Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How big tech runs tech projects and the curious absence of Scrum

newsletter.pragmaticengineer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 452 posts

Re: How big tech runs tech projects and the curious absence of Scrum

#171

Post by g051051 »

mbeex wrote: post #164

I was there when Agile was invented. In my opinion, Scrum has always been the worst embodiment of a good idea. In terms of content, teams of experienced developers have always worked in the spirit of Agile (of course there are exceptions). This informal understanding was and is superior to a formal horizontal Scrum implementation. For example, it preserves seniority and true accountability - two things that Scrum pre…

> These days, mandatory Scrum is a contra-indicator for any project that crosses my path as a freelancer.

Yes! Although I don't agree that Agile is a good idea that scrum ruined.

Re: How big tech runs tech projects and the curious absence of Scrum

#172

Post by ta988 »

akudha wrote: post #84
lordnacho wrote: post #17

The thing about Scrum is the observations and principles make sense, but then to sell it as a course they've turned it into very specific prescriptions. I went on a scrum course and the takeaway was basically that feedback is a big deal, and you should try to get some repeatedly and quickly. It's also common sense that you should have tasks written down somewhere, and that some of them are more important than others.…

The problem with any system is that people try to enforce it, military style. In my previous job, we did scrum, but not too strict. We had two week cycles, not-too-strict deadlines (most of the time) etc. If I finished my task early, I was free to pick up tasks from the planned list, without having to get permission from my manager. We also didn't agonize over story points, retrospective etc. We did it light hearted…

A lot of places are looking for new people (even remotely), don't stay in a place that makes you miserable. You don't have to suffer for other peoples mismanagement.

Re: How big tech runs tech projects and the curious absence of Scrum

#173

Post by arnvald »

pc86 wrote: post #97
arcbyte wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Dev, I loved SAFE. It changed everything about how our program operated to the point our delivery became extremely predictable and we still had every 9th and 10th week to tinker on new ideas or do refactoring and cleanup where we wanted. That program purred like nothing else I've ever been a part of. Senior leaders sat with devs, started talking to everyone about their priorities - people we had never seen befor…

Why is it that every criticism of agile/scrum/safe is met with "well you just weren't really doing it?"

This. You can recognize the agile cult members by how they respond to failed projects. No matter why they project failed they always say "we need to be more agile next time".

Re: How big tech runs tech projects and the curious absence of Scrum

#174

Post by g051051 »

akudha wrote: post #84
lordnacho wrote: post #17

The thing about Scrum is the observations and principles make sense, but then to sell it as a course they've turned it into very specific prescriptions. I went on a scrum course and the takeaway was basically that feedback is a big deal, and you should try to get some repeatedly and quickly. It's also common sense that you should have tasks written down somewhere, and that some of them are more important than others.…

The problem with any system is that people try to enforce it, military style. In my previous job, we did scrum, but not too strict. We had two week cycles, not-too-strict deadlines (most of the time) etc. If I finished my task early, I was free to pick up tasks from the planned list, without having to get permission from my manager. We also didn't agonize over story points, retrospective etc. We did it light hearted…

> My current job is the opposite. Some tasks take 15 minutes of discussion (no, they aren't complex tasks) with people debating whether it is worth 5 points or 8. It is just tiring and pointless.

That was my last gig. The whole organization eventually just collapsed under the increasing load of being "Agile".

Re: How big tech runs tech projects and the curious absence of Scrum

#175

Post by detaro »

hnuser847 wrote: post #170
CraneWorm wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they mean when your retro board has a theme; I've seen various themes applied successfully i.e. sailboat: https://metroretro.io/templates/the-sailboat-retrospective

It's amazing how infantilized this industry has become during my short 10 year career. I'm so thankful I switched to product and don't have to deal with this BS anymore.

... that's usually the people that try to bring this stuff in...

