Live data from Hacker News

Scrum is a cancer

twitter.com

121–130 of 486 posts

Re: Scrum is a cancer

#121
post #46

I’ve developed a more nuanced view on Scrum since working as a contractor for a medium sized software company, but adjacent to their normal dev teams. I used to have the view that Scrum is a useless batch of meetings, that sucks the life and productivity out of the dev process. Now, after seeing it from an adjacent (but not subjugated under it) perspective, I think it is a life-sucking batch of meetings that are good…

I love https://basecamp.com/shapeup approach - tiny teams with high independence and sufficient domain knowledge working in six week periods to deliver features.

And here’s Dave Thomas (one of the names under the Agile Manifesto) speaking of the Agile/Scrum Industrial Complex https://youtu.be/a-BOSpxYJ9M?si=pwROU4JU9V64A39O

Re: Scrum is a cancer

#122

I would have guessed more HN readers would attempt to understand the desired outcomes, how the implementation attempts to achieve them, then take the good from the bad as a source of constant improvement. The tone on this thread has that jaded and defeatest "management sucks" attitude that I find most often in the least productive engineers regardless of how they work.

The guys here come to the scrum retrospectives, stay silent the entire time, and then complain that scrum sucks.

Tried saying "this process sucks, can we do it better?". Was told that Scrum is what all organisations use, there's nothing else (except Waterfall), and that this is "best practice".

The people who are silent in the retros are probably jaded and cynical about the whole process. And if the manager knew their shit, they'd do something about that instead of accepting that some of their team are not engaged with the process.

Re: Scrum is a cancer

#123

I'm honestly surprised to see a post with a vitriol-to-insight ratio so bent in favor of vitriol getting such a positive response. I think the poster here is way, way off mark. It's incredibly frustrating, because so many of the things he says suggest that he or his organizations truly don't understand scrum, yet he proactively goes on the offensive against anyone who suggests he's wrong and won't listen to any evide…

Testimony from dozens upon dozens of developers that think that scrum is useless, toxic bullshit:

https://github.com/rayfrankenstein/AITOW/blob/master/README....

Re: Scrum is a cancer

#124

I would have guessed more HN readers would attempt to understand the desired outcomes, how the implementation attempts to achieve them, then take the good from the bad as a source of constant improvement. The tone on this thread has that jaded and defeatest "management sucks" attitude that I find most often in the least productive engineers regardless of how they work.

I'll be the first to admit that managing a complex project's timeline is not a skill of mine. All I know is that the franken-scrum monstrosities that I have been subjected to in various organizations have all had a very negative impact on my morale and productivity. The problem I see is that the the business will want to make tradeoffs that the developers may not like. How you reconcile the two without hurting morale is the challenge. I left my last company largely because their version of scrum was sucking the life out of me.

Re: Scrum is a cancer

#125

I have a lot of issues with scrum and I think twitter post and the comments here touch on a lot of them, but one of my biggest annoyances with the whole thing that I hardly ever hear anyone mention is the term "sprints". If you asked a marathon runner how to run a marathon, they're going to tell you things like run slower, make sure you conserve energy, and control your pace. They're not going to tell you to mentally…

Thanks for pointing this and I don't believe this is a minor point. I'm managing multiple teams - I was a developer - and I consider the "long" time perspective as a product quality technically speaking and also the team health. And a sprint is not compatible with those two last points where at the end of a sprint everybody in the team rush to deliver the user story and everybody is exhausted or tired...

Re: Scrum is a cancer

#126
post #46

I’ve developed a more nuanced view on Scrum since working as a contractor for a medium sized software company, but adjacent to their normal dev teams. I used to have the view that Scrum is a useless batch of meetings, that sucks the life and productivity out of the dev process. Now, after seeing it from an adjacent (but not subjugated under it) perspective, I think it is a life-sucking batch of meetings that are good…

> taking developers who can’t or don’t want to see the overall business/architecture picture and getting useful work out of them.

