5 ms·

Every single post of this type is wrong. You don't need to read beyond the first line. "Scrum is horrible" - no, it's not (at least not necessarily) and asserti

by _se 2y ago

Every single post of this type is wrong. You don't need to read beyond the first line. "Scrum is horrible" - no, it's not (at least not necessarily) and asserting that you somehow know that this is true for _everyone_ is patently ridiculous. The author is taking their experience, finding others that validate it, ignoring those who disagree with them, and making sweeping assertions that make absolutely no sense. Focusing on whether Scrum, Kanban, XP, etc. are good or bad misses the point entirely. They are neither good nor bad in principal: they are either good or bad for different teams in different situations, and even then depending on the specific implementation. There are very happy teams using scrum and performing excellently as a result. You cannot tell them they are doing it wrong. They're not. My teams don't run scrum, but I consult for many who do, and I know how well they're doing and how happy they are with their situation. I also know of others who hate it. I don't know why it's so difficult for engineers to understand this. Your experience is not universal. You don't know everything.

lfourunderscore 2y ago
Sounds like you indeed didn't read beyond the first line - this article argues that it is not scrum (etc.) which is horrible, but the context in which these systems are used.
- _se 2y ago
  The first 4 paragraphs were enough to know that it isn't worth the time. You can't spend 50% of the article being so off base and have the rest be worthwhile.
squiffsquiff 2y ago
I haven't read the article but in response to your comment here: Scrum is widely used and also widely disliked. I find that apologists for scrum generally excuse the dislike as 'that's not how scrum is supposed to be implemented' - just as you have here. It's exactly the same form of argument you get from apologists for Marxism or Communism when confronted with the widespread dislike for those systems. If something has generally failed wherever it has been implemented, it's not because it hasn't been implemented properly, it's because it is fundamentally broken.
- _se 2y ago
  What I said is much more nuanced. I certainly wouldn't call myself a scrum apologist. There are good implementations of scrum, and there are teams that like it. In my experience across companies and industries, it's a much larger percentage than unfounded comments like yours and the article would lead you to believe, perhaps 30-40%. Probably due to the SV slant on this site (also why people here always think they know everything). It absolutely has not failed everywhere it's been implemented, and starting from that position is simply incorrect. My position is that the article (and you) are making incorrect assertions and that you don't even consider that it's a possibility. Again, your experience is not universal. Stop claiming or thinking that it is and that you know everything. You don't.
- theshrike79 2y ago
  I have seen excellent scrum and bad scrum. I've been on teams where we got to pick what we could deliver in a sprint and utter peace to do it for 2 weeks. Daily scrums were mostly skipped and lasted 5 mins max while we had our morning coffee, standing up. I've been on a team where "daily scrum" was a 30-60 minute daily Skype call with no agenda, goal or point. The only thing related to Scrum in that company was the terminology, basically a cargo cult. I've also been on a team that used scrum terms and kinda sorta the process but it was closer to Kanban with releases. But it didn't matter, everyone on the team had 15+ years of experience.
default-kramer 2y ago
I thought the opening line "Scrum is horrible" made it immediately clear that this is an opinion piece. I can't speak for this author, but when I say something like "your data fits in RAM" or "just say no to microservices" I am well aware that some data actually does not fit in RAM and sometimes microservices are actually appropriate. I'm pretty happy at a Scrum shop right now, but I appreciated reading this. If you have a passionate opinion forged from personal experience, I think it's best to just present it that way rather than trying to tone it down or dress it up into something tamer but more universally correct.
wvenable 2y ago
Who is Scrum for? I would argue it's not for the developers. In that case, whether or not some teams are happy using it doesn't really matter. It's a tool to give the illusion of metrics and estimation in an situation that is antithetical to it. Someone looked at the Agile manifesto -- specifically that part of "people over processes" -- and decided what was really needed was a strict process and a bunch of ceremonies to go with it! Can developers be happy with this? Absolutely. Are there plenty of developers unhappy with it? Also absolutely. I think that means we should still look at it critically.
- theshrike79 2y ago
  > Who is Scrum for? I would argue it's not for the developers The point of Agile/Scrum is to give the developers total peace from interruptions for a sprint of development. _Nobody_ can come and tell them to change the plans mid-sprint. If someone tries it's the Scum Master's job to tell them politely yet firmly to leave. If someone insists on changes, the Official Process says that they delete everything from the start of the sprint and start again - this is to give a clear price for interruptions. "You want this door over there instead of here where we designed it a month ago? Cool" burns down the house "Let's start over then". In 99.99% of the cases the request suddenly isn't THAT important and they can wait until the end of the sprint. BUT Scrum can only work if it has the buy-in of the whole company, you can't start it from the bottom down without some really big cojones.
  - ath3nd 2y ago
    > The point of Agile/Scrum is to give the developers total peace from interruptions for a sprint of development. That part can be done without scrum. However, you are omitting that scrum also drags: Product Owners, sprint plannings, poker, daily standups, sprint demos. And you know what follows a sprint? Another sprint...And every time you miss that (self imposed, totally arbitrary) deadline, you fail. I simply don't understand why people do this to themselves.
    - theshrike79 2y ago
watwut 2y ago
I have seen multiple teams using scrum and not a single one of them was happy. Members of literally every one complained when having a safe option to complain. Scrum is widely disliked by people who work on teams. It is liked by managers and consultants.

by _se 2y ago

lfourunderscore 2y ago

Sounds like you indeed didn't read beyond the first line - this article argues that it is not scrum (etc.) which is horrible, but the context in which these systems are used.

