Mixing
Team managers hindering Scrum transition due to reluctance about developer autonomy [on hold]
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
My team has been trying to transition to Scrum for some time now, but it seems like the preexisting culture is preventing the team from switching to a new mindset or even causing it to move in the opposite direction.
For reference, the team has two line managers, a project manager, a product owner, and five developers.
- Developers never have direct contact with the product owner. Although it could be argued the line managers fill that role since they define the work for the team, that is denied by PM.
- The project manager insists she is the 'Scrum leader'.
- PM also insists line managers are part of the Dev Team since all Agile teams have a "Team Lead" role, and direct supervision of the work by LMs is fine since they are the technical leads after all, which is a valid Scrum role.
- PM also insists daily standups serve as a reporting tool.
- Daily stand-ups are run by LMs who use it to track daily progress, supervise each individual developer, comment on their approach, and assign new tasks.
- 1-3 days per user story is taken as a hard limit per user story by LMs instead of a breakdown guideline. If a developer exceeds 2 days on a user story he receives an email about how a developer is responsible for delivering on a deadline.
- LMs insist collective ownership means there should be an individual per feature responsible for its development.
Bonus:
- When I brought up these points in an impromptu way at a meeting, I was pretty much told I was silly for suggesting to remove the LMs from the development process since they were the ones with the business knowledge, or making suggestions since I was new.
- A few hours after I sent out an email to the LMs with the devs CCed summarizing the points I made citing relevant articles, I received an email CCing all people in that email about an issue with a feature I have been working on and how it was taking too long.
Is there anything I can do in this situation to help the team as a developer transition to a Scrum mindset and avoid breaking the morale of the team due daily monitoring and supervision resulting from this that takes as much as 10-15% of the work week?
management scrum agile
edited 21 mins ago
Brushline
586
asked Oct 7 at 12:04
Victor S
225
New contributor
Victor S is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
put on hold as too broad by gnat, Michael Grubey, gazzz0x2z, jimm101, IDrinkandIKnowThings 17 hours ago
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
 |Â
show 9 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
My team has been trying to transition to Scrum for some time now, but it seems like the preexisting culture is preventing the team from switching to a new mindset or even causing it to move in the opposite direction.
For reference, the team has two line managers, a project manager, a product owner, and five developers.
- Developers never have direct contact with the product owner. Although it could be argued the line managers fill that role since they define the work for the team, that is denied by PM.
- The project manager insists she is the 'Scrum leader'.
- PM also insists line managers are part of the Dev Team since all Agile teams have a "Team Lead" role, and direct supervision of the work by LMs is fine since they are the technical leads after all, which is a valid Scrum role.
- PM also insists daily standups serve as a reporting tool.
- Daily stand-ups are run by LMs who use it to track daily progress, supervise each individual developer, comment on their approach, and assign new tasks.
- 1-3 days per user story is taken as a hard limit per user story by LMs instead of a breakdown guideline. If a developer exceeds 2 days on a user story he receives an email about how a developer is responsible for delivering on a deadline.
- LMs insist collective ownership means there should be an individual per feature responsible for its development.
Bonus:
- When I brought up these points in an impromptu way at a meeting, I was pretty much told I was silly for suggesting to remove the LMs from the development process since they were the ones with the business knowledge, or making suggestions since I was new.
- A few hours after I sent out an email to the LMs with the devs CCed summarizing the points I made citing relevant articles, I received an email CCing all people in that email about an issue with a feature I have been working on and how it was taking too long.
Is there anything I can do in this situation to help the team as a developer transition to a Scrum mindset and avoid breaking the morale of the team due daily monitoring and supervision resulting from this that takes as much as 10-15% of the work week?
management scrum agile
edited 21 mins ago
Brushline
586
asked Oct 7 at 12:04
Victor S
225
New contributor
Victor S is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
put on hold as too broad by gnat, Michael Grubey, gazzz0x2z, jimm101, IDrinkandIKnowThings 17 hours ago
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
1
why is any of the many items you list a problem? why do you have problems with the PM being the scrum master? why do you have problems with technical leads, or that they are your managers? none of what you have listed is a scrum problem. it would help if you could let us know what you want, and why it is better.
– bharal
Oct 7 at 13:07
2
@bharal PM and Scrum Master are entirely separate roles with different needs. Think Software Engineer vs System Admin. Scrum also does not have a team lead role, period. A dev team is not self organizing as Scrum calls for if a tech lead is calling the shots on the very basics of implementation. So the problem is team is not implementing Scrum while wasting time implementing it.
– Victor S
Oct 7 at 13:41
4
@bharal Basically everything he has listed is contrary to Scrum. That might in itself not be a problem, Scrum is not the silver bullet, some companies might be better of with traditional command & control. But if they are "trying" to do Scrum, then they are way off course.
– nvoigt
Oct 7 at 13:56
3
no, scrum isn't about the definition of a team lead or whatever. It's about creating an environment where there is a continuous feedback loop of progress, and a continuous deliverable so that end users are aware of what is going on. The objective of scrum is to provide management with sufficient data to aid in planning resources, alerting stakeholders of problems early and ensuring that deliverables match expectations. Saying "scrum says there is no team lead" misses the point - it's a methodology for visibility, not somehow pretending that developers don't need a team lead.
– bharal
2 days ago
3
The purpose of scrum isn't to inform management of anything - the purpose of scrum is to have the actual team itself do these things.
– Erik
2 days ago
 |Â
show 9 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
My team has been trying to transition to Scrum for some time now, but it seems like the preexisting culture is preventing the team from switching to a new mindset or even causing it to move in the opposite direction.
For reference, the team has two line managers, a project manager, a product owner, and five developers.
- Developers never have direct contact with the product owner. Although it could be argued the line managers fill that role since they define the work for the team, that is denied by PM.
- The project manager insists she is the 'Scrum leader'.
- PM also insists line managers are part of the Dev Team since all Agile teams have a "Team Lead" role, and direct supervision of the work by LMs is fine since they are the technical leads after all, which is a valid Scrum role.
- PM also insists daily standups serve as a reporting tool.
- Daily stand-ups are run by LMs who use it to track daily progress, supervise each individual developer, comment on their approach, and assign new tasks.
- 1-3 days per user story is taken as a hard limit per user story by LMs instead of a breakdown guideline. If a developer exceeds 2 days on a user story he receives an email about how a developer is responsible for delivering on a deadline.
- LMs insist collective ownership means there should be an individual per feature responsible for its development.
Bonus:
- When I brought up these points in an impromptu way at a meeting, I was pretty much told I was silly for suggesting to remove the LMs from the development process since they were the ones with the business knowledge, or making suggestions since I was new.
