Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
How can you stop the dev team from padding their numbers when it comes to creating task times? How is there any motivation for them to do their work if there are no real deadlines and they are just measured against their velocity.
Get the job done by this deadline
vs
Get the job done whenever we will reduce scope, quality or increase resources
The foundation of most agile methods is trust. If you don't trust your team, why have you hired them in the first place? If you think they are not up to the task, it is better not to start the project because it is almost surely doomed to failure - either because you are right and the team is a bunch of inept developer,s or because you are wrong but your lack of trust and overcontrolling suffocates the team and actually saps their commitment and enthusiasm.
OTOH if you are sure that you have hired the best guys available, and that they are talented and motivated, the best is to give them a good challenge, let them work and try to remove all obstacles from their way.
In my experience most developers start out enthusiastic and motivated to create products they can be proud of. However, impossible deadlines, irrealistic expectations, too much bureaucracy, overcontrolling management - and last but not least, reducing quality - can quickly kill that motivation.
The point of agile methods is that developers are the right people to know / estimate the cost of a specific feature. If management insists on estimating both the resources, scope and time allotted to the project, it almost always results in disaster. If OTOH the developers are given trust and responsibility, they will usually live up to the task. In Scrum, the team together works out the estimates and fights problems / issues coming up during the sprint. In a good projects, team members quickly gel with the team and they feel personal responsibility for the project. This can go as far as poking laggard members to produce results instead of pulling the team back.
In my experience, developers pad numbers due to uncertainty. Are your product owners clear in their business requirements? Are the stories sufficiently small to estimate against?
Your 2 choices indicate to me that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Scrum. The promise of Scrum is not getting the same result, just faster. It is the ability to iterate quickly, respond to feedback and alter course. The foundation of Scrum is the self running team. If you don't have teams you trust, Scrum probably isn't for your organization.
As Péter said in his response, team motivation is key and the quickest way to kill that is to undermine them. If the team feels management doesn't support or believe in them they will have no reason to make aggressive estimates and will simply cover their own butts. It's your job as a manager to help them succeed.
Additionally, the agile methodologies promote responsibilities to the peer. You shouldn't have just one person estimating items. Make it a group thing, and make sure (mostly) everyone agrees to the estimate. If you have your whole team colluding against you to pad estimates, you have a lot more problems than you think.
Besides, there's a lot of opportunity to pad estimates and make excuses in traditional waterfall / BDUF (big design up front) effort. I would say that scrum, with the daily scrum meetings, helps to contain this more than it helps to promote it.
I wrote a blog post a while back on estimation anti-patterns. It's a funny read but sadly all of the patterns are things I've either seen done or heard of from colleagues. We've gone through about 3 of them on our current project; I don't think there's any team which manages to avoid all of them entirely!
http://lizkeogh.com/2009/11/30/estimation-anti-patterns/
Also have a look into systems thinking, game theory and perverse incentives. If the devs are padding the estimates it's because the environment they're working in is encouraging them to do so. Changing that environment will help them.
Good answers on this one already. Basically, if you assume developers will cheat on you by reporting hours they didn't in fact work (but spent playing whichever MMORPG is now en vogue) why you even work with them in the first place? And if you trust them, why you think they "pad"?
BTW - it is completely normal for teams that are new to Scrum to first overestimate (and have to drop items from Sprint), then - getting thus burned - underestimate to avoid that happening to them again, then as others have pointed out team velocity will level out and people will have a better understanding of how much they can do within a sprint.
One more hint as to what you can do: don't question their hours, don't try to "manage" them by telling them how much time this or that should take. Rather, ask them how they want to achieve this or that, what solutions they want to use and why? It is quite common with good geeks that they tend to over engineer - if things look way bigger than you expected probably there is a misunderstanding here about what is being built that needs to be cleared.
It is actually quite impossible to "pad" estimates in scrum. After a few sprints the velocity will average out and the team will "know" how many points it can commit to. There is nothing to pad.
I think you have your statements backwards because
Get the job done whenever we will reduce scope, quality or increase resources
is an exact description of Waterfall; not scrum. In scrum we have deadlines, it is called the end of the sprint. In scrum we NEVER sacrifice quality because we know that will cost us more in the long run. In scrum we don't add resources because we know that people gel and form a "team" and upsetting that balance is detrimental to productivity.
Why are you bothering at all with task times? The only time I have seen good developers pad estimates is if they are forced into giving an estimate for an unknown feature. We don't do this in scrum. We know what the conditions of acceptance of a feature is before we commit to it.
