In my 20-something years in the industry I worked for teams that claimed they use scrum, sprints, or some combination of those, multiple times; in all 100% of cases it had nothing to do with how the “real” scrum is supposed to work.
The majority of the teams are actually doing morning meetings which they call “stand-ups” even though everyone is sitting in the conference room or at home, working remotely, and go around the table updating the status. Sometimes these meetings are daily, sometimes every other day or so.
Some teams have some kind of sprint review once every 2 or 3 or 4 weeks which involves a
somewhat deeper discussion of the open and closed work items.
That's as much as people call “scrum” and “sprint” around me.
I've only actually seen and been part of something resembling "agile" team 2 times in my career. Vs many instances of an org only claiming to be agile.
Those 2 instances were actually pretty enjoyable, educational and very productive team work.
I don't see that anymore these days. I only see teams adopting bits of it (mostly "sprints" idea) without actually trying to make the whole thing work. To some degree - WFH was the last nail in the coffin.
To be fair modern big tech are not made for this. Overwhelming levels of bureacracy, accidental complexity, cross org friction just ruins the "agile" ideas and intended dynamics.
Some do, some do something they call Scrum but it's their own thing (for better or worse). Others have moved on, recognizing that the best thing about Scrum was that it was agile training wheels and that once they could actually be agile it was time to abandon the trappings.
If a team is coming from something more like the DoD's horrific Waterfall world, then Scrum is probably an improvement but it needs to be seen as a stepping stone, not a destination in itself. It has many problems of its own.
We’re supposed to be doing it, but our scrum master is so bad that we’re not. I find this situation worse than scrum, as it’s just a bunch of unplanned chaos with ever-shifting priorities.
Yes, but not at big companies. SCRUM and Sprints are useful when you're a consultant and the client doesn't actually know what they want to build. When you're working at a software company, it's a red flag if product can't map out what they want.
I've worked at Verizon and Google, and they were much more interested in having quarter or bi-yearly shipping goals and really didn't give a fuck how the teams hit that goal.
Managers may or may not run daily or weekly 'check-ins' (I've never been on a team that did daily ones), there were no points assigned, there were very rough guesse of how long projects would take, but management just assumed people didn't need babysitting and people would work hard when necessary to unblock other folks.
In my 20-something years in the industry I worked for teams that claimed they use scrum, sprints, or some combination of those, multiple times; in all 100% of cases it had nothing to do with how the “real” scrum is supposed to work.
The majority of the teams are actually doing morning meetings which they call “stand-ups” even though everyone is sitting in the conference room or at home, working remotely, and go around the table updating the status. Sometimes these meetings are daily, sometimes every other day or so.
Some teams have some kind of sprint review once every 2 or 3 or 4 weeks which involves a somewhat deeper discussion of the open and closed work items.
That's as much as people call “scrum” and “sprint” around me.
I've only actually seen and been part of something resembling "agile" team 2 times in my career. Vs many instances of an org only claiming to be agile.
Those 2 instances were actually pretty enjoyable, educational and very productive team work.
I don't see that anymore these days. I only see teams adopting bits of it (mostly "sprints" idea) without actually trying to make the whole thing work. To some degree - WFH was the last nail in the coffin.
To be fair modern big tech are not made for this. Overwhelming levels of bureacracy, accidental complexity, cross org friction just ruins the "agile" ideas and intended dynamics.
Those terms became way too ambiguous to actually mean anything. Every team does it different.
Some do, some do something they call Scrum but it's their own thing (for better or worse). Others have moved on, recognizing that the best thing about Scrum was that it was agile training wheels and that once they could actually be agile it was time to abandon the trappings.
If a team is coming from something more like the DoD's horrific Waterfall world, then Scrum is probably an improvement but it needs to be seen as a stepping stone, not a destination in itself. It has many problems of its own.
We’re supposed to be doing it, but our scrum master is so bad that we’re not. I find this situation worse than scrum, as it’s just a bunch of unplanned chaos with ever-shifting priorities.
Never ask woman her age. Man his salary. Or scrum master what the fuck he's doing all day and why is he getting paid so much.
Probably not teams from YC xD...or startup. I think scrum will die slowly.
Yes, but not at big companies. SCRUM and Sprints are useful when you're a consultant and the client doesn't actually know what they want to build. When you're working at a software company, it's a red flag if product can't map out what they want.
I've never worked at a place that doesn't do some variation of scrum. It is terrible. How do things work at bigger firms?
I've worked at Verizon and Google, and they were much more interested in having quarter or bi-yearly shipping goals and really didn't give a fuck how the teams hit that goal.
Managers may or may not run daily or weekly 'check-ins' (I've never been on a team that did daily ones), there were no points assigned, there were very rough guesse of how long projects would take, but management just assumed people didn't need babysitting and people would work hard when necessary to unblock other folks.