- A few hours after I sent out an email to the LMs with the devs CCed summarizing the points I made citing relevant articles, I received an email CCing all people in that email about an issue with a feature I have been working on and how it was taking too long.
Is there anything I can do in this situation to help the team as a developer transition to a Scrum mindset and avoid breaking the morale of the team due daily monitoring and supervision resulting from this that takes as much as 10-15% of the work week?
management scrum agile
edited 21 mins ago
Brushline
586
asked Oct 7 at 12:04
Victor S
225
New contributor
Victor S is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
My team has been trying to transition to Scrum for some time now, but it seems like the preexisting culture is preventing the team from switching to a new mindset or even causing it to move in the opposite direction.
For reference, the team has two line managers, a project manager, a product owner, and five developers.
- Developers never have direct contact with the product owner. Although it could be argued the line managers fill that role since they define the work for the team, that is denied by PM.
- The project manager insists she is the 'Scrum leader'.
- PM also insists line managers are part of the Dev Team since all Agile teams have a "Team Lead" role, and direct supervision of the work by LMs is fine since they are the technical leads after all, which is a valid Scrum role.
- PM also insists daily standups serve as a reporting tool.
- Daily stand-ups are run by LMs who use it to track daily progress, supervise each individual developer, comment on their approach, and assign new tasks.
- 1-3 days per user story is taken as a hard limit per user story by LMs instead of a breakdown guideline. If a developer exceeds 2 days on a user story he receives an email about how a developer is responsible for delivering on a deadline.
- LMs insist collective ownership means there should be an individual per feature responsible for its development.
Bonus:
- When I brought up these points in an impromptu way at a meeting, I was pretty much told I was silly for suggesting to remove the LMs from the development process since they were the ones with the business knowledge, or making suggestions since I was new.
- A few hours after I sent out an email to the LMs with the devs CCed summarizing the points I made citing relevant articles, I received an email CCing all people in that email about an issue with a feature I have been working on and how it was taking too long.
Is there anything I can do in this situation to help the team as a developer transition to a Scrum mindset and avoid breaking the morale of the team due daily monitoring and supervision resulting from this that takes as much as 10-15% of the work week?
management scrum agile
management scrum agile
edited 21 mins ago
Brushline
586
asked Oct 7 at 12:04
Victor S
225
New contributor
Victor S is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 21 mins ago
Brushline
586
asked Oct 7 at 12:04
Victor S
225
New contributor
Victor S is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 21 mins ago
Brushline
586
edited 21 mins ago
Brushline
586
edited 21 mins ago
Brushline
586
586
asked Oct 7 at 12:04
Victor S
225
New contributor
Victor S is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Oct 7 at 12:04
Victor S
225
asked Oct 7 at 12:04
Victor S
225
225
New contributor
Victor S is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Victor S is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Victor S is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
put on hold as too broad by gnat, Michael Grubey, gazzz0x2z, jimm101, IDrinkandIKnowThings 17 hours ago
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
put on hold as too broad by gnat, Michael Grubey, gazzz0x2z, jimm101, IDrinkandIKnowThings 17 hours ago
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
1
why is any of the many items you list a problem? why do you have problems with the PM being the scrum master? why do you have problems with technical leads, or that they are your managers? none of what you have listed is a scrum problem. it would help if you could let us know what you want, and why it is better.
– bharal
Oct 7 at 13:07
2
@bharal PM and Scrum Master are entirely separate roles with different needs. Think Software Engineer vs System Admin. Scrum also does not have a team lead role, period. A dev team is not self organizing as Scrum calls for if a tech lead is calling the shots on the very basics of implementation. So the problem is team is not implementing Scrum while wasting time implementing it.
– Victor S
Oct 7 at 13:41
4
@bharal Basically everything he has listed is contrary to Scrum. That might in itself not be a problem, Scrum is not the silver bullet, some companies might be better of with traditional command & control. But if they are "trying" to do Scrum, then they are way off course.
– nvoigt
Oct 7 at 13:56
3
no, scrum isn't about the definition of a team lead or whatever. It's about creating an environment where there is a continuous feedback loop of progress, and a continuous deliverable so that end users are aware of what is going on. The objective of scrum is to provide management with sufficient data to aid in planning resources, alerting stakeholders of problems early and ensuring that deliverables match expectations. Saying "scrum says there is no team lead" misses the point - it's a methodology for visibility, not somehow pretending that developers don't need a team lead.
– bharal
2 days ago
3
The purpose of scrum isn't to inform management of anything - the purpose of scrum is to have the actual team itself do these things.
– Erik
2 days ago
 |Â
show 9 more comments
1
why is any of the many items you list a problem? why do you have problems with the PM being the scrum master? why do you have problems with technical leads, or that they are your managers? none of what you have listed is a scrum problem. it would help if you could let us know what you want, and why it is better.
– bharal
Oct 7 at 13:07
2
@bharal PM and Scrum Master are entirely separate roles with different needs. Think Software Engineer vs System Admin. Scrum also does not have a team lead role, period. A dev team is not self organizing as Scrum calls for if a tech lead is calling the shots on the very basics of implementation. So the problem is team is not implementing Scrum while wasting time implementing it.
– Victor S
Oct 7 at 13:41
4
@bharal Basically everything he has listed is contrary to Scrum. That might in itself not be a problem, Scrum is not the silver bullet, some companies might be better of with traditional command & control. But if they are "trying" to do Scrum, then they are way off course.
– nvoigt
Oct 7 at 13:56
3
no, scrum isn't about the definition of a team lead or whatever. It's about creating an environment where there is a continuous feedback loop of progress, and a continuous deliverable so that end users are aware of what is going on. The objective of scrum is to provide management with sufficient data to aid in planning resources, alerting stakeholders of problems early and ensuring that deliverables match expectations. Saying "scrum says there is no team lead" misses the point - it's a methodology for visibility, not somehow pretending that developers don't need a team lead.
– bharal
2 days ago
3
The purpose of scrum isn't to inform management of anything - the purpose of scrum is to have the actual team itself do these things.
– Erik
2 days ago
1
1
why is any of the many items you list a problem? why do you have problems with the PM being the scrum master? why do you have problems with technical leads, or that they are your managers? none of what you have listed is a scrum problem. it would help if you could let us know what you want, and why it is better.
– bharal
Oct 7 at 13:07
why is any of the many items you list a problem? why do you have problems with the PM being the scrum master? why do you have problems with technical leads, or that they are your managers? none of what you have listed is a scrum problem. it would help if you could let us know what you want, and why it is better.