_se 2y ago
The first 4 paragraphs were enough to know that it isn't worth the time. You can't spend 50% of the article being so off base and have the rest be worthwhile.

squiffsquiff 2y ago

I haven't read the article but in response to your comment here: Scrum is widely used and also widely disliked. I find that apologists for scrum generally excuse the dislike as 'that's not how scrum is supposed to be implemented' - just as you have here. It's exactly the same form of argument you get from apologists for Marxism or Communism when confronted with the widespread dislike for those systems. If something has generally failed wherever it has been implemented, it's not because it hasn't been implemented properly, it's because it is fundamentally broken.

_se 2y ago
What I said is much more nuanced. I certainly wouldn't call myself a scrum apologist. There are good implementations of scrum, and there are teams that like it. In my experience across companies and industries, it's a much larger percentage than unfounded comments like yours and the article would lead you to believe, perhaps 30-40%. Probably due to the SV slant on this site (also why people here always think they know everything). It absolutely has not failed everywhere it's been implemented, and starting from that position is simply incorrect. My position is that the article (and you) are making incorrect assertions and that you don't even consider that it's a possibility. Again, your experience is not universal. Stop claiming or thinking that it is and that you know everything. You don't.
theshrike79 2y ago
I have seen excellent scrum and bad scrum. I've been on teams where we got to pick what we could deliver in a sprint and utter peace to do it for 2 weeks. Daily scrums were mostly skipped and lasted 5 mins max while we had our morning coffee, standing up. I've been on a team where "daily scrum" was a 30-60 minute daily Skype call with no agenda, goal or point. The only thing related to Scrum in that company was the terminology, basically a cargo cult. I've also been on a team that used scrum terms and kinda sorta the process but it was closer to Kanban with releases. But it didn't matter, everyone on the team had 15+ years of experience.

default-kramer 2y ago

I thought the opening line "Scrum is horrible" made it immediately clear that this is an opinion piece. I can't speak for this author, but when I say something like "your data fits in RAM" or "just say no to microservices" I am well aware that some data actually does not fit in RAM and sometimes microservices are actually appropriate. I'm pretty happy at a Scrum shop right now, but I appreciated reading this. If you have a passionate opinion forged from personal experience, I think it's best to just present it that way rather than trying to tone it down or dress it up into something tamer but more universally correct.

wvenable 2y ago

Who is Scrum for? I would argue it's not for the developers. In that case, whether or not some teams are happy using it doesn't really matter. It's a tool to give the illusion of metrics and estimation in an situation that is antithetical to it. Someone looked at the Agile manifesto -- specifically that part of "people over processes" -- and decided what was really needed was a strict process and a bunch of ceremonies to go with it! Can developers be happy with this? Absolutely. Are there plenty of developers unhappy with it? Also absolutely. I think that means we should still look at it critically.

theshrike79 2y ago
> Who is Scrum for? I would argue it's not for the developers The point of Agile/Scrum is to give the developers total peace from interruptions for a sprint of development. _Nobody_ can come and tell them to change the plans mid-sprint. If someone tries it's the Scum Master's job to tell them politely yet firmly to leave. If someone insists on changes, the Official Process says that they delete everything from the start of the sprint and start again - this is to give a clear price for interruptions. "You want this door over there instead of here where we designed it a month ago? Cool" burns down the house "Let's start over then". In 99.99% of the cases the request suddenly isn't THAT important and they can wait until the end of the sprint. BUT Scrum can only work if it has the buy-in of the whole company, you can't start it from the bottom down without some really big cojones.
- ath3nd 2y ago
  > The point of Agile/Scrum is to give the developers total peace from interruptions for a sprint of development. That part can be done without scrum. However, you are omitting that scrum also drags: Product Owners, sprint plannings, poker, daily standups, sprint demos. And you know what follows a sprint? Another sprint...And every time you miss that (self imposed, totally arbitrary) deadline, you fail. I simply don't understand why people do this to themselves.
  - theshrike79 2y ago

watwut 2y ago

I have seen multiple teams using scrum and not a single one of them was happy. Members of literally every one complained when having a safe option to complain. Scrum is widely disliked by people who work on teams. It is liked by managers and consultants.