Scrum is a cancer • Hacker News Board

Re: Scrum is a cancer

#461

Post by t43562 » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 9:11 PM UTC

brailsafe wrote: post #455

t43562 wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

scrum masters should only bother you at the standup. They also shouldn't add requirements. So .... the one you were dealing with was just an average bullshitter pretending to do scrum.

The product owner was typically changing requirements, Scrum Master I think realized they had no functional role and tried to be a busybody. Either way, it was awful, and it was looked down upon to try and find some peace and quiet to actually get things done.

Well, a sprint is a contract - people are not allowed to change the deal in the middle and if they are then the PO isn't doing their job. They're really there to defend the team from pesky customers and prioritise work so that you DO have peace and quiet.

I get that this often doesn't work because individuals don't really grasp their function properly and don't defend or don't prioritise and then that part of the scheme cannot work. Sometimes the company structure makes the POs too scared to standup. IMO that would be a problem without scrum.

Re: Scrum is a cancer

#462

Post by AlbertCory » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 9:11 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #459

AlbertCory wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, would it be fair to summarize this as, "You weren't doing True Scrum" ?

No, it would be fair to summarize this as “’Scrum’ is used so inconsistency that trying to evaluate ‘Scrum’ is of no value; it is worth evaluate specific practices and well-defined collections of practices including ‘the set of practices described in the Scrum Guide’, and, if you are evaluating that particular set of practices , it is worth noting that the example cited is not an example of them.” Much less TLDRish,…

Unfortunately, "scrum master" is an actual job classification. So the true meaning of it, whatever that is, has escaped into the wild.

Re: Scrum is a cancer

#463

Post by lhnz » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 9:40 PM UTC

manuelabeledo wrote: post #428

lhnz wrote: post #340

The good thing about Scrum is that there are hundreds of little dials that can be modified if you're not getting any value from it. Due to this level of flexibility, it's always the right approach.

Isn't that precisely one of the most glaring issues with Scrum? Scrum tries to provide a measure of velocity in such a subjective manner, it is not useful to anyone involved.

Yes, sorry, that was sarcasm. It's incredibly funny that Scrum's most redeeming feature is for it to be so configurable. Scrum has the configurability of SAP.

Re: Scrum is a cancer

#464

Post by seadan83 » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 9:43 PM UTC

afro88 wrote: post #356

What's the alternative, where devs are motivated and productive, the team can react to the market quickly, and the business can rely on delivery dates for commercial and marketing? I'm not saying scrum and agile achieve the above. But what does? Seems like a 3 things pick 2 situation, and the 2 that get picked will time and again be the last 2.

> and the business can rely on delivery dates for commercial and marketing?

Agile/scrum is almost explicitly contrary to this goal. There is a chance every two weeks to change scope, requirements, direction. What happens when requirements change? Work is redone, new work is taken on, dates get pushed. Scrum does not provide predictability beyond one sprint, it is part of the point. The work of the next sprint is based on the outcome of the previous.

Re: Scrum is a cancer

#465

Post by placesalt » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 9:46 PM UTC

hahamrfunnyguy wrote: post #345

Usually mindless implementation of some buzzword process in its entirety is doomed to failure. I worked for a manufacturing company a number of years ago. I was a developer, working on machine control software. Management decided that the company needed to implement the 5S workspace management system company wide. In short, one focus of the system is to help you put tools and materials back in the right spot to keep…

I hope someone had the acerbic wit to label the tape 'tape'

Re: Scrum is a cancer

#466

Post by brailsafe » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 9:59 PM UTC

t43562 wrote: post #461

brailsafe wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The product owner was typically changing requirements, Scrum Master I think realized they had no functional role and tried to be a busybody. Either way, it was awful, and it was looked down upon to try and find some peace and quiet to actually get things done.