– bharal
Oct 7 at 13:07
2
2
@bharal PM and Scrum Master are entirely separate roles with different needs. Think Software Engineer vs System Admin. Scrum also does not have a team lead role, period. A dev team is not self organizing as Scrum calls for if a tech lead is calling the shots on the very basics of implementation. So the problem is team is not implementing Scrum while wasting time implementing it.
– Victor S
Oct 7 at 13:41
@bharal PM and Scrum Master are entirely separate roles with different needs. Think Software Engineer vs System Admin. Scrum also does not have a team lead role, period. A dev team is not self organizing as Scrum calls for if a tech lead is calling the shots on the very basics of implementation. So the problem is team is not implementing Scrum while wasting time implementing it.
– Victor S
Oct 7 at 13:41
4
4
@bharal Basically everything he has listed is contrary to Scrum. That might in itself not be a problem, Scrum is not the silver bullet, some companies might be better of with traditional command & control. But if they are "trying" to do Scrum, then they are way off course.
– nvoigt
Oct 7 at 13:56
@bharal Basically everything he has listed is contrary to Scrum. That might in itself not be a problem, Scrum is not the silver bullet, some companies might be better of with traditional command & control. But if they are "trying" to do Scrum, then they are way off course.
– nvoigt
Oct 7 at 13:56
3
3
no, scrum isn't about the definition of a team lead or whatever. It's about creating an environment where there is a continuous feedback loop of progress, and a continuous deliverable so that end users are aware of what is going on. The objective of scrum is to provide management with sufficient data to aid in planning resources, alerting stakeholders of problems early and ensuring that deliverables match expectations. Saying "scrum says there is no team lead" misses the point - it's a methodology for visibility, not somehow pretending that developers don't need a team lead.
– bharal
2 days ago
no, scrum isn't about the definition of a team lead or whatever. It's about creating an environment where there is a continuous feedback loop of progress, and a continuous deliverable so that end users are aware of what is going on. The objective of scrum is to provide management with sufficient data to aid in planning resources, alerting stakeholders of problems early and ensuring that deliverables match expectations. Saying "scrum says there is no team lead" misses the point - it's a methodology for visibility, not somehow pretending that developers don't need a team lead.
– bharal
2 days ago
3
3
The purpose of scrum isn't to inform management of anything - the purpose of scrum is to have the actual team itself do these things.
– Erik
2 days ago
The purpose of scrum isn't to inform management of anything - the purpose of scrum is to have the actual team itself do these things.
– Erik
2 days ago
 |Â
show 9 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
16
down vote
accepted
My team has been trying to transition to Scrum for some time now,
I would say it hasn't. Scrum terms have been flung around and misused, but that's it. There is no transition visible.
A transition would need Scrum Masters leading it. A plan how to transition (maybe as it's own Scrum project). And support from upper management. I can see neither in your description.
In my experience there is nothing you can do really. The people in power will not just step off and give it up. The existence of 4(!) people titled "manager" or "owner" and only five developers in comparison means there is too much to lose for them. Implementing Scrum would mean at least two of them will lose their jobs and one might be trained to another position that is totally unlike their previous job description. They will not play any constructive role in their own obsolescence.
If upper management does not enforce this transition, and I mean enforce, not "wish for", this will not happen. They will cling to their jobs. It's not about culture, it's about the fact that with Scrum, they see that what they offer is not needed. They are running out of time in that business and any delay, any problem in the process of transitioning will grant them another fat paycheck.
Sorry to be so negative. The best options you have, apart from looking for a job that actually offers Scrum, is to keep your head down and hope upper management does it's job to enforce this transition. A first glimpse of this would be mandatory training, outside coaches on premise and filling the role of Scrum Master.
Until then, good luck and keep your CV updated.
answered Oct 7 at 12:52
nvoigt
45.1k19110150
2
implemented properly some people are not going to be necessary, they're jostling for position. This will take it's own course. Devs are best keeping their heads down and watching the show.
– Kilisi
Oct 7 at 13:44
1
It's not too bad. I once saw a company with 18 managers and 3 developers.
– gnasher729
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
Let's see what's wrong here:
The Project Manager is absolutely not supposed to be the scrum leader. Absolutely not. This person doesn't have the slightest clue what "scrum" means.
Line managers are absolutely not supposed to be team leaders and absolutely not supposed to be part of the development team.
Daily standup is run be the scrum leader. Not by the line manager. Not by the project manager. Daily standup is NOT for reporting.
The project manager doesn't understand the meaning of the word "deadline".
Adding your other comments, this seems to be an absolutely toxic and soul destroying environment. Are you happy working there? Do you like going to work, or are you dreading it?
Don't even bother trying to help. Make sure your CV is good, and look for a better job in a better environment.
answered 2 days ago
gnasher729
74.6k31135236
2
Daily standup is run by the team, for the team. The scrum master doesn't even need to be there.
– Erik
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Is there anything I can do in this situation to help the team?
Your company appears to be going through a common phase where everyone has their own interpretation of what Scrum should be, and is acting on their own vision. That's bound to fail.
Every company implements Scrum in their own unique way. Though there may be commonalities across companies, in my experience it's most important for everyone to be on the same page.
If you are in a position to provide or suggest training, that could be the key to success.
Get the leaders together, hash out how Scrum is expected to work in your company, then train everyone on your company's Scrum process.
You need to be open to the fact that your particular ideas for Scrum may not be the ones that will be designated for your company. You and everyone else needs to get on the same page.
answered Oct 7 at 12:15
Joe Strazzere
230k112676953
The company is providing training which also goes along the lines of what I have been suggesting. To me it seems like a team management issue
– Victor S
Oct 7 at 12:36
@VictorS that implies that a programme of change is only failing because managers are either ignorant or incompetent. Is it not more likely that different people in the business have different problems, and therefore different visions of what Scrum is supposed to achieve? I think that’s what Joe’s getting at. Instead of framing the issue as “how do I get this team to Scrum (TM)â€Â, it might be more helpful to tease out the problems the business has and find common ground on a solution, inspired by Scrum but ultimately directed by these teams themselves.
– Jimmy Breck-McKye
2 days ago
@JimmyBreck-McKye It seems to me the answer from bharal fits their perspective. Not sure if there can be any common ground on that haha
– Victor S
18 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-3
down vote
The problem is you have missed the point of these frameworks.
The purpose of a framework is to provide value. A well executed framework is one that provides more value than whatever was before and is not one where the "rules" are precisely followed. The rules don't matter, the value does.
Back to agile and scrum - they gained acceptance because they provide value when it comes to new data for management to act upon.
Data has to be measurable. If more things are measurable, that is good value. If data is more accurately measured, that is also good.
The key objective of scrum is to provide management with sufficient data to aid in planning resources, alerting stakeholders of problems early and ensuring that deliverables match expectations. Saying "scrum says there is no team lead" misses the point - it's a methodology for visibility, not somehow pretending that developers don't need a team lead.