One approach to avoid this situation entirely is to estimate in story points, i.e. ask the question "does this story require more or less work compared to that story?".
In my experience developers rarely pad their estimates. The general tendency of developers is actually to underestimate complexity and effort.
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
We are acting Scrum in our department now. But the up level management structure is traditional, such as Project Manager(PM), Development Manager(DM), Team Leader(TL) and Test team leader(TTL).
Team Leader act as a Scrum master, he controls all the things in our team: communicated with PM/DM/TTL, development management... Our PO's responsibility is just maintaining PBL.
Our managers and team member are accustomed to the traditional management type, they do not care Scrum, and they said some Scrum rules are hidebound.
I act as another SM, I want to change the current status.
But I haven't any headship, just is an ordinary developer in our department. Does anyone has this kind of bother too?
Thanks in advance!
I heard a lovely saying once and can't remember who said it. "They want Agile but they don't know what it is - so we give them Agile but we don't know what they want."
It sounds as if this is happening in your company. Someone, somewhere wants the team to use Scrum, but it's not the team.
That must be a difficult job for an SM, especially if you're doing it unofficially! There are some things I can suggest for you. First, learn some basic coaching techniques: positive language, GROW framework and giving and receiving feedback. This will give you some additional tools which are outside of Scrum and support someone in a leadership rather than a management position (even an unofficial SM can become a leader).
Then, don't worry about the actual practices. If someone has mandated Scrum then the team will be forced to do this anyway. Instead, concentrate on the values and principles of Scrum - particularly collaboration, communication and transparency. Help the team to work with each other instead of being silo'd away. You will have to be an example for them. Don't mandate pair programming, but do go over and pair. Don't mandate stand-ups, but do have conversations first thing in the morning and draw in as many people on the team as you can. Look at the principle of "Continuous Improvement". Learn how to do root cause analysis and the 5 Why's so that the team can understand better why things are hard and take action themselves.
I also recommend Mary Lynn Manns and Linda Rising "Fearless Change". This will help you to work out who else could help you.
Finally, I will echo #sjt. Don't commit Scrum suicide. However, if it's something you really want and your company aren't doing it in the right way, don't be afraid to look elsewhere. Learn some of the fundamentals, practice TDD on your own and find a new job.
Whatever you do, good luck! The first step to change is desire.
If you don't have buy in from your other developers its not going to work. Period.
Scrum requires a heap of discipline, especially during the early adoption phase.
I wouldn't be bothered that management don't care for it. If you're free to do the work of developing the software, and all they care about is results, then it shouldn't matter if you happen to have a 10 minute stand up each morning, and plan small chunks of the work into manageable bits, as long as you're hitting the targets they want you to hit.
If you're team isn't on board though, you're going to have a really hard time getting it working, and it will probably fail and cause more impact that not having tried at all.
If you can try to start it in a small project, with a few developers who are on board with the idea, then you can report back to the rest of your development team on how you found it works, what were the benefits and what were the negatives (reflecting is after all an important part of Scrum).
If you want to get your management on board, you might find that after doing a few projects this way you're much better at estimating the time it will take to develop the requirements you've been given by the PMs, hopefully being able to hit deadlines with more accuracy.
Remember, the PMs and BAs can still work in their normal way, once they've handed requirements to you, you're able to build them using Scrum. Its not ideal, but short of having the buy in of everyone, and the ability to speak directly to users and get them to help write user stories, it will be the best you've got.
When asked to estimate the time it will take to complete the project you can apply Scrum techniques. You can break the specifications down into smaller chunks, group them into sprints and develop them accordingly, hopefully yielding better results.
"I act as another SM, I want to change the current status"
Well, that's a good start right there, wanting to change the situation. Although I must say that without the management buy in, it will be tough. Try and arrange an experienced Scrum Speaker or Agile Coach come and do a presentation or workshop at your company which involves all the upper management. Once you have the management believing in Scrum, it will be all downhill from there.
"Team Leader act as a Scrum master, he controls all the things is our team"
This goes against the Self Organized and Self empowering Teams principle in Scrum. A good Scrum Master would empower the Team in a disciplined fashion within the Scrum Rules, to that appropriate level that, the Team should be able to run on it's own. One suggestion is that the Team Leads need to have a different mindset when working as a SM and different one while working as a Senior Developer, there are no Team Leads in a Scrum Team, only Scrum Team members. You cannot assign true leadership, that is a mutual role which can be earned by creating a reputation of helping others and mentoring others. Have them spit time between SM and development duties 30%, 70% or 50-50 or whatever you find appropriate. Command and control could be counter productive for the Team.
