Live data from Hacker News

You don’t need standups

medium.com

71–80 of 341 posts

Re: You don’t need standups

#71
post #49

Posts like this usually have good points, but I feel like they should always come with a massive caveat: Every team is different, and you should tailor your processes to fit the team. And because of this, I think posts like this one should spend time answering: What conditions were needed for your decision to be a good idea? And when would your decision be a bad idea? The author seems aware of this, because he tries…

Isn't pretty much that caveat right under the title? "Notice: Below represents my PERSONAL beliefs about agile and team organization. Your results may vary."

Not quite. I think there's an important distinction. That caveat says: "I think you should do things this way, it might work for you." But what I'm asking for is: "I think, under these conditions, you should do things this way."

But you're right to point this out. I think I phrased my post badly. The caveat isn't the important part. The second point is the really important one. The decision framework for when to take any specific piece of advice is more important than the advice itself. In general (and this is definitely true with development process advice), advice is plentiful and often conflicting, and most of it gives you ideas of what to do, but doesn't tell you when it's applicable. The really good books, courses, and blog posts I've found do exactly that.

Re: You don’t need standups

#72

I always upvote these things, not because they're right. Because they show common misunderstandings about Agile. Agile is so simple and easy that the development community continues to screw it up. It's important to understand how. According to the author, standups are something companies require developers to do to report about what they're doing. Many times they can take more than a half hour. That may be true, but…

I famously got outraged at my team the day after our planning meetings + interviews the whole team was on. "Yesterday we had meetings" because while that's helpful in retro finding out where time went; it doesn't update or encourage more thought on the current work. I pushed my team to think about things that others would ask questions about and how it affected their work.

[deleted]

Re: You don’t need standups

#73
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>In fact, all I like about standups is seeing my team mates once a day. Yeah, I think a better way to do standups is a couple minutes of social time, and "anybody finish anything? any blockers?" rather than going person-by-person.

rather than going person-by-person. Better still for us has been going task-by-task rather than person-by-person. Look at everything which is in progress, get a quick update on it, move on. Five minutes tops, everybody is up-to-date, issues flagged.

Yes! At my last workplace we switched from person-to-person to task-to-task and it worked great.

Re: You don’t need standups

#74
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Standup just before lunch might work better. That’s my experience.

In my team, we have it early in the morning, so we can overlap with India. Folks in US have rest of their day for work, whereas folks in India do the standup at the end of the day just before going home.

Must be terrible for those in your team who aren't predisposed to waking early

Re: You don’t need standups

#75

I always upvote these things, not because they're right. Because they show common misunderstandings about Agile. Agile is so simple and easy that the development community continues to screw it up. It's important to understand how. According to the author, standups are something companies require developers to do to report about what they're doing. Many times they can take more than a half hour. That may be true, but…

>Because they show common misunderstandings about Agile I agree with most of what you're saying. I've found this to be the biggest barrier to the process actually working. People don't understand the purpose of what is being achieved with X meeting/process and so will actively try to subvert it. Sometimes as engineers we're too smart for our own good, and sometimes we don't listen to what we're being told. I went thr…

I'm Old Expert Programmer Dude now, so I get to tell stories.

1. Worked with a team of outside experts once. We were brought in to stand up an internal team of coaches. The first week there, the four of us got together. I asked "Do we want to do standups?"

Another coach said nope, we're professionals! What do we need standups for?

The rest of us met every morning for breakfast. No standing up, no meeting. But we knew what we had to cover in between shooting the crap.

We did well. He did not.

2. Worked with another team once who were doing some gnarly embedded work. The lead, a super-smart C++ guy, announced that he wasn't going to do standups because he was a professional (see a pattern here?) and could communicate just fine without tossing a football around.

He finally came. Every morning the team would have fun with the nerf ball (which is just something fun to toss around. Who cares if you have one or not?) When it was his turn, everybody stopped smiling and somebody put the little football on the ground at his feet. Then he spoke. He never did touch the nerf ball.

I was trying to help them do mocks and rapid hardware prototyping, but he wasn't getting it. Finally one day, just after the standup, somebody said something like "You know John, if we did this thing like this, we could work a lot faster"

He said he hadn't thought of that (even though multiple people had suggested it. It just wasn't phrased the right way for some reason) and agreed to start right away.

I smiled as he left and asked him "Wasn't that a great standup!"

"Nope. Could've had that conversation just the same without the stupid meeting"

Yes, you could have. But you didn't. Communication is weird. There are no big, flashing red lights when you fuck it up. And when it works, it doesn't feel like anything has happened.