That's the problem with SCRUM's definition of no team lead etc. There is no real argument as to why this should be preferred over having a leader. Is there more data? More visbility? Is there anything that can be measured more that wouldn't be if there was a leader?
Once you understand that providing data to management is the key item, everything becomes easier. Don't fight for "correctly implementing a framework". Instead, every day, ask yourself:
- how can I create visible data for management to act on. Can I make a widget board that shows progress>
- how can I create more accurate visible data. Can I make a site that lists core features and the test coverage of them?
That is how you provide real value to management, and create real opportunities for growth.
answered 2 days ago
bharal
12.3k22557
2
The promised value of Scrum mostly comes from the developers having the opportunity to self-optimize and distribute their workload, and allowing the sum to provide value better than its parts combined. Yes, it also allows more visibility simply because everyone is involved in everything. Lack of command-and-control can hinder but I don't see how data delivery --which is incremental p much by definition-- is basically not the opposite of that. If anything, 5 people allowed (plus TLs consulting them) to think about what management wants to see in their data will for sure increase value
– Victor S
2 days ago
Unless you mean data as in data on what the team is doing and how they're progressing daily, which is absolutely not what Scrum is for.
– Victor S
2 days ago
1
So stand-ups, user story breakdowns etc. are not what provides visibility, there are other tools for that. I'd suggest this article on what visibility means in Scrum charlenedickson.wordpress.com/…
– Victor S
2 days ago
1
can you cite a source on this? I can not find any support for this except for cautions against.
– Victor S
2 days ago
1
Well for a start it cuts down middle management costs and my company just so happens to be middle heavy and declining in returns. There is also mandatory training which means management is fine with the productivity drop. Did you try buying some books yourself?
– Victor S
2 days ago
 |Â
show 7 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
16
down vote
accepted
My team has been trying to transition to Scrum for some time now,
I would say it hasn't. Scrum terms have been flung around and misused, but that's it. There is no transition visible.
A transition would need Scrum Masters leading it. A plan how to transition (maybe as it's own Scrum project). And support from upper management. I can see neither in your description.
In my experience there is nothing you can do really. The people in power will not just step off and give it up. The existence of 4(!) people titled "manager" or "owner" and only five developers in comparison means there is too much to lose for them. Implementing Scrum would mean at least two of them will lose their jobs and one might be trained to another position that is totally unlike their previous job description. They will not play any constructive role in their own obsolescence.
If upper management does not enforce this transition, and I mean enforce, not "wish for", this will not happen. They will cling to their jobs. It's not about culture, it's about the fact that with Scrum, they see that what they offer is not needed. They are running out of time in that business and any delay, any problem in the process of transitioning will grant them another fat paycheck.
Sorry to be so negative. The best options you have, apart from looking for a job that actually offers Scrum, is to keep your head down and hope upper management does it's job to enforce this transition. A first glimpse of this would be mandatory training, outside coaches on premise and filling the role of Scrum Master.
Until then, good luck and keep your CV updated.
answered Oct 7 at 12:52
nvoigt
45.1k19110150
2
implemented properly some people are not going to be necessary, they're jostling for position. This will take it's own course. Devs are best keeping their heads down and watching the show.
– Kilisi
Oct 7 at 13:44
1
It's not too bad. I once saw a company with 18 managers and 3 developers.
– gnasher729
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
16
down vote
accepted
My team has been trying to transition to Scrum for some time now,
I would say it hasn't. Scrum terms have been flung around and misused, but that's it. There is no transition visible.
A transition would need Scrum Masters leading it. A plan how to transition (maybe as it's own Scrum project). And support from upper management. I can see neither in your description.
In my experience there is nothing you can do really. The people in power will not just step off and give it up. The existence of 4(!) people titled "manager" or "owner" and only five developers in comparison means there is too much to lose for them. Implementing Scrum would mean at least two of them will lose their jobs and one might be trained to another position that is totally unlike their previous job description. They will not play any constructive role in their own obsolescence.
If upper management does not enforce this transition, and I mean enforce, not "wish for", this will not happen. They will cling to their jobs. It's not about culture, it's about the fact that with Scrum, they see that what they offer is not needed. They are running out of time in that business and any delay, any problem in the process of transitioning will grant them another fat paycheck.
Sorry to be so negative. The best options you have, apart from looking for a job that actually offers Scrum, is to keep your head down and hope upper management does it's job to enforce this transition. A first glimpse of this would be mandatory training, outside coaches on premise and filling the role of Scrum Master.
Until then, good luck and keep your CV updated.
answered Oct 7 at 12:52
nvoigt
45.1k19110150
2
implemented properly some people are not going to be necessary, they're jostling for position. This will take it's own course. Devs are best keeping their heads down and watching the show.
– Kilisi
Oct 7 at 13:44
1
It's not too bad. I once saw a company with 18 managers and 3 developers.
– gnasher729
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
16
down vote
accepted
up vote
16
down vote
accepted
My team has been trying to transition to Scrum for some time now,
I would say it hasn't. Scrum terms have been flung around and misused, but that's it. There is no transition visible.
A transition would need Scrum Masters leading it. A plan how to transition (maybe as it's own Scrum project). And support from upper management. I can see neither in your description.
In my experience there is nothing you can do really. The people in power will not just step off and give it up. The existence of 4(!) people titled "manager" or "owner" and only five developers in comparison means there is too much to lose for them. Implementing Scrum would mean at least two of them will lose their jobs and one might be trained to another position that is totally unlike their previous job description. They will not play any constructive role in their own obsolescence.
If upper management does not enforce this transition, and I mean enforce, not "wish for", this will not happen. They will cling to their jobs. It's not about culture, it's about the fact that with Scrum, they see that what they offer is not needed. They are running out of time in that business and any delay, any problem in the process of transitioning will grant them another fat paycheck.
Sorry to be so negative. The best options you have, apart from looking for a job that actually offers Scrum, is to keep your head down and hope upper management does it's job to enforce this transition. A first glimpse of this would be mandatory training, outside coaches on premise and filling the role of Scrum Master.
Until then, good luck and keep your CV updated.
answered Oct 7 at 12:52
nvoigt
45.1k19110150
My team has been trying to transition to Scrum for some time now,
I would say it hasn't. Scrum terms have been flung around and misused, but that's it. There is no transition visible.
A transition would need Scrum Masters leading it. A plan how to transition (maybe as it's own Scrum project). And support from upper management. I can see neither in your description.