Our managers and team member are accustomed to the traditional management type, they do not care Scrum
A Scrum Trainer had told once told me, "Do not commit Scrum Suicide". If your managers do not care about Scrum, don't get fired trying to convince them. Whatever methodology you guys might follow or "not" follow, you have to realise that all this is a business. Your pay check is dependent on your boss's approval, if your boss or manager does not care about Scrum, then don;t do it. If they care about waterfall, Switch to it, do it like you care, but don't do Scrum halfway and call it scrum.
What has worked for me in the past is to identify and communicate pain-points. Certainly, you should never do something because Kent Beck told you to, especially something that will just get you fired. However, some smart people worked at figuring out a set of practices which is cohesive, and divergence from these practices almost always leads to pain points.
As just one example: if you do Scrum where you have a requirements iteration, a design iteration, an implementation iteration, and a testing iteration, this in theory could work but in practice never does. (When it does, it ends up being Waterfall, and the "iteration" notion becomes meaningless.) Pointing out to your boss that you learned something about the requirements while QA was testing might help him realize there's value in getting QA involved in requirements. Or finding risks in the software design by doing a small prototype may help to show why it might help to collapse the design iteration.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
If everything in scrum is all about functional things that a user can see is there really any place for refactoring code unrelated to any new functional requirements?
I don't think that this has as much to do with Scrum as it does with project management philosophy.
Regardless of whether a project uses Scrum or not, many project managers do not like developers spending time on "unnecessary" things like code refactoring or restructuring that doesn't directly advance one of the outstanding functional requirements. It's not "work that yields results" like normal development, it's "work that prevents a delay of results later". Given the typically short time-lines used for Sprints, the benefit is often hard to see and nearly impossible to quantify.
Keeping code maintainable needs to be an item on your burn-down list (if you use a Scrum). It is just as important as new development. While it may not seem like something that is "visible to the user", ignoring it increases your technical debt. Down the road when the technical debt piles up enough that your code's lack of maintainability slows down development, the delays in new feature development will be visible to customers.
It's all a matter of management/philosophy. Instead of looking at refactoring and maintainability enhancements as "extra" work that doesn't impact customers, it should be viewed as a time investment to prevent customer-visible delays (and potentially bugs as well) down the road. Developers can sometimes see these benefits more clearly than managers can; if your manager doesn't understand the disadvantages of neglecting maintainability, you might want to grab several other developers and have a chat with your manager.
I think there is a fair case to make for technical debt refactoring where the effort/cost impact of maintaining the code is as high as, or higher even, than the cost of refactoring it to improve quality or work better / properly - specifically to lend it a higher degree of maintainability.
eg: if the software is so problematic you are losing customers, or money, you'd act fast to fix it.. Some might argue this is a business requirement of it's own, but it's often not placed front and centre on small to mid sized development projects, which instead focus on the technicalities of creating apps rather than the impact of the quality of the app on the bottom line.
I think you are probably talking about large scale refactoring rather than the continuous refactoring you would do whilst in the whole red-green-refactor cycle.
My approach would be something like this, if reafactoring an old feature makes it easier to add a new feature then go ahead and do it. But in some ways you are right, if there is no pressure on a particular unit to change (i.e. it is completely finished and will never change again and will never impact on other modules) then there is no practical need to refactor. However I rarely find a module that is quite so finalised.
If everything in Scrum is all about functional things that a user can see (...)
Any project and methodology should be about generating business value, you rarely do things just for the fun in a business environment. Having that said, I see quality in Scrum (and other Agile methods) as a way to not kill your velocity on the long run and, ultimately to achieve hyper productivity. I thus believe that a typical "Definition of Done" should include something like "no increase of technical debt" (put your quality standards in there). If you think a new feature will impact existing code that should be refactored, include this cost in the estimate (or create a refactoring item in your Product Backlog) and explain things to your Product Owner. Because at the end, it's up to the Product Owner to prioritize items and to decide if quality can be sacrificed temporarily (if your business die because you don't release a feature, what is the point of refactoring existing code?). But he must be aware that this can't be a long term strategy or he will kill the team velocity.
bta: Regardless of whether a project uses Scrum or not, many project managers do not like developers spending time on "unnecessary" things like code refactoring or restructuring that doesn't directly advance one of the outstanding functional requirements.
Definitely a noteworthy observation; my solution to this would be as follows:
Perform regular code reviews. Every code review should recommend actions to improve on deficiencies in the code.
There is now a requirement for jobs which improve code quality. Build these into the sprint and track them in the same way as any other job.
