Live data from Hacker News

Agile Lite: Agile without all the burnout

github.com

181–190 of 292 posts

Re: Agile Lite: Agile without all the burnout

#181

No matter what you do, or what process you implement, if the organization does not _respect_ engineers, your life will categorically suck. As others have noted, the amount of process involved with "Agile" these days is not in the spirit of the original Agile Manifesto. Additionally, how is it that _some_ organizations do it well, vs. others that make life hell? This fundamentally comes down to how much the organizati…

I can honestly say that in 15 years and 8 companies I have never seen one that respects developers.

What's your definition of respect?

Re: Agile Lite: Agile without all the burnout

#182
post #29

If you're getting burnout doing agile, you're doing agile wrong. Don't do sprints. Have a continuous backlog. Don't do overtime. Don't make estimates. Always do the simplest thing. Only ever do the most important thing, as defined by the stakeholder. I've written and talked about this at great length. The fact people suggest agile gives you burnout reinforces my experience that Scrum is largely misinterpreted and peo…

Scrum is a framework to achieve "agility" and people forget that. The point is agility, not scrum.

I tend to view scrum, kanban, XP and also the more traditional tools like V-model as tool boxes - or maybe some kind of pre-configured framework. They combine agile or other project management tools in order to solve problems the team or stake holders of the team have.

However, this doesn't mean you can't take out and exchange parts. Some teams work profiles fit well with set sprints with a stable set of tasks. Others, like ops work with few people, doesn't due to incalculable factors like incident management. Prioritization might need different mechanics depending on the position and the responsibilities of the team.

It's all a big grab bag of tools to create some working workflow for a team.

Re: Agile Lite: Agile without all the burnout

#183

No matter what you do, or what process you implement, if the organization does not _respect_ engineers, your life will categorically suck. As others have noted, the amount of process involved with "Agile" these days is not in the spirit of the original Agile Manifesto. Additionally, how is it that _some_ organizations do it well, vs. others that make life hell? This fundamentally comes down to how much the organizati…

I can honestly say that in 15 years and 8 companies I have never seen one that respects developers.

That's really sad. Almost every place I've worked has respected developers. The two that didn't were both very large corporations, and I quit both of them as soon as I could.

Re: Agile Lite: Agile without all the burnout

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The business wants to know how much feature X is going to cost and when they can expect it. Of course they do. We all want things that are impossible to have. I want to know the AAPL stock price in 6 months. The traditional way to manage this impossibility is that engineering lies about it (they have to lie, because they can't know either), and once people are lying to each other, trust is unlikely to arise. The ag…

It's not impossible to estimate roughly how long something will take. If you consistently get it wrong, either: 1. You're not breaking down the work into small enough chunks to properly think about how long it will take 2. You are probably consistently under (or rarely over) estimating and should be able to fix that. For me, I have to triple my estimates, it always takes 3 times longer than I think it would To claim…

I've seen Agile™ estimation break down when the task is either 1. something nobody has done before (or has no close analog), or 2. is so interconnected that it can't be broken down.

The former is just a matter of hiring more experienced engineers _or_ allocating exploratory/prototyping time. Still high uncertainty but these kinds of tasks become rarer over a time.

For the latter, the common refrain is "break it down" but there certainly exists a relatively common type of work that must be completed all at once. And I find it increases as the complexity or popularity of the product increases, so with time. Therefore perhaps the metaphor of building becomes less appropriate, and surgery paints a more accurate picture.

Builders can construct a house, then add a garage, go work on another house, then return and add a guest bedroom, then remodel the kitchen, all with relatively minimal pausing or switching cost. But once a patient is put under and opened up, the surgeon really should work on finishing up that one patient before moving on to the next one. And for some weird reason we tend to prefer one big surgery to multiple small "atomic" ones.

Re: Agile Lite: Agile without all the burnout

#185

I've never gotten burned out from working too hard. I get burned out by having no say or control over what we are working on or how it's done, and by getting stuck working on low-value tasks for prolonged periods of time. Those projects are the ones that make me not excited at all to come to work. It's usually because the client / product owner has no idea what they're doing but still insists on making all of the dec…

> I've never gotten burned out from working too hard.