In my experience there is nothing you can do really. The people in power will not just step off and give it up. The existence of 4(!) people titled "manager" or "owner" and only five developers in comparison means there is too much to lose for them. Implementing Scrum would mean at least two of them will lose their jobs and one might be trained to another position that is totally unlike their previous job description. They will not play any constructive role in their own obsolescence.
If upper management does not enforce this transition, and I mean enforce, not "wish for", this will not happen. They will cling to their jobs. It's not about culture, it's about the fact that with Scrum, they see that what they offer is not needed. They are running out of time in that business and any delay, any problem in the process of transitioning will grant them another fat paycheck.
Sorry to be so negative. The best options you have, apart from looking for a job that actually offers Scrum, is to keep your head down and hope upper management does it's job to enforce this transition. A first glimpse of this would be mandatory training, outside coaches on premise and filling the role of Scrum Master.
Until then, good luck and keep your CV updated.
answered Oct 7 at 12:52
nvoigt
45.1k19110150
answered Oct 7 at 12:52
nvoigt
45.1k19110150
answered Oct 7 at 12:52
nvoigt
45.1k19110150
answered Oct 7 at 12:52
nvoigt
45.1k19110150
45.1k19110150
2
implemented properly some people are not going to be necessary, they're jostling for position. This will take it's own course. Devs are best keeping their heads down and watching the show.
– Kilisi
Oct 7 at 13:44
1
It's not too bad. I once saw a company with 18 managers and 3 developers.
– gnasher729
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
2
implemented properly some people are not going to be necessary, they're jostling for position. This will take it's own course. Devs are best keeping their heads down and watching the show.
– Kilisi
Oct 7 at 13:44
1
It's not too bad. I once saw a company with 18 managers and 3 developers.
– gnasher729
2 days ago
2
2
implemented properly some people are not going to be necessary, they're jostling for position. This will take it's own course. Devs are best keeping their heads down and watching the show.
– Kilisi
Oct 7 at 13:44
implemented properly some people are not going to be necessary, they're jostling for position. This will take it's own course. Devs are best keeping their heads down and watching the show.
– Kilisi
Oct 7 at 13:44
1
1
It's not too bad. I once saw a company with 18 managers and 3 developers.
– gnasher729
2 days ago
It's not too bad. I once saw a company with 18 managers and 3 developers.
– gnasher729
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
Let's see what's wrong here:
The Project Manager is absolutely not supposed to be the scrum leader. Absolutely not. This person doesn't have the slightest clue what "scrum" means.
Line managers are absolutely not supposed to be team leaders and absolutely not supposed to be part of the development team.
Daily standup is run be the scrum leader. Not by the line manager. Not by the project manager. Daily standup is NOT for reporting.
The project manager doesn't understand the meaning of the word "deadline".
Adding your other comments, this seems to be an absolutely toxic and soul destroying environment. Are you happy working there? Do you like going to work, or are you dreading it?
Don't even bother trying to help. Make sure your CV is good, and look for a better job in a better environment.
answered 2 days ago
gnasher729
74.6k31135236
2
Daily standup is run by the team, for the team. The scrum master doesn't even need to be there.
– Erik
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
Let's see what's wrong here:
The Project Manager is absolutely not supposed to be the scrum leader. Absolutely not. This person doesn't have the slightest clue what "scrum" means.
Line managers are absolutely not supposed to be team leaders and absolutely not supposed to be part of the development team.
Daily standup is run be the scrum leader. Not by the line manager. Not by the project manager. Daily standup is NOT for reporting.
The project manager doesn't understand the meaning of the word "deadline".
Adding your other comments, this seems to be an absolutely toxic and soul destroying environment. Are you happy working there? Do you like going to work, or are you dreading it?
Don't even bother trying to help. Make sure your CV is good, and look for a better job in a better environment.
answered 2 days ago
gnasher729
74.6k31135236
2
Daily standup is run by the team, for the team. The scrum master doesn't even need to be there.
– Erik
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
Let's see what's wrong here:
The Project Manager is absolutely not supposed to be the scrum leader. Absolutely not. This person doesn't have the slightest clue what "scrum" means.
Line managers are absolutely not supposed to be team leaders and absolutely not supposed to be part of the development team.
Daily standup is run be the scrum leader. Not by the line manager. Not by the project manager. Daily standup is NOT for reporting.
The project manager doesn't understand the meaning of the word "deadline".
Adding your other comments, this seems to be an absolutely toxic and soul destroying environment. Are you happy working there? Do you like going to work, or are you dreading it?
Don't even bother trying to help. Make sure your CV is good, and look for a better job in a better environment.
answered 2 days ago
gnasher729
74.6k31135236
Let's see what's wrong here:
The Project Manager is absolutely not supposed to be the scrum leader. Absolutely not. This person doesn't have the slightest clue what "scrum" means.
Line managers are absolutely not supposed to be team leaders and absolutely not supposed to be part of the development team.
Daily standup is run be the scrum leader. Not by the line manager. Not by the project manager. Daily standup is NOT for reporting.
The project manager doesn't understand the meaning of the word "deadline".
Adding your other comments, this seems to be an absolutely toxic and soul destroying environment. Are you happy working there? Do you like going to work, or are you dreading it?
Don't even bother trying to help. Make sure your CV is good, and look for a better job in a better environment.
answered 2 days ago
gnasher729
74.6k31135236
answered 2 days ago
gnasher729
74.6k31135236
answered 2 days ago
gnasher729
74.6k31135236
answered 2 days ago
gnasher729
74.6k31135236
74.6k31135236
2
Daily standup is run by the team, for the team. The scrum master doesn't even need to be there.
– Erik
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
2
Daily standup is run by the team, for the team. The scrum master doesn't even need to be there.
– Erik
2 days ago
2
2
Daily standup is run by the team, for the team. The scrum master doesn't even need to be there.
– Erik
2 days ago
Daily standup is run by the team, for the team. The scrum master doesn't even need to be there.
– Erik
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Is there anything I can do in this situation to help the team?
Your company appears to be going through a common phase where everyone has their own interpretation of what Scrum should be, and is acting on their own vision. That's bound to fail.
Every company implements Scrum in their own unique way. Though there may be commonalities across companies, in my experience it's most important for everyone to be on the same page.
If you are in a position to provide or suggest training, that could be the key to success.
Get the leaders together, hash out how Scrum is expected to work in your company, then train everyone on your company's Scrum process.
You need to be open to the fact that your particular ideas for Scrum may not be the ones that will be designated for your company. You and everyone else needs to get on the same page.
answered Oct 7 at 12:15
Joe Strazzere
230k112676953
The company is providing training which also goes along the lines of what I have been suggesting. To me it seems like a team management issue
– Victor S
Oct 7 at 12:36
@VictorS that implies that a programme of change is only failing because managers are either ignorant or incompetent. Is it not more likely that different people in the business have different problems, and therefore different visions of what Scrum is supposed to achieve? I think that’s what Joe’s getting at. Instead of framing the issue as “how do I get this team to Scrum (TM)â€Â, it might be more helpful to tease out the problems the business has and find common ground on a solution, inspired by Scrum but ultimately directed by these teams themselves.
