3 ms·

If you want to learn about scrum you are better off learning about XP which is a much superior engineering-centric methodology that Scrum takes heavy influence

If you want to learn about scrum you are better off learning about XP which is a much superior engineering-centric methodology that Scrum takes heavy influence from. Scrum can be useful as a way to get a team (and its leaders) going, build habits around releasing small batches/iterations of value but it is not particularly scale-able and puts a ceiling on the performance of a team. For leadership its a good way to get them to start loosening the reigns by having the right conversations. The board part of Kanban is just one basic component. What gets skipped over are the EXPLICIT POLICIES that are refined over time i.e. what constitutes being in a column; the measurement of throughput (which is covered in the article); and a very high focus on continuous improvement (which includes the columns AND rows of the board, associated policies, and WIP limits) Scrum gets a lot of hate because it's been commercialized and bastardized by people half-assedly doing it. It has a time and place. If you use a saw as a hammer you're not gonna have a good time.

Log_out_ 2y ago
A system that devolves when it comes in contact with reality,is not its idealized version bastardized. Its what it results in reproducible built after built in society. Nobody cares if the idea is pure.What matters is that the idea can not handle edge cases like the mgmt-dev relations becoming antagonistic.
- Viliam1234 2y ago
  I have seen both good and bad implementations of Scrum. Or rather, I have seen Scrum, and I have also seen people doing classical management with some extra rituals on top of that and calling it "Scrum". Yes, the latter is basically the industry standard these days. I have worked at over dozen companies, and I have seen the actual Scrum only once or twice. There is no system that survives a company culture that takes some of its keywords and ignores everything else. Without Scrum, companies would have the same endless meetings and micromanagement, but they would call it "Kanban" or "XP" or something else instead. As I see it, the basic problems are the following: 1) Companies want to set deadlines, no matter how many times you tell them it's unrealistic, no matter how many times their plans have failed. They also like to pretend to be agile, but it will always be "agile with project deadlines". If they say "Scrum" it means "Scrum with project deadlines". If they say "Kanban" it means "Kanban with project deadlines". You are supposed to role-play adapting to the situation, but also in exactly 7 months, 2 weeks, 3 days, 5 hours, 21 minutes, 6 seconds, and 374 milliseconds you are expected to deliver a product that contains this list of features (plus all new features and changes that will get added during the development), no matter what. The fact that this never happened before should not stop you from believing that this time it will. You will probably do a lot of overtime towards the end, and fail to meet the deadline anyway. 2) There are many managers in big companies, and to keep their jobs, they need to invent busywork for themselves. That's why you get the endless meetings, constant changes of plans, etc. If you do "Scrum" it means "Scrum with lots of extra meetings". If you do "Kanban" it means "Kanban with lots of extra meetings". The managers need to be seen as important, how would they achieve that if they just gave you the specification and left you alone? How would they justify why the company needs to employ more managers than software developers? Your daily standups were not supposed to take one hour; they were supposed to be very short, literally while people "stand up" to prevent them from starting long debates. Your manager was not supposed to be there at the daily standup. Heck, you were not even supposed to have a manager in Scrum! But, you know, your manager was there before the company decided to go "agile", and he is not going to fire himself just to make the company happy. And your manager's manager knows that his prestige is measured by how many people and how deep hierarchy he manages, so he is not going to fire him either. But all those managers need to be seen managing, and that's why you have all those meetings. The only meeting over 5 minutes long that is actually required by Scrum is the retrospective -- and there is an 80% chance that your company decided to skip this one "because it is a waste of time".

Log_out_ 2y ago

A system that devolves when it comes in contact with reality,is not its idealized version bastardized. Its what it results in reproducible built after built in society. Nobody cares if the idea is pure.What matters is that the idea can not handle edge cases like the mgmt-dev relations becoming antagonistic.

Viliam1234 2y ago
I have seen both good and bad implementations of Scrum. Or rather, I have seen Scrum, and I have also seen people doing classical management with some extra rituals on top of that and calling it "Scrum". Yes, the latter is basically the industry standard these days. I have worked at over dozen companies, and I have seen the actual Scrum only once or twice. There is no system that survives a company culture that takes some of its keywords and ignores everything else. Without Scrum, companies would have the same endless meetings and micromanagement, but they would call it "Kanban" or "XP" or something else instead. As I see it, the basic problems are the following: 1) Companies want to set deadlines, no matter how many times you tell them it's unrealistic, no matter how many times their plans have failed. They also like to pretend to be agile, but it will always be "agile with project deadlines". If they say "Scrum" it means "Scrum with project deadlines". If they say "Kanban" it means "Kanban with project deadlines". You are supposed to role-play adapting to the situation, but also in exactly 7 months, 2 weeks, 3 days, 5 hours, 21 minutes, 6 seconds, and 374 milliseconds you are expected to deliver a product that contains this list of features (plus all new features and changes that will get added during the development), no matter what. The fact that this never happened before should not stop you from believing that this time it will. You will probably do a lot of overtime towards the end, and fail to meet the deadline anyway. 2) There are many managers in big companies, and to keep their jobs, they need to invent busywork for themselves. That's why you get the endless meetings, constant changes of plans, etc. If you do "Scrum" it means "Scrum with lots of extra meetings". If you do "Kanban" it means "Kanban with lots of extra meetings". The managers need to be seen as important, how would they achieve that if they just gave you the specification and left you alone? How would they justify why the company needs to employ more managers than software developers? Your daily standups were not supposed to take one hour; they were supposed to be very short, literally while people "stand up" to prevent them from starting long debates. Your manager was not supposed to be there at the daily standup. Heck, you were not even supposed to have a manager in Scrum! But, you know, your manager was there before the company decided to go "agile", and he is not going to fire himself just to make the company happy. And your manager's manager knows that his prestige is measured by how many people and how deep hierarchy he manages, so he is not going to fire him either. But all those managers need to be seen managing, and that's why you have all those meetings. The only meeting over 5 minutes long that is actually required by Scrum is the retrospective -- and there is an 80% chance that your company decided to skip this one "because it is a waste of time".