Maybe in theory that's the point of it, but it practice it also (and mostly) has the opposite effect: it takes all agency away from capable developers and make them impossible to see the big picture, drastically plummeting developer productivity of otherwise very capable developers.

> Most of us here are not in that category. […] For us, […] is useless.

It's not just useless, it's actually harmful.

> But I can also see how a company ends up there - go through a tough hiring year, or even just make a few poor hiring decisions, and now you have people on the team who need handholding and supervision

But most of the time it's not how it happens: it's forced top-down by manager who have no idea of how software development work, and who are genuinely convinced that it is how projects should be run.

They don't realize that it's a workaround for terrible HR that reduces productivity for everyone, because if they did they'd probably think twice (“How is my HR so poor when I'm not trying to cut on costs there? Oh maybe it's not and I should not use scrum”), they just do it because everybody else does.

Re: Scrum is a cancer

#127
post #46

I’ve developed a more nuanced view on Scrum since working as a contractor for a medium sized software company, but adjacent to their normal dev teams. I used to have the view that Scrum is a useless batch of meetings, that sucks the life and productivity out of the dev process. Now, after seeing it from an adjacent (but not subjugated under it) perspective, I think it is a life-sucking batch of meetings that are good…

> I’d argue that you’re way better off hiring 6 devs that can go from business problem -> technical solution in their head, without all the ceremony, instead of 40 devs who can’t and 6 PMs to wrangle them. The problem is that finding those 6 experienced devs is _HARD_. And they're usually very expensive and know their value. You can easily find 40 mid to low level coders and a half-dozen people who know how to run a…

I have been taking a closer look at project management and product management in the last few months. Coming from the programming side, I thought technical product manager rule the world, and thought everything that is technically led is glorious.

Then I had a very personal conversation with hardcore project manager from non-tech side. He told me that, I got the idea of management of all wrong.

Project manager is an operator where the engineers are nothing more than machine. Your standard engineer is not interested or even care about business goals. They are doing a job, they like to be told what is expected from them, they like to be told what deliverable is. Senior engineers can give an estimate of delivery date, but most don't. They are essentially cogs in the machine and managers are expected to birth products from them.

About those experienced devs: In an manufacturing plant there are things that just works and you don't fiddle with them. Or else, they break and you have to get a brand new thing. Most of these senior engineer with business focus are difficult to manage and they have an expiry date on them. You are lucky to get one, but you have to count the days until they leave for better pay. Moreover, you don't want programmers interested in business side as they get passionate about things that don't concern them which is obviously business side things. So, you need engineers to work but not get ideas.

---

He told a bunch of those stories, but it seems these stories are like if you are in the business, you probably know already type things. He really doesn't buy the idea that "software engineers" are special type of engineers, he said, management hasn't change in centuries, people just use different rhetoric that's all.

Re: Scrum is a cancer

#129
Scrum got popular but it doesn't fit in with most companies imperatives so the management modify or purposely fail to understand it or don't train anyone.

  It's really about teams adjusting themselves to whatever behaviour and process works for them and managers hate not having control. So it's inevitable that any method which gets adopted in name at shitty companies will be "enshittified".
Hence the article has no real insight and is just aimed at generating views with controversy.

Re: Scrum is a cancer

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really appreciate this take and the sibling comment. Exactly. See what good is there, move on about the rest.

But what to do when instead of 6 competent and efficient devs you get 40 people with random mix of skills, no domain knowledge and at moderate programming talent? I dont know Scrum to comment on it, but many management methods converge to 'appear that work is done all the time even if it's just meaningless bureaucracy, make everything slow and inefficient, but manage the expectations - so customer is moderately disap…

> But what to do when instead of 6 competent and efficient devs you get 40 people with random mix of skills, no domain knowledge and at moderate programming talent?

Leave.

That sounds like it's someone's problem, but it doesn't need to be yours.

Post reply on HN