– Jimmy Breck-McKye
2 days ago
@JimmyBreck-McKye It seems to me the answer from bharal fits their perspective. Not sure if there can be any common ground on that haha
– Victor S
18 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Is there anything I can do in this situation to help the team?
Your company appears to be going through a common phase where everyone has their own interpretation of what Scrum should be, and is acting on their own vision. That's bound to fail.
Every company implements Scrum in their own unique way. Though there may be commonalities across companies, in my experience it's most important for everyone to be on the same page.
If you are in a position to provide or suggest training, that could be the key to success.
Get the leaders together, hash out how Scrum is expected to work in your company, then train everyone on your company's Scrum process.
You need to be open to the fact that your particular ideas for Scrum may not be the ones that will be designated for your company. You and everyone else needs to get on the same page.
answered Oct 7 at 12:15
Joe Strazzere
230k112676953
The company is providing training which also goes along the lines of what I have been suggesting. To me it seems like a team management issue
– Victor S
Oct 7 at 12:36
@VictorS that implies that a programme of change is only failing because managers are either ignorant or incompetent. Is it not more likely that different people in the business have different problems, and therefore different visions of what Scrum is supposed to achieve? I think that’s what Joe’s getting at. Instead of framing the issue as “how do I get this team to Scrum (TM)â€Â, it might be more helpful to tease out the problems the business has and find common ground on a solution, inspired by Scrum but ultimately directed by these teams themselves.
– Jimmy Breck-McKye
2 days ago
@JimmyBreck-McKye It seems to me the answer from bharal fits their perspective. Not sure if there can be any common ground on that haha
– Victor S
18 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Is there anything I can do in this situation to help the team?
Your company appears to be going through a common phase where everyone has their own interpretation of what Scrum should be, and is acting on their own vision. That's bound to fail.
Every company implements Scrum in their own unique way. Though there may be commonalities across companies, in my experience it's most important for everyone to be on the same page.
If you are in a position to provide or suggest training, that could be the key to success.
Get the leaders together, hash out how Scrum is expected to work in your company, then train everyone on your company's Scrum process.
You need to be open to the fact that your particular ideas for Scrum may not be the ones that will be designated for your company. You and everyone else needs to get on the same page.
answered Oct 7 at 12:15
Joe Strazzere
230k112676953
Is there anything I can do in this situation to help the team?
Your company appears to be going through a common phase where everyone has their own interpretation of what Scrum should be, and is acting on their own vision. That's bound to fail.
Every company implements Scrum in their own unique way. Though there may be commonalities across companies, in my experience it's most important for everyone to be on the same page.
If you are in a position to provide or suggest training, that could be the key to success.
Get the leaders together, hash out how Scrum is expected to work in your company, then train everyone on your company's Scrum process.
You need to be open to the fact that your particular ideas for Scrum may not be the ones that will be designated for your company. You and everyone else needs to get on the same page.
answered Oct 7 at 12:15
Joe Strazzere
230k112676953
answered Oct 7 at 12:15
Joe Strazzere
230k112676953
answered Oct 7 at 12:15
Joe Strazzere
230k112676953
answered Oct 7 at 12:15
Joe Strazzere
230k112676953
230k112676953
The company is providing training which also goes along the lines of what I have been suggesting. To me it seems like a team management issue
– Victor S
Oct 7 at 12:36
@VictorS that implies that a programme of change is only failing because managers are either ignorant or incompetent. Is it not more likely that different people in the business have different problems, and therefore different visions of what Scrum is supposed to achieve? I think that’s what Joe’s getting at. Instead of framing the issue as “how do I get this team to Scrum (TM)â€Â, it might be more helpful to tease out the problems the business has and find common ground on a solution, inspired by Scrum but ultimately directed by these teams themselves.
– Jimmy Breck-McKye
2 days ago
@JimmyBreck-McKye It seems to me the answer from bharal fits their perspective. Not sure if there can be any common ground on that haha
– Victor S
18 hours ago
add a comment |Â
The company is providing training which also goes along the lines of what I have been suggesting. To me it seems like a team management issue
– Victor S
Oct 7 at 12:36
@VictorS that implies that a programme of change is only failing because managers are either ignorant or incompetent. Is it not more likely that different people in the business have different problems, and therefore different visions of what Scrum is supposed to achieve? I think that’s what Joe’s getting at. Instead of framing the issue as “how do I get this team to Scrum (TM)â€Â, it might be more helpful to tease out the problems the business has and find common ground on a solution, inspired by Scrum but ultimately directed by these teams themselves.
– Jimmy Breck-McKye
2 days ago
@JimmyBreck-McKye It seems to me the answer from bharal fits their perspective. Not sure if there can be any common ground on that haha
– Victor S
18 hours ago
The company is providing training which also goes along the lines of what I have been suggesting. To me it seems like a team management issue
– Victor S
Oct 7 at 12:36
The company is providing training which also goes along the lines of what I have been suggesting. To me it seems like a team management issue
– Victor S
Oct 7 at 12:36
@VictorS that implies that a programme of change is only failing because managers are either ignorant or incompetent. Is it not more likely that different people in the business have different problems, and therefore different visions of what Scrum is supposed to achieve? I think that’s what Joe’s getting at. Instead of framing the issue as “how do I get this team to Scrum (TM)â€Â, it might be more helpful to tease out the problems the business has and find common ground on a solution, inspired by Scrum but ultimately directed by these teams themselves.
– Jimmy Breck-McKye
2 days ago
@VictorS that implies that a programme of change is only failing because managers are either ignorant or incompetent. Is it not more likely that different people in the business have different problems, and therefore different visions of what Scrum is supposed to achieve? I think that’s what Joe’s getting at. Instead of framing the issue as “how do I get this team to Scrum (TM)â€Â, it might be more helpful to tease out the problems the business has and find common ground on a solution, inspired by Scrum but ultimately directed by these teams themselves.
– Jimmy Breck-McKye
2 days ago
@JimmyBreck-McKye It seems to me the answer from bharal fits their perspective. Not sure if there can be any common ground on that haha
– Victor S
18 hours ago
@JimmyBreck-McKye It seems to me the answer from bharal fits their perspective. Not sure if there can be any common ground on that haha
– Victor S
18 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-3
down vote
The problem is you have missed the point of these frameworks.
