Live data from Hacker News

Scrum disempowers developers

lambdacambridge.com

51–60 of 382 posts

Re: Scrum disempowers developers

#51
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These types of replies always strike me as No True Scotsman fallacies, which are rife in Agile & Scrum. “No true Scrum team would do X.” “No functional team would disempower people...” At some point though, Agile & Scrum cannot be propped up like that. When the same failures happen again and again all across the industry, it’s time to admit that the tool facilitates that failure. The tool (Agile & Scrum) is the corre…

A poor organization will find out how to fail in many processes. The problems are much deeper than at the scrum level.

This just trades one non-falsifiable defense for another.

First it’s “no true Scrum implementation would have property X.”

Now it’s “any observable badness of Scrum was just ambient badness of an already bad company bleeding into Scrum.”

Re: Scrum disempowers developers

#52

The teams I've been on that just 'jive' usually start with some process framework but then evolve to just work well together. There are strong philosophies in Scrum and Agile that should be kept as guidelines. The key is being agile (lower case 'a') so you can adapt to changing priorities. Continuous Integration/Continuous Delivery go a long way towards empowering developers. Two ways to tackle technical debt in proj…

I would say that estimation isn't so much about predicting completion as understanding hidden assumptions in the team. We sometimes find that engineers have entirely different concepts of how a particular feature or change needs to be implemented. Estimation – planning poker in particular – is a great way to reveal that and start exploring what the reasons are.

"At least we're not doing planning poker" was a running joke response to any kind of crazy process stuff we were forced to do on my last team.

Maybe it works better for small projects/teams, but in my experience it's a massive waste of time.

Re: Scrum disempowers developers

#53
post #45

If you do Scrum like that, you're doing it wrong (I know, no true Sctosman [1], and I know, there are actually dark patterns [2]). I wrote a whole book about "Agile Anti-Patterns" [3]. Most of the book's content is about things that many companies get wrong when they start with agile or lean software development. Because it is very easy to get those things wrong. Yes, those problems are extremely common. Not only wit…

And to really implement Scrum, you'd probably need to change more about the organization than the org was willing to change.

Bingo. That is the key point to me. Scrum, and other agile-family methodologies, are great when fully implemented. But what usually happens is that the higher-ups refuse to relinquish a bit of control, and stick tightly to their traditional command-and-control approach, and the dev teams are forced to do something that looks-kinda-like-scrum (or looks-kinda-like-XP or looks-kinda-like-AUP, etc.) while operating in a structure that isn't really compatible with the principles of Scrum, XP, AUP, etc.

Basically, we're forced to try and fit a round peg into a square hole because people higher up the org-chart either don't really understand agile-family methodologies or are actively opposed to truly implementing them.

Re: Scrum disempowers developers

#54

I find this article lacking, because it makes all of the same mistakes typical of these bandwagon anti-Scrum articles. Despite working in a a Scrum team, I recognise literally nothing of the problems that are described. Our product owner works closely with both commercial and development groups to build the backlog. Pressure to build good technical solutions is reasonably balanced with commercial requirements. The de…

> There is a weird underlying assumption in these kinds of articles that implicitly seems to assume that Scrum will somehow turn a bad team into a good one.

This assumption starts with one of the earliest Scrum pioneers, Jeff Sutherland. He writes quite clearly that he doesn't care about an individual's performance, but rather a team's performance. He also talks at length about how poor performing teams can be turned into high performing ones by the implementation of Scrum.

You can agree or disagree with him on this (I'm on the fence), but it's not at all weird that this idea is found within Scrum. It was there from the get go. It's there by design.

Re: Scrum disempowers developers

#55

OP here: lots of people have written about problems with Scrum (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16892307 ). I'm trying to take a bit more of a systematic, longer, researched and justified view of things, so any feedback is very welcome!

What I've mostly noticed is that when people show up with cynicism or actual anger towards Agile-with-an-A, perhaps nine times in ten, Scrum was involved (edit: though this might be sample bias, as Scrum is by far the most popular methodology). I'm sure it's working really well for some folks. A large fraction of the magic of any agile system is the folks involved and their familiarity and experience with it. I work…

> If I had to pick the most destructive part of Scrum, it's the sprint commitment.

I've organised many XP teams that regularly hit our sprint commitments virtually every time. The times when I've found it problematic to hit sprint commitments were due to the following:

- Sprint was too small. 1 week sprints are awesome, but they are extremely difficult to hit. I run 2 week sprints if I can manage to get people to agree. It can also significantly reduce planning overhead.

- Stories were too big. Stories should have a median delivery time of about 1-2 days for a 2 week sprint. The occurrence of 5+ day stories should be in the 1:100 range. High risk stories should always be arranged first in the sprint so that even a 5 day story doesn't blow the sprint out of the water.

-Stories were ill-defined. Goes together with the previous point. If you have a really high variance on your stories, it's probably because of this. You should have a "backlog grooming" session once every 2 weeks. At that meeting, you go over any new stories in the backlog and any stories that might make it into the sprint commitment. All developers should attend the meeting. At the meeting you decide: Do you understand what the story means? Could you start coding the story today? Should the story be broken up? It helps if project managers are not in this meeting -- they just respond to the feedback after the fact. Only stories that get the thumbs up, make it into the sprint commitment.

- Stories did not have acceptance criteria. Similar to the above, but more specific. Everybody might feel they understand what to do, but if you can't answer the question "How do I know when it is done?" then it isn't a story.