So when people want to do things differently, I always encourage it. If they focus on the goal, they'll come back to these lessons. If they focus on the ritual, however, it'll never ever make any sense to them. (And they very well may end up making life miserable on everybody around them)

Re: You don’t need standups

#76
post #63

One thing I don't like about standups is that they can create a false sense of either blockage or someone being ineffective at their job. For instance, there have been many times where I've worked on a task or a set or related tasks for weeks or months, simply because the tasks required a lot of forethought and careful planning. There were times I somewhat dreaded standups because I knew that I'd say that I'm doing t…

"working on bugs" is not a great update, it's opaque and doesn't help your team or your leader get a picture of what you're struggling with. "I tried this and this and measured this latency from the application and suspect it's a race condition, I checked this code and feel like I'm on the right track, and if someone wants to take a second set of eyes on my bug I would appreciate it" is a much much better update. Sta…

I agree, what you describe provides an opportunity to solve problems - far from useless! Certainly there's judgement needed in terms of where something becomes too detailed or digresses too far but that comes down to practice and intuition and feedback to get a consensus.

Re: You don’t need standups

#77
post #33

One thing I don't like about standups is that they can create a false sense of either blockage or someone being ineffective at their job. For instance, there have been many times where I've worked on a task or a set or related tasks for weeks or months, simply because the tasks required a lot of forethought and careful planning. There were times I somewhat dreaded standups because I knew that I'd say that I'm doing t…

Besides that, I hate that they took me out of rhytm of work. If a standup is at 10am, and I arrive at 9am to do dev work, there is very little I can do before being interrupted - I need at least 2-4h of interrupted time to do some good work.

My team just does "asynchronous stand-ups" - share your status once day in a dedicated Slack channel, whenever you want.

We do this on top of a good culture of asking for help and posting regular updates on our internal Sprint tracker, it works quite well.

Re: You don’t need standups

#78
post #69
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"working on bugs" is not a great update, it's opaque and doesn't help your team or your leader get a picture of what you're struggling with. "I tried this and this and measured this latency from the application and suspect it's a race condition, I checked this code and feel like I'm on the right track, and if someone wants to take a second set of eyes on my bug I would appreciate it" is a much much better update. Sta…

That's useless because everybody else tunes out. Nobody cares what debugging methods you tried on some project they've never touched. If you need help you can just ask somebody.

I think that's either a team culture issue, a management issue, or a business culture issue. Teams I've worked on have had no issue brainstorming ideas for a person who's stumped.

Now, I'm not totally defending standups here, I've been on teams where daily standups are a stuffy formality, and they are miserable. I've also had the pleasure of being on teams where weekly standups were implemented, and they were an absolute delight and completely useful.

I will qualify all of my opinions with the fact that the best teams I've worked with implement Kanban, so there is no sprint planning. We just pull off backlog and work with weekly standups. There's way way less overhead, with some tradeoffs.

I also definitely think that certain team cultures are completely incompatible with standups, to the point that you receive negative benefit from implementing them. If you have a lot of people who are of the type "my responsibility ends where my story points end", I am pretty sure you will end up have a bad time doing standups.

Re: You don’t need standups

#79
post #42

I always upvote these things, not because they're right. Because they show common misunderstandings about Agile. Agile is so simple and easy that the development community continues to screw it up. It's important to understand how. According to the author, standups are something companies require developers to do to report about what they're doing. Many times they can take more than a half hour. That may be true, but…

You describe a better way of doing standups than simply status reports, but I'm finding it hard to distil into a couple of sentences. Could you help me understand what a better standup would look like?

Talking about team communication in the abstract is difficult. I wrote a book about it. [1]

The problem is that you are looking for the maximum amount of valuable communication with the minimum amount of overhead. That is almost impossible to reliably quantify, however, because each team develops their own communication and language style. This is the tension we face: outside folks who mean well want to standardize things so that teams have a better chance of succeeding. But the only thing they accomplish by doing this is creating a lot of friction, waste, and overhead. It does not matter if your TPS report has a cover sheet or whether your standup is at noon or not. Nor does it matter whether you're using Trello or crayons. You're focusing on the wrong thing.

If we limit our discussion to teams located in one place using a physical board, I have noticed that standups that focus on the board, the work, happen with better teams. (They don't make teams better. Good teams tend to do it that way). A few useful tokens of testable work on the wall that people can point at and talk about how those goals are going tends to focus the conversation around value.

On the other end of the spectrum, large spreadsheets or online tools where each person reports on what they're doing usually show a completely waste of time and a death march. I worked with a VP once of a major corporation that kept a 100-300 line spreadsheet with "promises" he received from all his teams. We spent every Monday morning for hours reviewing each promise and talking about how we had failed the clan and dishonored ourselves. Oof. It was horrible.

1. https://leanpub.com/info-ops

Re: You don’t need standups

#80
post #69
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"working on bugs" is not a great update, it's opaque and doesn't help your team or your leader get a picture of what you're struggling with. "I tried this and this and measured this latency from the application and suspect it's a race condition, I checked this code and feel like I'm on the right track, and if someone wants to take a second set of eyes on my bug I would appreciate it" is a much much better update. Sta…

That's useless because everybody else tunes out. Nobody cares what debugging methods you tried on some project they've never touched. If you need help you can just ask somebody.

1. Isn't the standup usually the place you're told to initially ask for that help?

2. Aren't most people, at least the developers/designers in the same standup, supposed to be working on the same project?

Post reply on HN