The purpose of a framework is to provide value. A well executed framework is one that provides more value than whatever was before and is not one where the "rules" are precisely followed. The rules don't matter, the value does.
Back to agile and scrum - they gained acceptance because they provide value when it comes to new data for management to act upon.
Data has to be measurable. If more things are measurable, that is good value. If data is more accurately measured, that is also good.
The key objective of scrum is to provide management with sufficient data to aid in planning resources, alerting stakeholders of problems early and ensuring that deliverables match expectations. Saying "scrum says there is no team lead" misses the point - it's a methodology for visibility, not somehow pretending that developers don't need a team lead.
That's the problem with SCRUM's definition of no team lead etc. There is no real argument as to why this should be preferred over having a leader. Is there more data? More visbility? Is there anything that can be measured more that wouldn't be if there was a leader?
Once you understand that providing data to management is the key item, everything becomes easier. Don't fight for "correctly implementing a framework". Instead, every day, ask yourself:
- how can I create visible data for management to act on. Can I make a widget board that shows progress>
- how can I create more accurate visible data. Can I make a site that lists core features and the test coverage of them?
That is how you provide real value to management, and create real opportunities for growth.
answered 2 days ago
bharal
12.3k22557
2
The promised value of Scrum mostly comes from the developers having the opportunity to self-optimize and distribute their workload, and allowing the sum to provide value better than its parts combined. Yes, it also allows more visibility simply because everyone is involved in everything. Lack of command-and-control can hinder but I don't see how data delivery --which is incremental p much by definition-- is basically not the opposite of that. If anything, 5 people allowed (plus TLs consulting them) to think about what management wants to see in their data will for sure increase value
– Victor S
2 days ago
Unless you mean data as in data on what the team is doing and how they're progressing daily, which is absolutely not what Scrum is for.
– Victor S
2 days ago
1
So stand-ups, user story breakdowns etc. are not what provides visibility, there are other tools for that. I'd suggest this article on what visibility means in Scrum charlenedickson.wordpress.com/…
– Victor S
2 days ago
1
can you cite a source on this? I can not find any support for this except for cautions against.
– Victor S
2 days ago
1
Well for a start it cuts down middle management costs and my company just so happens to be middle heavy and declining in returns. There is also mandatory training which means management is fine with the productivity drop. Did you try buying some books yourself?
– Victor S
2 days ago
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
-3
down vote
The problem is you have missed the point of these frameworks.
The purpose of a framework is to provide value. A well executed framework is one that provides more value than whatever was before and is not one where the "rules" are precisely followed. The rules don't matter, the value does.
Back to agile and scrum - they gained acceptance because they provide value when it comes to new data for management to act upon.
Data has to be measurable. If more things are measurable, that is good value. If data is more accurately measured, that is also good.
The key objective of scrum is to provide management with sufficient data to aid in planning resources, alerting stakeholders of problems early and ensuring that deliverables match expectations. Saying "scrum says there is no team lead" misses the point - it's a methodology for visibility, not somehow pretending that developers don't need a team lead.
That's the problem with SCRUM's definition of no team lead etc. There is no real argument as to why this should be preferred over having a leader. Is there more data? More visbility? Is there anything that can be measured more that wouldn't be if there was a leader?
Once you understand that providing data to management is the key item, everything becomes easier. Don't fight for "correctly implementing a framework". Instead, every day, ask yourself:
- how can I create visible data for management to act on. Can I make a widget board that shows progress>
- how can I create more accurate visible data. Can I make a site that lists core features and the test coverage of them?
That is how you provide real value to management, and create real opportunities for growth.
answered 2 days ago
bharal
12.3k22557
2
The promised value of Scrum mostly comes from the developers having the opportunity to self-optimize and distribute their workload, and allowing the sum to provide value better than its parts combined. Yes, it also allows more visibility simply because everyone is involved in everything. Lack of command-and-control can hinder but I don't see how data delivery --which is incremental p much by definition-- is basically not the opposite of that. If anything, 5 people allowed (plus TLs consulting them) to think about what management wants to see in their data will for sure increase value
– Victor S
2 days ago
Unless you mean data as in data on what the team is doing and how they're progressing daily, which is absolutely not what Scrum is for.
– Victor S
2 days ago
1
So stand-ups, user story breakdowns etc. are not what provides visibility, there are other tools for that. I'd suggest this article on what visibility means in Scrum charlenedickson.wordpress.com/…
– Victor S
2 days ago
1
can you cite a source on this? I can not find any support for this except for cautions against.
– Victor S
2 days ago
1
Well for a start it cuts down middle management costs and my company just so happens to be middle heavy and declining in returns. There is also mandatory training which means management is fine with the productivity drop. Did you try buying some books yourself?
– Victor S
2 days ago
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
-3
down vote
up vote
-3
down vote
The problem is you have missed the point of these frameworks.
The purpose of a framework is to provide value. A well executed framework is one that provides more value than whatever was before and is not one where the "rules" are precisely followed. The rules don't matter, the value does.
Back to agile and scrum - they gained acceptance because they provide value when it comes to new data for management to act upon.
Data has to be measurable. If more things are measurable, that is good value. If data is more accurately measured, that is also good.
The key objective of scrum is to provide management with sufficient data to aid in planning resources, alerting stakeholders of problems early and ensuring that deliverables match expectations. Saying "scrum says there is no team lead" misses the point - it's a methodology for visibility, not somehow pretending that developers don't need a team lead.
That's the problem with SCRUM's definition of no team lead etc. There is no real argument as to why this should be preferred over having a leader. Is there more data? More visbility? Is there anything that can be measured more that wouldn't be if there was a leader?
Once you understand that providing data to management is the key item, everything becomes easier. Don't fight for "correctly implementing a framework". Instead, every day, ask yourself:
- how can I create visible data for management to act on. Can I make a widget board that shows progress>
- how can I create more accurate visible data. Can I make a site that lists core features and the test coverage of them?
That is how you provide real value to management, and create real opportunities for growth.
answered 2 days ago
bharal
12.3k22557
The problem is you have missed the point of these frameworks.
The purpose of a framework is to provide value. A well executed framework is one that provides more value than whatever was before and is not one where the "rules" are precisely followed. The rules don't matter, the value does.
Back to agile and scrum - they gained acceptance because they provide value when it comes to new data for management to act upon.
Data has to be measurable. If more things are measurable, that is good value. If data is more accurately measured, that is also good.
The key objective of scrum is to provide management with sufficient data to aid in planning resources, alerting stakeholders of problems early and ensuring that deliverables match expectations. Saying "scrum says there is no team lead" misses the point - it's a methodology for visibility, not somehow pretending that developers don't need a team lead.