Well, a sprint is a contract - people are not allowed to change the deal in the middle and if they are then the PO isn't doing their job. They're really there to defend the team from pesky customers and prioritise work so that you DO have peace and quiet. I get that this often doesn't work because individuals don't really grasp their function properly and don't defend or don't prioritise and then that part of the sch…

I don't think much of that is true at all if the result of their role is supposed to be remotely inspired by Agile, but yes it's the structure screwing it up and individuals just following along.

Re: Scrum is a cancer

#467

Post by seadan83 » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 10:47 PM UTC

foogazi wrote: post #196

hiyer wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It kind of is. Well, the public dinging probably isn't. But at a few companies I've seen, teams are tracked on how many tickets span multiple sprints. If it exceeds some threshold, then theoretically it means that either: 1. The team is not breaking down tasks granularly enough, or 2. They're not estimating tasks correctly Practically, it means nothing of course.

In Scrum: - the product owner sets the backlog priority - team estimates - team commits to what it can deliver from the backlog - any misses are analyzed for scope mistakes Rinse/repeat There’s no shaming part Edit: format

The scrum guide [1] says team gives a forecast and not a commitment. I have yet to know any other scrum practitioners aware of that update.

Unless a person has no shame, failing a commitment I certainly believe is intrinsically shameful. Some cultures would commit seppuku if you don't deliver on a commitment.

The words, "you failed on your commitments" seems very much like shaming. Thus the move to "forecast" over "commitment"

[1] https://www.scrum.org/resources/commitment-vs-forecast

*edit (addendum): Invoking 'seppuku' might be a bit sensationalist, my apologies. The southerner in me is coming out - saying someone does not live up to their word is a very big deal.

Re: Scrum is a cancer

#468

Post by kenada » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 11:55 PM UTC

Yhippa wrote: post #421

kenada wrote: post #350

I’ve had good experiences with scrum. I was on a team that was empowered to own and refine its practice. We were able to halve our cycle time and improve sprint planning to the point where we rarely overcommitted. It was great, and it was credited with the successful delivery of a major project. Unfortunately, our management changed, and we were no longer empowered. The new manager had his own ideas for how things sh…

> That’s really my biggest issue with agile. There’s a big focus on process, but it’s about the people From the Agile Manifesto: Individuals and interactions over processes and tools. What you described doesn't sound Agile by the book.

That’s fair, and you’re right. I apologize for being unclear. Perhaps I should have quoted it to reflect that my issue is with what gets called “agile” rather than what the practice is supposed be (and the former seems unfortunately common).

Re: Scrum is a cancer

#469

Post by kenada » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 12:19 AM UTC

pillefitz wrote: post #407

kenada wrote: post #350

I’ve had good experiences with scrum. I was on a team that was empowered to own and refine its practice. We were able to halve our cycle time and improve sprint planning to the point where we rarely overcommitted. It was great, and it was credited with the successful delivery of a major project. Unfortunately, our management changed, and we were no longer empowered. The new manager had his own ideas for how things sh…

What was the replacement process?

The manager would tell people which ServiceNow tickets to work or what project work to do. We went from empowered to micromanaged. Maybe the kinks got worked out eventually, but I didn’t stick around and left after a few months.

Re: Scrum is a cancer

#470

Post by tstrimple » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 12:43 AM UTC

notjoemama wrote: post #276

I don’t mind scrum, specifically the daily stand up. In an old job a couple non-contributors became obvious. And so has been my work ethic. I benefit from that because I’m naturally the kind of person to get things done. Despite my good feelings about it, I also see how often it’s used as a) an excuse to micromanage and b) a mechanism to feed leadership’s need for attention. I don’t know if this is accurate or not, b…

> but I’m inclined to think people that get into managerial positions are more social and that seems to come with an intrinsic need to be seen, recognized, and given some form of public accolades

I got into management because I like solving problems and I reached a point where solving purely technical problems is no longer what it takes to actually drive a product forward and improve things. The problems I try to solve now are more organizational so that dev teams can actually reach that creative state where they are talking with the customer directly and engaged in the overall process. I'm an introvert. The face time and accolades are draining, but it's important work that you've got to be in a leadership position to take on effectively.