9 ms·

Scrum Is a Cancer

10 points by pseudotrash 3y ago

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
Yeah, it's shit. <insert argument how described scrum is not real scrum>
logicalmonster 3y ago
I think Scrum might be defensible when used for rare, genuine emergency situations. If a make-or-break the company project with a tight deadline comes along, you might want to change it up with something like Scrum for a short time period to manage that as a reasonable, defensible choice. But I think it's devastating to developer happiness and overall productivity if you're just running as a Scrum forever and have people with literal job-titles like "Scrum Master" who (IMO) feel pressured to create as much process as possible to justify their position. The ceremonies and process are going to grate on developers long-term. IMO, the managers will have a bad long-term sense of the effort and difficulties and progress of each sprint if you're perpetually doing that.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >people with literal job-titles like "Scrum Master" who (IMO) feel pressured to create as much process as possible to justify their position Wait till you hear about Agile Coaches™
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > like "Scrum Master" who (IMO) feel pressured to create as much process as possible to justify their position Having been trained and acted as a scrum master for a large tech corporation, this doesn't track with my experience at all. I, and the other "scrum masters" (which is an incredibly cringe term) I knew tried to minimize process as much as possible, and weren't concerned with finding busywork to "justify out position" -- especially because our positions were primarily devs. Being a scrum master was extra work on top of our daily duties. In my opinion, the problems with Scrum are because of how Scrum works and what management wants to use scrum for. Being a scrum master was what convinced me that Scrum in particular is extremely problematic and that if you must use an Agile methodology, it should be one of the other ones, not Scrum.
  - logicalmonster 3y ago
    For the sake of argument, let's assume that you and your Scrum Master peers were all top of the class and genuine in your understanding of development and desire to help facilitate project success and never acted in a self-interested way. That's a fairly big assumption, but let's roll with that. And maybe, a really solid big-tech company with great people who "get it" can largely make Scrum work "well enough". I'm sure you oversaw a lot of products shipping successfully. Was that because of Scrum, or in spite of it and you might have been even more successful doing something else? Overall though, I think you recognize how Scrum might devolve in many typical situation, right? PS: To make it clear, no disparagement is intended in anything I said or say even though the consequences of that might seem like an attack on your profession.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > Was that because of Scrum, or in spite of it and you might have been even more successful doing something else? There's no question in my mind: in spite of it. In every place I've seen it done, Scrum has impeded quality software development, not enhanced it. As I stated, my experience acting as a Scrum Master is what convinced me that Scrum is not a good thing.
- ilc 3y ago
  In a scrum using firm: I was the Team Lead of a team, and I told my management: "SCRUM will not work for our workload. We have too many shifts in priority to plan for 4 weeks at a time." I was told I could choose any process I needed to get the job done, but we needed a "Scrum Master" to interface with the other teams. I played Scrum Master. I also had the team running on Kanban, which while imperfect, it beat the alternatives for a team that had to shift targets rapidly.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ilc 3y ago
I think SCRUM has lost its roots. --- To quote men far better than I: https://agilemanifesto.org/ https://agilemanifesto.org/ Manifesto for Agile Software Development We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. Through this work we have come to value: Individuals and interactions over processes and tools Working software over comprehensive documentation Customer collaboration over contract negotiation Responding to change over following a plan That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more. --- If your process delivers on the above. It is agile. If not. It isn't. And personally: I prefer agile as stated above, but I have yet to find a SCRUM team I'd work on.
- finnthehuman 3y ago
  The agile manifesto is a nonfalsafiable commentary on what was the status quo decades ago. The only possible response to complaints about anything done under the guise of agile is that the practitioner did it wrong. In a status quo where everyone is trying (or at least claiming) it as a guiding principle, any actionable advice is only the interpretation various people bring to their reading of the scriptures. In these cases, the utility of the manifesto is nil.
  - ilc 3y ago
    It is a commentary as valid today, as it was when I started and wrote a few articles on the c2 wiki. If you all agree on the manifesto.. at least you can ask questions, and then see how it all fits together. IMHO: If the question "why" is outlawed, I'll find another place to work.
    - mannykannot 3y ago
      We don't have to agree on the manifesto to ask questions - in fact, we might well get better questions if there is a certain amount of skepticism.
  - joshlemer 3y ago
    I am seeing a parallel to modern day socialists/communists. Despite hundreds of instances of real adherents to the philosophy really trying in earnest to achieve communism in a wide variety of cultures, geographies and situations, it never works. We know why it works and economists can tell you exactly why it doesn't work. Yet, every new case of communism's failure is chalked up to not being "real communism" or being "bastardized by dictators".
johnea 3y ago
Yes, it is, and so is the twitverse...
johnny99k 3y ago
10 years ago, I was a contractor for a small startup using SCRUM. We had literally 4 hours of meetings per/day. Every other week, we had an additional 1 hour planning meeting. I also had to laugh when she decided to add 'water cooler' meetings. We were developers from all over the globe forced to have awkward conversations. It was strange as a developer to be paid to be in meetings more than actually coding. Especially in a company with 10 employees. Eventually, the owner started having fits because we weren't getting anything done on time and she eventually let me go. At this point, I had already started a new business and was almost making enough to cover my basic expenses. In the call when she let me go, she told me that she could hire 3 people in India to do my job, so that's what she was doing.

