every person on every team does, your life is going to be hard. If you attempt to control those teams by adding more process, you will interfere with the productivity of your good teams, and your bad teams will continue to suck.
  - vannevar 15y ago
    The scenario isn't about the lying, I was just anticipating the argument that the standup wouldn't improve communication if someone wanted to subvert it. The basic situation---a teammate who isn't communicative---can only be 'fixed' by getting him to communicate. You might argue that I fire him and spend weeks looking for someone who codes as well, or alternatively hire a 'communication coach' to help him with his personal problem (I'm not sure what solutions you're offering) but I prefer the vastly simpler option of just having a standup. Which also solves the problem of good communicators who don't realize they've got something worthwhile to communicate. We don't do standups to fix broken team communication. We do standups to augment ordinary team communication. If you've got an uncommunicative team member, that's not unusual. If you don't have an uncommunicative team member, now that's unusual. If, as a manager of 5 teams, you feel like you need a direct, daily report of what every person on every team does, your life is going to be hard. I may or may not need the report, but I want to make sure that every member of every team knows what's going on on their team. That's not adding process for process' sake, it's just ensuring communication rather than leaving it to chance or some utopian vision of human nature. A 15-minute standup isn't going to hurt a good team's productivity, while it could greatly improve the productivity of a mediocre team.
    - itsreallynotme 15y ago
      A 15-minute standup isn't going to hurt a good team's productivity, while it could greatly improve the productivity of a mediocre team. It takes a lot to noticeably hurt a good team's productivity. But it's mean, just fucking mean, to punish a good, productive, communicative team with more process because you also manage crappy teams.
      - vannevar 15y ago
        [I]t's mean, just fucking mean, to punish a good, productive, communicative team... I didn't say standups don't benefit good teams; quite the opposite. You've missed (or ignored) my point that even good communicators miss conveying important information sometimes. And if the team is really so naturally communicative, they're hardly going to view a standup as punishment. Again, I have to really wonder what kind of standups you've been subjected to that would trigger your revulsion. It's like being violently opposed to eating with a fork. Technically, no, you don't need one but it often helps. Either way, it's nothing to get worked up over.

vannevar 15y ago

That's wrapping it up in process, and calling it "good enough". "Good enough" is certainly better than "not good enough". And it doesn't have anything to do with morale. The team's morale might be sky-high and they can still make mistakes because person A didn't know what person B was doing in a timely fashion. People have a tendency to overestimate their skills in general, and communication is no exception. Standups are just a form of insurance and cost almost nothing. Even if your team communicates like they're telepathic, 15 minutes a day in standup isn't going to hurt them. If isn't happening continuously, throwing a standup at it ain't gonna fix it. If I'm managing 5 job sites, I'm not there continuously. It might not be perfect, but once a day sure beats nothing. Most of the time when someone is doing something wrong, they don't know they're doing something wrong. No one is going to call me up and say, "Hey, I'm about to do something stupid and wanted to run it by you."

itsreallynotme 15y ago
"Good enough" is certainly better than "not good enough". In the scenario that you described, someone went from not communicating at all to lying every day, and getting "caught" at the end of a sprint. Standups didn't fix anything there. Also, there is a world of difference between calling something good enough, and it being good enough. If I'm managing 5 job sites ... once a day sure beats nothing If, as a manager of 5 teams, you feel like you need a direct, daily report of what every person on every team does, your life is going to be hard. If you attempt to control those teams by adding more process, you will interfere with the productivity of your good teams, and your bad teams will continue to suck.
- vannevar 15y ago
  The scenario isn't about the lying, I was just anticipating the argument that the standup wouldn't improve communication if someone wanted to subvert it. The basic situation---a teammate who isn't communicative---can only be 'fixed' by getting him to communicate. You might argue that I fire him and spend weeks looking for someone who codes as well, or alternatively hire a 'communication coach' to help him with his personal problem (I'm not sure what solutions you're offering) but I prefer the vastly simpler option of just having a standup. Which also solves the problem of good communicators who don't realize they've got something worthwhile to communicate. We don't do standups to fix broken team communication. We do standups to augment ordinary team communication. If you've got an uncommunicative team member, that's not unusual. If you don't have an uncommunicative team member, now that's unusual. If, as a manager of 5 teams, you feel like you need a direct, daily report of what every person on every team does, your life is going to be hard. I may or may not need the report, but I want to make sure that every member of every team knows what's going on on their team. That's not adding process for process' sake, it's just ensuring communication rather than leaving it to chance or some utopian vision of human nature. A 15-minute standup isn't going to hurt a good team's productivity, while it could greatly improve the productivity of a mediocre team.
  - itsreallynotme 15y ago
    A 15-minute standup isn't going to hurt a good team's productivity, while it could greatly improve the productivity of a mediocre team. It takes a lot to noticeably hurt a good team's productivity. But it's mean, just fucking mean, to punish a good, productive, communicative team with more process because you also manage crappy teams.
    - vannevar 15y ago
      [I]t's mean, just fucking mean, to punish a good, productive, communicative team... I didn't say standups don't benefit good teams; quite the opposite. You've missed (or ignored) my point that even good communicators miss conveying important information sometimes. And if the team is really so naturally communicative, they're hardly going to view a standup as punishment. Again, I have to really wonder what kind of standups you've been subjected to that would trigger your revulsion. It's like being violently opposed to eating with a fork. Technically, no, you don't need one but it often helps. Either way, it's nothing to get worked up over.