31–40 of 163 posts
just code. code well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True. My last project started each day with 2 hours of scrum.
> started each day with 2 hours of scrum. What? Was your 15-minute stand-up 2 hours long? If so, are you sure you were doing it right? Were you scrum-master, and doing 2 hours of admin per day? What were you doing for the rest of the working day? I'm not really sure what you are describing here.
> With Scrum, there is an explicit commitment ... on what stories are going to be delivered within the sprint, No, there isn't. You adhere to your burn-down, not to your feature set. Scrum is time driven, not task driven. The whole idea is to become better at estimation so that Scrum appears task driven, when really it's just because your team is that good at estimating. > Iteration planning meetings are seriously ex…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scrum is focused almost exclusively on delivery. Every sprint, you should be delivering working features. It's not that hard: every sprint, you commit to a set of stories to finish before the next sprint. Every day you meet briefly to tell everyone how you're progressing and to air out any impediments. That's about it. To me, scrum is stripping process down to the bare minimum you need to be effective.
And it's fantastic when you're on a tight schedule! Instead of running fast all the time, you just sprint, then sprint, then sprint, etc! Works like magic. No one burns out at all.
just code. code well.
I completely agree on this one. I've worked in several corporate environments utilizing Srum and the planning meetings were always a huge waste of time. I would rather light my hair on fire than sit around a bunch of PM's trying to figure out what features to include/exclude.
Also, most of the people (PM's,Dev's,IA's) I talk to always say, "Nobody does Scrum/Agile right anyways." Which made me wonder if there is indeed a right and wrong way to do these.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> started each day with 2 hours of scrum. What? Was your 15-minute stand-up 2 hours long? If so, are you sure you were doing it right? Were you scrum-master, and doing 2 hours of admin per day? What were you doing for the rest of the working day? I'm not really sure what you are describing here.
OP mentions larger teams, so a 20-40 person team nets you around 22-45 seconds per person in a 15 min scrum. If we give each person 3 min that is a 1-2 hour scrum.
Which is just one reason why you do not have 20-40 person teams in scrum. The team size top out at around 12, and yes, at that size you have to keep what you say at stand-up short and to the point. If you find a 20-40 person team, for scrum you will have to break it up into sub-teams.
Was he doing some variation of scrum? Some kind of scrumbut? I won't claim that scrumbut always fails, but it's not hard to spot where this went wrong.
The #1 point mentioned in the article was my experience as well. For a tight deadline project if we decided to do everything based on the complexity points and team velocity it would take 6 sprints and a total of 3 months. But we just decided to ditch it and sit around a table and finished the whole thing in 2 weeks straight. So my experience is that if you are working with a dedicated team it is better to finish the…
I think a big part of it is that once you dig into complexity points and time estimates and all that other stuff, people tend to be on the safe side and add a lot of buffer. But when the whole team is in the hacking mentality and just wants to get sh*t done, you don't need to have everything in sprints. You just need a highly motivated and a dedicated team.