9 ms·
And I think it's a good way to communicate how the team works. If you want new features, you talk to the product owner and they'll add it to the backlog - at a
by theshrike79 2y ago
And I think it's a good way to communicate how the team works.
If you want new features, you talk to the product owner and they'll add it to the backlog - at a priority they choose.
You don't barge into the team's area demanding "just this one quick fix", there's a clear process to get your stuff in the queue.
If your workplace already works like this, you don't need agile, scrum or any other method with a fancy name. Keep doing what you're doing.
Agile is a way to save developers in orgs where it's normal for the sales guy to come in to a team's room and announce that they sold feature X to a client already and it needs to be delivered next Friday.
- wvenable 2y ago> Agile is a way to save developers in orgs where it's normal for the sales guy to come in to a team's room and announce that they sold feature X to a client already and it needs to be delivered next Friday. How does it do that? If the sales guy sold feature X to a client you're going to have to build it -- Scrum be damned. Some process is going to get in the way of making money? I don't think so.
- theshrike79 2y agoThe it's not Scrum. That's why it only works properly when there is FULL buy-in from the C-level down. EVERYONE in the company must acknowledge that there is a clear process on how to get new features implemented and randomly barging into the team space demanding features is not it.
- wvenable 2y agoBut I don't need Scrum to get buy in of non-shitty processes from the C-level down. I have that already without Scrum. Clearly people are doing Scrum that is awful. So it's neither a necessary nor sufficient property of Scrum itself. I agree that not having management/sales directly involved in low-level development planning is a good. But that's not Scrum.