In the above cases, you can fairly easily fix the problems and still have sprint commitments. I have also been in some situations where I think sprint commitments didn't match the team. For a variety of reasons, I really like sprint commitments, but it is a bad idea to stick to it if it's not going to work. Here are some situations where I've had problems:

- Developers had many disagreements about how/when to merge code. They would take unpredictable amounts of time to merge code. If pressured to merge in order to hit targets, conflict would eventually erupt in the team.

-There was a young team that did not know how to relax when there is a deadline. Sometimes they merged inappropriate code just because they are afraid to be the one on the critical path. Sometimes the cut corners for the same reason. If you can pair program, it can really help with this.

In these cases, it's a matter of training the team. It helps if you can keep the team together for a long time and if you have a manager who isolates the team from a certain amount of surrounding politics. But sometimes, for a variety of different reasons, it isn't going to work. It's not bad to reach for something else at that point.

Sprint commitments can be really beneficial in my experience, but it's one of those things that is the result of having a high functioning team. It's not necessarily the way to make a high functioning team.

Re: Scrum disempowers developers

#56
post #11

My biggest beef with Scrum (and why I think it's a scam) is that they renamed everything, all the processes. Historically, there are three important sides, and roles, for each project. Product management - takes care what the customer wants to have build. Project management - takes care of what is delivered is on schedule and that there is enough material/personnel to build it. Architect/engineering lead - takes care…

The purpose of all the jargon that Scrum introduces is to avoid naming collisions with prior terminology.

You probably have a good idea of what a product manager should be doing but someone else in a different company might have a different opinion. Introducing a new term eliminates this source of confusion.

Admittedly, all the jargon you encounter when learning about Scrum can make you feel like you're joining a cult. However, there is a reason behind introducing it.

Re: Scrum disempowers developers

#57

It’s often impossible to talk productively about this because of all the No True Scotsman fallacies uses to defend Scrum, e.g.: “No true Scrum master would do X.” “A product owner who doesn’t Z is just a bad product owner. Not Scrum’s fault.” “If X is disempowering people then X is not Scrum.” These are not valid defenses, and they just distract us from the elephant in the room, which is Scrum’s constant presence eve…

Oxygen is also present everywhere these problems occur, so clearly oxygen is at fault...

Re: Scrum disempowers developers

#58
Our weekly "why scrum sucks" post that's really a "why my company does scrum wrong and I don't know how to fix it".

Product owners push customer value. Of course. You should too. Code quality and refactors have business value. Reduced maintenance cost, fewer bugs, faster future dev. If you can't explain that to your product owner then maybe it's not worth doing. I think your big missing piece is the collective ownership aspect. Product owner gets to set priorities, but it should be a collective discussion. Every dev should be allowed to express their opinion and it's the job of the product manager to referee.

Re: Scrum disempowers developers

#59

I think the article confuses what Scrum is and what some (probably most) companies make out of it. I agree that there are scary things happening in practice and I've seen a lot of scrumBut and scrumAnd that really endangers a lot of projects. My experience is that this is often caused by a lack of understanding of the methodology and how it can be applied and integrated into existing structures. Also existing structu…

I'm not confused :-) Maybe I don't set it out clearly enough, but I'm criticising Scrum as it is widely practiced, rather than how it ought to be done.

And yes, integrating it with the rest of the company is the biggest question, e.g. if you really are agile, what does your sales team tell customers about future upgrades?

Re: Scrum disempowers developers

#60
post #29

I find this article lacking, because it makes all of the same mistakes typical of these bandwagon anti-Scrum articles. Despite working in a a Scrum team, I recognise literally nothing of the problems that are described. Our product owner works closely with both commercial and development groups to build the backlog. Pressure to build good technical solutions is reasonably balanced with commercial requirements. The de…

> Despite working in a a Scrum team, I recognise literally nothing of the problems that are described. Same. This process takes work, requires buy in by all levels of the company and needs to be fully understood including its error cases. It takes time and requires course correct and attention. Its not easy but done right it is effective.

> done right it is effective.

That is one of the problems highlighted in the article though, too. What is the appropriate level of training for a scrum master and scrum team? Should we read the Scrum Guide? Are we reading the Scrum Guide? Do we actually know what Scrum is? Do we even know that we are doing Scrum?

I am working on a young, small team, and we started with an expertly trained scrum-master about 30 sprints ago. She was so well-trained that she was promoted out of our team. Since we started, we've had about 72% turnover.

I'm the only original member of the team who is still on full-time except for the product owner... and reading this article, I am coming to find out that our product owner is not doing the job of product owner (mostly our new project manager is.)

And

> apparently it has to involve something called “Jira”.

hits me right in the feels! We have been working with one project management tool (not Jira) since the beginning, and we found another tool that we like (the dev team likes) better.

Doesn't matter what the tools are. Bear with me. The first tool is used to communicate with our product owner(s) or stakeholders, where we get their acceptance of stories, and the second tool was meant to be a place where we developers can own tasks and "blog" about our progress without adding noise to the stakeholder channels. A task list that we control. Again, neither tool is Jira.

We did a trial, and we quickly found by consensus of opinion and observation that it really helped us a lot to add this tool to our process, all of the developers were buying in! Brought it to management to get it added in the budget... really a nominal sum, but then we were told we had too many tools already and made to abort the trial.

I was devastated, but I played along. It was the wrong decision! I started using slips of paper to fill the void, a place where development issues that are not part of our product backlog can live outside of the backlog and the sprint, and now in my perception at least, we're more disorganized than ever as a team.

I believe you both, that Scrum can work well if done right, and I'm glad it's working well for you, but ... I think at least some of us definitely need to hear these stories, many of them are our own stories, properly articulated so we can understand what's going wrong in our teams.

Post reply on HN