7 ms·
Every time I come across "why scrum sucks" articles like these I can quickly point the problem: the ScrumMaster. #1 - Iterations are less efficient than pull-b
by vpeters25 14y ago
Every time I come across "why scrum sucks" articles like these I can quickly point the problem: the ScrumMaster.
#1 - Iterations are less efficient than pull-based approaches: A good ScrumMaster keeps an eye on the burndown chart and negotiates with the stakeholders and team to either add or remove tasks from a sprint. My first sprint ever as ScrumMaster, we estimated a 3 months project, we did everything in 2 sprints (1 month)
#2 – Iteration planning meetings were wasteful: You are doing them wrong. A good scrum master keeps everybody focus on one user story at a time and keeps the meeting moving. I use a 3 min stopwatch in my phone. The whole meeting should not take more than 1 hr (I do 30-45 mins estimate new stories, the rest to plan and commit team to next sprint)
#3 – Scrum is highly disruptive in established organizations: A good scrum master servers as a bridge between traditional management and keeps them out of the team's backs. This one is the reason I don't like being ScrumMaster anymore. A good ScrumMaster needs great people skills, I rather write code.
- erichocean 14y agoSo scrum has a single-point-of-failure that organizations, more often than not, see high failure rates with? And we're still recommending companies adopt this, when the failure rates are both known to be high, and catastrophic when they occur?
- vannevar 14y agoCompanies still do project management, and the project manager is a single point of failure. The reason the failure rate is high is that scrum is relatively new and companies still think they can get away without having a scrum master, while they know from long experience that they need good project managers.