10 points by pseudotrash 3y ago

Yeah, it's shit. <insert argument how described scrum is not real scrum>

I think Scrum might be defensible when used for rare, genuine emergency situations. If a make-or-break the company project with a tight deadline comes along, you might want to change it up with something like Scrum for a short time period to manage that as a reasonable, defensible choice. But I think it's devastating to developer happiness and overall productivity if you're just running as a Scrum forever and have people with literal job-titles like "Scrum Master" who (IMO) feel pressured to create as much process as possible to justify their position. The ceremonies and process are going to grate on developers long-term. IMO, the managers will have a bad long-term sense of the effort and difficulties and progress of each sprint if you're perpetually doing that.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>people with literal job-titles like "Scrum Master" who (IMO) feel pressured to create as much process as possible to justify their position Wait till you hear about Agile Coaches™
JohnFen 3y ago
> like "Scrum Master" who (IMO) feel pressured to create as much process as possible to justify their position Having been trained and acted as a scrum master for a large tech corporation, this doesn't track with my experience at all. I, and the other "scrum masters" (which is an incredibly cringe term) I knew tried to minimize process as much as possible, and weren't concerned with finding busywork to "justify out position" -- especially because our positions were primarily devs. Being a scrum master was extra work on top of our daily duties. In my opinion, the problems with Scrum are because of how Scrum works and what management wants to use scrum for. Being a scrum master was what convinced me that Scrum in particular is extremely problematic and that if you must use an Agile methodology, it should be one of the other ones, not Scrum.
- logicalmonster 3y ago
  For the sake of argument, let's assume that you and your Scrum Master peers were all top of the class and genuine in your understanding of development and desire to help facilitate project success and never acted in a self-interested way. That's a fairly big assumption, but let's roll with that. And maybe, a really solid big-tech company with great people who "get it" can largely make Scrum work "well enough". I'm sure you oversaw a lot of products shipping successfully. Was that because of Scrum, or in spite of it and you might have been even more successful doing something else? Overall though, I think you recognize how Scrum might devolve in many typical situation, right? PS: To make it clear, no disparagement is intended in anything I said or say even though the consequences of that might seem like an attack on your profession.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > Was that because of Scrum, or in spite of it and you might have been even more successful doing something else? There's no question in my mind: in spite of it. In every place I've seen it done, Scrum has impeded quality software development, not enhanced it. As I stated, my experience acting as a Scrum Master is what convinced me that Scrum is not a good thing.
ilc 3y ago
In a scrum using firm: I was the Team Lead of a team, and I told my management: "SCRUM will not work for our workload. We have too many shifts in priority to plan for 4 weeks at a time." I was told I could choose any process I needed to get the job done, but we needed a "Scrum Master" to interface with the other teams. I played Scrum Master. I also had the team running on Kanban, which while imperfect, it beat the alternatives for a team that had to shift targets rapidly.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ilc 3y ago

I think SCRUM has lost its roots. --- To quote men far better than I: https://agilemanifesto.org/ https://agilemanifesto.org/ Manifesto for Agile Software Development We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. Through this work we have come to value: Individuals and interactions over processes and tools Working software over comprehensive documentation Customer collaboration over contract negotiation Responding to change over following a plan That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more. --- If your process delivers on the above. It is agile. If not. It isn't. And personally: I prefer agile as stated above, but I have yet to find a SCRUM team I'd work on.

finnthehuman 3y ago
The agile manifesto is a nonfalsafiable commentary on what was the status quo decades ago. The only possible response to complaints about anything done under the guise of agile is that the practitioner did it wrong. In a status quo where everyone is trying (or at least claiming) it as a guiding principle, any actionable advice is only the interpretation various people bring to their reading of the scriptures. In these cases, the utility of the manifesto is nil.
- ilc 3y ago
  It is a commentary as valid today, as it was when I started and wrote a few articles on the c2 wiki. If you all agree on the manifesto.. at least you can ask questions, and then see how it all fits together. IMHO: If the question "why" is outlawed, I'll find another place to work.
  - mannykannot 3y ago
    We don't have to agree on the manifesto to ask questions - in fact, we might well get better questions if there is a certain amount of skepticism.
- joshlemer 3y ago
  I am seeing a parallel to modern day socialists/communists. Despite hundreds of instances of real adherents to the philosophy really trying in earnest to achieve communism in a wide variety of cultures, geographies and situations, it never works. We know why it works and economists can tell you exactly why it doesn't work. Yet, every new case of communism's failure is chalked up to not being "real communism" or being "bastardized by dictators".

johnea 3y ago

Yes, it is, and so is the twitverse...

johnny99k 3y ago

10 years ago, I was a contractor for a small startup using SCRUM. We had literally 4 hours of meetings per/day. Every other week, we had an additional 1 hour planning meeting. I also had to laugh when she decided to add 'water cooler' meetings. We were developers from all over the globe forced to have awkward conversations. It was strange as a developer to be paid to be in meetings more than actually coding. Especially in a company with 10 employees. Eventually, the owner started having fits because we weren't getting anything done on time and she eventually let me go. At this point, I had already started a new business and was almost making enough to cover my basic expenses. In the call when she let me go, she told me that she could hire 3 people in India to do my job, so that's what she was doing.