3 ms·

Scrum is developed as a solution to quick requirement changes and adaptability of development (agile), but I find that 2 weeks sprint planning and execution is

Scrum is developed as a solution to quick requirement changes and adaptability of development (agile), but I find that 2 weeks sprint planning and execution is actually the opposite. If the requirement come during a sprint that'll change the scope, I don't find scrum can accommodate that. At best scenario cards are swapped with the new requirement. However at that point, scrum planning become useless, even to the point as being a hindrance. So I treat my scrum board as Kanban board with two weeks checkpoint to measure velocity due to company rule. Honestly I prefer Kanban with periodical, flexible retro / planning.

pydry 2y ago
It was designed as training wheels for agile but it ended up creating a performative form of cargo cult agile. It doesnt work but it's pretty amenable to charging consulting fees.
- cmrdporcupine 2y ago
  Exactly this. It's XP with all the edgy stuff that scared pointy-haired bosses stripped out. XP was in part an effort to empower engineers to make decisions and be creative.. in exchange for rapid delivery. Scrum is just... ritual.
  - steve1977 2y ago
    And let's not forget that the poster child XP project (Chrysler C3) was such a failure that XP was effectively banned at Chrysler for a while.
    - cmrdporcupine 2y ago
      I'd like to read about this some more. I have mixed feelings about my time with XP. Some of the lessons from there have gone deep down into my psyche. In many ways it struck a chord with me because it fit in many ways with my somewhat ... ADHD ... working habits ... because it kept the horizon short and made it always explicit what was to be done immediately and, most importantly why and made it clear what the outcome had to be -- clearly defined user stories, feature-level granularity. On the other hand, it felt a bit cultish, and the intensity of constantly talking about and naval gazing about process was frustrating. But so much of what people accept now as standard practices -- that I guess came for many people via SCRUM -- had their origin there. Daily standups, short sprints, etc. I just think SCRUM has mostly lost what that was really about. In the end no process can substitute for just small teams of motivated creative people solving problems they want to solve. Unfortunately most projects/teams/companies are not that.
oriolid 2y ago
> Scrum is developed as a solution to quick requirement changes and adaptability of development (agile), but I find that 2 weeks sprint planning and execution is actually the opposite. It is a solution against quick changes. The only benefit of Scrum that I see is that if you have a client, PM or CEO who comes up with new ideas all the time and wants them implemented now, Scrum allows you to tell that the sprint has been planned and the new ideas should be taken to next sprint planning.
- Viliam1234 2y ago
  A company changing their ideas about the kind of project they want to build literally every week is not "agile", it's just chaotic.

pydry 2y ago

It was designed as training wheels for agile but it ended up creating a performative form of cargo cult agile. It doesnt work but it's pretty amenable to charging consulting fees.

cmrdporcupine 2y ago
Exactly this. It's XP with all the edgy stuff that scared pointy-haired bosses stripped out. XP was in part an effort to empower engineers to make decisions and be creative.. in exchange for rapid delivery. Scrum is just... ritual.
- steve1977 2y ago
  And let's not forget that the poster child XP project (Chrysler C3) was such a failure that XP was effectively banned at Chrysler for a while.
  - cmrdporcupine 2y ago
    I'd like to read about this some more. I have mixed feelings about my time with XP. Some of the lessons from there have gone deep down into my psyche. In many ways it struck a chord with me because it fit in many ways with my somewhat ... ADHD ... working habits ... because it kept the horizon short and made it always explicit what was to be done immediately and, most importantly why and made it clear what the outcome had to be -- clearly defined user stories, feature-level granularity. On the other hand, it felt a bit cultish, and the intensity of constantly talking about and naval gazing about process was frustrating. But so much of what people accept now as standard practices -- that I guess came for many people via SCRUM -- had their origin there. Daily standups, short sprints, etc. I just think SCRUM has mostly lost what that was really about. In the end no process can substitute for just small teams of motivated creative people solving problems they want to solve. Unfortunately most projects/teams/companies are not that.

oriolid 2y ago

> Scrum is developed as a solution to quick requirement changes and adaptability of development (agile), but I find that 2 weeks sprint planning and execution is actually the opposite. It is a solution against quick changes. The only benefit of Scrum that I see is that if you have a client, PM or CEO who comes up with new ideas all the time and wants them implemented now, Scrum allows you to tell that the sprint has been planned and the new ideas should be taken to next sprint planning.

Viliam1234 2y ago
A company changing their ideas about the kind of project they want to build literally every week is not "agile", it's just chaotic.