Re: How big tech runs tech projects and the curious absence of Scrum

#176

Post by jonpurdy »

seanhunter wrote: post #139
erikwiffin wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's value in that debate (within reason) even as a developer. If Alice thinks a task is worth 5, and Bob thinks it's worth 8, then there's a good chance one of them knows something the other does not. Is Bob aware of some hidden complexity that bumps it up 3 points? Or is Alice familiar with a convenient library that solves exactly that complexity? Planning poker is a convenient time to get that knowledge…

> there's a good chance one of them knows something the other does not Or that the assignment of points is arbitrary and imprecise and that different people have different ways of making up numbers.

Everyone is correct in this thread. The stimulation of discussion is useful, and numbers are arbitrary.

Instead of worrying about 5 vs 8 though, the team should be discussing relative difficulty: is story B easier/more difficult/complex than story A? And then ranking stories based on the relative difficulty of each other.

Story points can then be derived based on that ranking, if the team chooses. They're useful for being applied to velocity calculation, and also helpful when picking up a story to work on (maybe a bad idea to start an 8 pointer on a Friday).

(I have a SM cert, working as a TPM. I applying Agile principles to teams, but modified to how they want to work and be most effective. No militant Scrum here.)

Re: How big tech runs tech projects and the curious absence of Scrum

#177

Post by optymizer »

troupe wrote: post #106
akudha wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with any system is that people try to enforce it, military style. In my previous job, we did scrum, but not too strict. We had two week cycles, not-too-strict deadlines (most of the time) etc. If I finished my task early, I was free to pick up tasks from the planned list, without having to get permission from my manager. We also didn't agonize over story points, retrospective etc. We did it light hearted…

> debating whether it is worth 5 points are 8 I'm baffled by this behavior. If you know it is the next most important thing, why do you care? What would it change in your behavior if it is a 5 vs and 8? If you are looking at a task that you would choose not to do if it were an 8 but choose to do if it were a 5, then you probably look for something that is more important to work on. I think you are right that much of…

Sometimes importance is related to size. Points are arbitrary, but lets assume that on average a developer will work the entire sprint on an 8 point task. The PM might decide that feature is not worth the time investment in that sprint, if they could instead get 2 smaller features out the door, or some bug fixed - they might prefer to deliver that to stakeholders.

That's why there's even a velocity expressed in points, like the tasks - it's the PM's budget to work with. So 5 points or 8 doesn't change the work you have to do as an engineer, but it changes the number of things a PM will put on the team's plate in the next sprint, and the points force them to make trade-offs, otherwise they'll insist that the bug, the small feature and the large feature are all high priority and have to be delivered in the next sprint.

I'm not justifying the 15 minute time investment for sizing, that is clearly way too much time, I'm only highlighting that in scrum, as an engineer, you don't necessarily know or decide what the next most important thing to work on is. That's the PM's job.

Re: How big tech runs tech projects and the curious absence of Scrum

#178

Post by hiptobecubic »

Jensson wrote: post #133
jermeh wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work in a "traditional company" and the gatekeepers were installed to keep developers from going insane. When we have too much information back and forth between business and engineering, the loudest complaints from the business side (where the $$$ comes from today and tomorrow) drowns out the team's and department's internal goals, which are usually much longer term (meaning the $$$ is in months or years, not next…

The trick big tech uses to solve this is to not just pay extra for above average engineering talent, they pay extra for above average talent in all areas. So the people you talk to are almost always pretty reasonable and understanding, they want things done and complains but they don't ask for the impossible or unreasonable.

There are also product managers and UX engineers. It's not like every random coder is interacting with sales on the go to market strategy.

Re: How big tech runs tech projects and the curious absence of Scrum

#179

Post by jdgoesmarching »

rubyist5eva wrote: post #137
hatchnyc wrote: post #22

> Engineers are encouraged to interact with the rest of the business and build relationships with non-engineers. In contrast, traditional companies often make it impossible for developers to interact with the rest of the business. In my experience “traditional companies” will often have a bunch of people in cushy “gatekeeping“ jobs whose main function is basically forwarding emails back and forth between devs and the…

My current company is like this. I work directly with the business people anyway. When anyone says anything I just point them to my output, quality, and the feedback from the business people - shuts them up every time.

I’m one of these hypothetical gatekeepers and would be thrilled if a dev could successfully take this off my plate. Just prioritizing the incoming requests from stakeholders is a full-time job.
Post reply on HN