Me neither. I burn out when I'm working on something that I don't love working on (and things like feeling powerless or bad management can make it something I don't love working on). Not coincidentally, I also don't work as hard on those things despite all good intentions.

This is why the #1 requirement I have when I'm considering a job is that it is something that I will enjoy. That's more important than compensation or location.

Re: Agile Lite: Agile without all the burnout

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's interesting as in my experience is exactly the other way about. It's the experienced developers that try to gold plate to avoid the issues that they had in the last project or two projects ago, whereas the juniors ship code quickly but unfortunately often incomplete and certainly lacking a reasonable amount of test coverage

> It's the experienced developers that try to gold plate to avoid the issues that they had in the last project Literally learning from the past and applying it to the present is “gold plating”? I’m stunned.

I don't think the parent poster was saying that the learning itself was bad.

I think the gold plating they're referring to is a form of over-correcting. The learning itself is good, and correcting prior issues is good. But over-correcting and over-learning can be problematic and can lead to gold plating.

I don't think there's any easy indication of the line between the right-amount of correction and over-correction, but I don't think it's unreasonable to state that one can over-correct based on prior experiences.

Re: Agile Lite: Agile without all the burnout

#187
Went to github, saw the word “sprint”, closed window. I really appreciate any effort to return us to basics. However, we should have a firm grasp on what the basics are first. Today, you wouldn’t batch all of your team’s code together this week and then do a build - you would build and integrate continually. Why would you adopt large batch, non-continuous process for your overall development process?

Re: Agile Lite: Agile without all the burnout

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. That is why the retrospective meeting is at the heart of agile. A truly "agile light" setup would be: Every other week, do a retrospective. That's it! On the retro, ask yourself 3 questions (or work with these 3 themes): 1. Is the way we are working helping us, and the rest of the organization, make the right decisions and reach our goals in an efficient way? If not, what needs to change? 2. Is our understandin…

I would say that retrospectives are the biggest waste in agile in my experience. For one thing, retrospectives often come at a time when everyone has been busting ass for a long time and they just want to go home. If you put it off till next week then it seems like another distraction. Like the planning meetings, the timebox for a retrospective is often wrong. In some cases things went smoothly and there is a little…

In some cases things went smoothly and there is a little to say.

Has been my experience (on good teams.) After a while, you tend to gel pretty well and don't need to spend that much time introspecting. The issues raised are either generally intractable organizational problems (that'll never get fixed), or fairly minor, and on several teams I noticed that retrospectives tended to feel pretty similar after a while (To the credit of the team, at that point we were like "we probably don't need retrospectives every sprint.")

Re: Agile Lite: Agile without all the burnout

#189

The key thing people miss about agile (and project management in general) is that you have to tune the process to the situation. If you look at the PMBOK (Project Management Book Of Knowledge) it is really a comprehensive list of all the things you might have to think about while running a project. All of them are relevant to every project (e.g. hiring, communicating with the public) but some need a lot of attention…

This. That is why the retrospective meeting is at the heart of agile. A truly "agile light" setup would be: Every other week, do a retrospective. That's it! On the retro, ask yourself 3 questions (or work with these 3 themes): 1. Is the way we are working helping us, and the rest of the organization, make the right decisions and reach our goals in an efficient way? If not, what needs to change? 2. Is our understandin…

Good points. I would rather have these answered in planning, rather than a retrospective. If these questions need to be asked after every week of work, that's a sign that the retrospectives are not helping much.

Re: Agile Lite: Agile without all the burnout

#190
I think people respond well to natural rhythms with contrasting phases (a time to sow; a time to reap...) so I find the general concept quite appealing. One thing that always bothered me a bit about scrum was that it's basically an endless series of sprints. Just saying it like that sort of illustrates the problem that you can't sprint indefinitely.

Additionally, I've found that for maximum creativity/productivity, I need periods of down time. Work on a problem, then put it down, and often the solution will pop up while you're in the shower or taking a walk. So I think explicitly building some sort of breaks ("take a couple of days to learn/rest or work on whatever you want") is a good idea. I'd advocate doing this informally when needed or when schedule permits, rather than formally scheduling 3 on, 1 off.

Post reply on HN