That's the problem with SCRUM's definition of no team lead etc. There is no real argument as to why this should be preferred over having a leader. Is there more data? More visbility? Is there anything that can be measured more that wouldn't be if there was a leader?
Once you understand that providing data to management is the key item, everything becomes easier. Don't fight for "correctly implementing a framework". Instead, every day, ask yourself:
- how can I create visible data for management to act on. Can I make a widget board that shows progress>
- how can I create more accurate visible data. Can I make a site that lists core features and the test coverage of them?
That is how you provide real value to management, and create real opportunities for growth.
answered 2 days ago
bharal
12.3k22557
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
bharal
12.3k22557
answered 2 days ago
bharal
12.3k22557
answered 2 days ago
bharal
12.3k22557
12.3k22557
2
The promised value of Scrum mostly comes from the developers having the opportunity to self-optimize and distribute their workload, and allowing the sum to provide value better than its parts combined. Yes, it also allows more visibility simply because everyone is involved in everything. Lack of command-and-control can hinder but I don't see how data delivery --which is incremental p much by definition-- is basically not the opposite of that. If anything, 5 people allowed (plus TLs consulting them) to think about what management wants to see in their data will for sure increase value
– Victor S
2 days ago
Unless you mean data as in data on what the team is doing and how they're progressing daily, which is absolutely not what Scrum is for.
– Victor S
2 days ago
1
So stand-ups, user story breakdowns etc. are not what provides visibility, there are other tools for that. I'd suggest this article on what visibility means in Scrum charlenedickson.wordpress.com/…
– Victor S
2 days ago
1
can you cite a source on this? I can not find any support for this except for cautions against.
– Victor S
2 days ago
1
Well for a start it cuts down middle management costs and my company just so happens to be middle heavy and declining in returns. There is also mandatory training which means management is fine with the productivity drop. Did you try buying some books yourself?
– Victor S
2 days ago
 |Â
show 7 more comments
2
The promised value of Scrum mostly comes from the developers having the opportunity to self-optimize and distribute their workload, and allowing the sum to provide value better than its parts combined. Yes, it also allows more visibility simply because everyone is involved in everything. Lack of command-and-control can hinder but I don't see how data delivery --which is incremental p much by definition-- is basically not the opposite of that. If anything, 5 people allowed (plus TLs consulting them) to think about what management wants to see in their data will for sure increase value
– Victor S
2 days ago
Unless you mean data as in data on what the team is doing and how they're progressing daily, which is absolutely not what Scrum is for.
– Victor S
2 days ago
1
So stand-ups, user story breakdowns etc. are not what provides visibility, there are other tools for that. I'd suggest this article on what visibility means in Scrum charlenedickson.wordpress.com/…
– Victor S
2 days ago
1
can you cite a source on this? I can not find any support for this except for cautions against.
– Victor S
2 days ago
1
Well for a start it cuts down middle management costs and my company just so happens to be middle heavy and declining in returns. There is also mandatory training which means management is fine with the productivity drop. Did you try buying some books yourself?
– Victor S
2 days ago
2
2
The promised value of Scrum mostly comes from the developers having the opportunity to self-optimize and distribute their workload, and allowing the sum to provide value better than its parts combined. Yes, it also allows more visibility simply because everyone is involved in everything. Lack of command-and-control can hinder but I don't see how data delivery --which is incremental p much by definition-- is basically not the opposite of that. If anything, 5 people allowed (plus TLs consulting them) to think about what management wants to see in their data will for sure increase value
– Victor S
2 days ago
The promised value of Scrum mostly comes from the developers having the opportunity to self-optimize and distribute their workload, and allowing the sum to provide value better than its parts combined. Yes, it also allows more visibility simply because everyone is involved in everything. Lack of command-and-control can hinder but I don't see how data delivery --which is incremental p much by definition-- is basically not the opposite of that. If anything, 5 people allowed (plus TLs consulting them) to think about what management wants to see in their data will for sure increase value
– Victor S
2 days ago
Unless you mean data as in data on what the team is doing and how they're progressing daily, which is absolutely not what Scrum is for.
– Victor S
2 days ago
Unless you mean data as in data on what the team is doing and how they're progressing daily, which is absolutely not what Scrum is for.
– Victor S
2 days ago
1
1
So stand-ups, user story breakdowns etc. are not what provides visibility, there are other tools for that. I'd suggest this article on what visibility means in Scrum charlenedickson.wordpress.com/…
– Victor S
2 days ago
So stand-ups, user story breakdowns etc. are not what provides visibility, there are other tools for that. I'd suggest this article on what visibility means in Scrum charlenedickson.wordpress.com/…
– Victor S
2 days ago
1
1
can you cite a source on this? I can not find any support for this except for cautions against.
– Victor S
2 days ago
can you cite a source on this? I can not find any support for this except for cautions against.
– Victor S
2 days ago
1
1
Well for a start it cuts down middle management costs and my company just so happens to be middle heavy and declining in returns. There is also mandatory training which means management is fine with the productivity drop. Did you try buying some books yourself?
– Victor S
2 days ago
Well for a start it cuts down middle management costs and my company just so happens to be middle heavy and declining in returns. There is also mandatory training which means management is fine with the productivity drop. Did you try buying some books yourself?
– Victor S
2 days ago
 |Â
show 7 more comments
1
why is any of the many items you list a problem? why do you have problems with the PM being the scrum master? why do you have problems with technical leads, or that they are your managers? none of what you have listed is a scrum problem. it would help if you could let us know what you want, and why it is better.
– bharal
Oct 7 at 13:07
2
@bharal PM and Scrum Master are entirely separate roles with different needs. Think Software Engineer vs System Admin. Scrum also does not have a team lead role, period. A dev team is not self organizing as Scrum calls for if a tech lead is calling the shots on the very basics of implementation. So the problem is team is not implementing Scrum while wasting time implementing it.
– Victor S
Oct 7 at 13:41
4
@bharal Basically everything he has listed is contrary to Scrum. That might in itself not be a problem, Scrum is not the silver bullet, some companies might be better of with traditional command & control. But if they are "trying" to do Scrum, then they are way off course.
– nvoigt
Oct 7 at 13:56
3
no, scrum isn't about the definition of a team lead or whatever. It's about creating an environment where there is a continuous feedback loop of progress, and a continuous deliverable so that end users are aware of what is going on. The objective of scrum is to provide management with sufficient data to aid in planning resources, alerting stakeholders of problems early and ensuring that deliverables match expectations. Saying "scrum says there is no team lead" misses the point - it's a methodology for visibility, not somehow pretending that developers don't need a team lead.
– bharal
2 days ago
3
The purpose of scrum isn't to inform management of anything - the purpose of scrum is to have the actual team itself do these things.
– Erik
2 days ago