Agile is legitimately good and is the bar for how software should be built as a team. Enterprise scrum is objectively bad and I don’t understand how anyone gets any amount of work done under it.
I scrum. You scrum. He she me scrum. Scruming. Scrumology. It’s first grade SpongeBob.
I for one just look at my sprint and scrum meetings as pie in the sky goals and just keep working on the task I’m doing with the sprint goals as a “lol”. If I was to follow the sprint goals and deadlines nothing would be working correctly.
This sounds like poor communication between dev and PO.
Depends. I’ve had plenty of tough calls with management laying out the impossibility of desired schedules only to have the Jira board estimates fudged in their favor, or similar, which puts pressure on the team to deliver on timelines they never would have estimated for themselves.
Ultimately it’s a question of who’s working by whose estimates.
Management not admitting time estimates from dev, management not willing to understand dev estimates (to maybe find a smaller solution together) and/or dev committing to not reachable deadlines are not scrum problems.
I quite enjoyed reading Scrum: The Art of Doing Twice the Work in Half the Time. It’s not the book that people are mad at, it’s the shitty implementation of what management thinks scrum is. Because they never read the book.
Thing is that when practically everybody ends up with a shitty implementation of scrum, maybe it is a problem with the methodology after all. At the very least this indicates that it’s hard to get right in practice. I’ve worked on teams with certified scrum masters who went through training courses, and it was still shit.
I think the methodology is fine and it certainly isn’t complex. It’s just difficult to start using it when the corporate culture isn’t able to adapt and change it’s structures, that’s the hard part. Also a topic in the book.
Scrum is “bottom up” and the scrum master doesn’t manage anyone or anything, they are there to serve the team and get rid of obstacles. The team is empowered. If there’s a “manager” for the team, that’s already a mistake. That role doesn’t exist in scrum.
It’s just difficult to start using it when the corporate culture isn’t able to adapt and change it’s structures, that’s the hard part.
Yeah but that’s almost every company ever. At what point do you blame the methodology then if it doesn’t work properly almost anywhere?
I feel like scrum and agile in general are almost religions at this point, just blind belief in a system you haven’t really seen work properly ever but you still believe in it.
I get your point and maybe there’s a better alternative to scrum that keeps the culture and structure intact.
I might be wrong here, but as I see it scrum is fixing problems by changing the team structure itself. If that structure is really the main issue, you can’t not make that structure change, call it scrum when it actually has nothing to do with it, and then blame your inability to adapt on the methodology you’re not using. Because there are teams that are able to adapt and use scrum successfully.
Sort of like communism
You misspelled capitalism there.
