4 ms·
I'd say "bad scrum". If you do scrum well and get the spirit of it right, it's a joy to work in. It's not perfect, but compared to what happens almost anywhere
by chton 12y ago
I'd say "bad scrum". If you do scrum well and get the spirit of it right, it's a joy to work in. It's not perfect, but compared to what happens almost anywhere else, it's great.
- UnoriginalGuy 12y agoAgreed. Surprised to hear Scrum. Because the Waterfall model was SO much better? The nice thing about Scrum is that you are given up to a 3 week period, tasks, and you complete those tasks then re-evaluate. Creates a nice feedback cycle. Plus if requirements change (as they ALWAYS do) you are more able to address that without going "backwards" in your Waterfall model or creating unnecessary steps. That all being said, I'm sure you can make Scrum suck if done badly. But you can make anything suck via micro-management and political bullshit. If Scrum is done well it should limit micro-management to only the scrum meetings (which aren't daily or even bi-daily, so a weekly catchup meeting with a bi-weekly new sprint).
- chton 12y agoThe usual scrum meetings aren't places for micro-management either. All of them are led by the team, and nobody tells them what to do. If your company is micromanaging employees during your sprint planning or retrospective, it's grasping at the last straws of conventional management before finally giving up :p