3 ms·
>>> We prefer goals orientated around what teams will ship, rather than more abstract goals like "increase conversions by 10%". This is … interesting. I can he
by lifeisstillgood 2y ago
>>> We prefer goals orientated around what teams will ship, rather than more abstract goals like "increase conversions by 10%".
This is … interesting. I can hear every scrum master course leader crying but I like it.
On the other hand, measuring impact in the real world is a vital task - but yeah it’s a lot easier to say “Inwill build a car” than “I will drive the user to a football game once I have built a car”
- Eridrus 2y agoYeah, that line seemed super weird to me too. Obviously "improve X metric" is not a plan, but without any key results to evaluate against, it's easy for things to be "done" poorly or to not be targeted at something that matters, particularly as orgs get larger. They do say that teams have long term objectives and metrics, so maybe those are what is used for evaluation, but it definitely feels weird.
- closeparen 2y agoIt depends who is calling the shots on what to build. If it's the business or a product manager, then some engineer is going to be rewarded or punished for the impact (or lack thereof) that is already locked in, and all that's left is politicking about who it's going to be.
- lolinder 2y agoIn this case they're pretty clear that the teams are supposed to have complete ownership of product chunks, so it does feel a bit odd that they're accountable for delivering and not for outcomes.
- llm_trw 2y ago>I can hear every scrum master course leader crying but I like it. This is a feature not a bug. Small teams don't need a leader just like how small bands don't need a conductor. If you want to add admin give them a secretary so they don't waste their time on administrivia.