If your manager needs any more convincing, cast 'the maintainer' as a user, and describe some user stories for them - and then 'features' are things like 'the code is fully commented with xml doc comments' and 'the code does not produce any warnings from ReSharper'
If you can justify it as part of the process of completing other tasks by identifying issues/risks with current sets of code, and it is a better end result, go for it. But don't get overzealous and screw the timelines/budget.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I've been in the business of developing hardware and software for 19 years now. In the earlier days the projects and teams I worked on were smaller, much more effective and more fun.
The effect of the input of one single developer to the final product and to its success was evident to everybody. We had direct contact to and feedback from the customers. This was rewarding for our work and a very effective way to improve the product.
With the years the complexity of hard and software increases and more and more people were needed to get things done on time. The downside of the trend to bigger teams for me is that the contribution of a single developer to the project success gets smaller and smaller. And we lose the contact to real world of the users and customers because of growing QA departments more and more.
I always enjoyed my work and kept in touch with latest technologies like OOP, UML, .NET, and whatever. I already worked a few years as a team leader but I didn't like it very much because I missed developing and coding.
I'm just frustrated about the fact that my piece of the whole "thing" we're working on gets smaller and smaller and I lose the overview about it and the contact to the ground. Please don't understand me wrong, I don't want to cry for the good old days but for me the work on more and more specialized sub modules of a giant system simply gets more and more boring.
I'm wondering if I'm alone feeling like that and maybe if you have some advice how to bring the fun back to my work. And sorry, no, I'm not interested in working on an open source project in my free time. Nine hours a day in front of a computer screen are enough, life is more than coding...
I also require interaction with and feedback from the customer. However, a customer can be many things. As long as I'm satisfying someone (end user, team leader, big boss, etc.) then that's enough for me. The interaction itself is the key factor.
As for the feeling of pride and ownership from having a large impact on the system, again it's a matter of focus. You are still creating something, even if it's a smaller piece of the whole.
I long ago realized that I'm a small fish in a big pond. Learning to feel happy about my place in that pond was the only solution.
IOW, it's all relative!
I guess it all depends, there is a degree of camaraderie that comes with smaller teams and a lesser chance of ego's colliding. I have experienced both and they both have their upsides and downsides. To be honest, while working on a larger team I learned so much from other programmers, you think you know a lot, but someone always knows more.
It all depends on the team and the egos of the individuals.
When working on a team with ego problems, it doesn't matter how cool the technology is or how much interaction you get with the customers. One bad apple can drain all of the fun out of working on an otherwise cool project.
On the other hand, if the team has gelled, it matters very little if the technology is out-of-date, or the business problem is boring. Working on an back-office accounting system using VI and 10-year-old beta C++ compilers can still be invigorating when you feel like your peers are in the same fight and have your back. When you learn from others and are listened to when you have some new approach to try. When the developers control the build/test/deploy process so that it's sane and improves the lives (and sleep patterns) of the support team. When your peers (and you them) are always willing to help with an obscure language issue or work through a maddening bug. That what makes programming fun and interesting regardless of everything else.
You may want to consider changing companies back to a smaller company where you had a broader set of responsiblities, for one idea. Also, what are changes in the process that would help with the points you don't like?
I do have the question of what you mean by large here? Would a team of 50 people in a project be large? Or is it more like 1,000 to be large? On one level I'm asking for scale as there are teams beyond large if one wants to look at all the developers that work on Microsoft's big products like Office and Windows while at the other end of the spectrum are the one person development teams that do it all.
I'd second Kelly's answer that it depends on the team and egos for another big factor in things. What do you consider fun? Is it finding more efficient ways to solve problems that have poor solutions? Is it conquering a Millenium puzzle? Or is seeing someone smile while using your software what makes it fun? Lots of different possible answers and while I can make suggestions, how good or bad they are is totally for you to interpret.
I don't think you're alone in disliking how as a company matures the process can change as new people in various roles are added with increased bureaucracy and losing agility as it may take more signatures to get a change to be allowed or developers lose that touch to the customer of their product. There is a spectrum of various ways to produce software and some places may have less process in place and be focusing on "just make it work" while other places may want the process to be much more formal and organized with 1,001 policies for every little thing. At which end do you want to be working?
To answer the question as it's asked in the title: No!
I feel very similar and talked to many others who think the same. From my experience small teams are much more fun to work with and by that (and some other reasons) they're much more effective.
Thank you all for your interesting and valuable answers (and for correcting grammar and spelling :-)
You gave me some big points to think about:
The missing interaction with custumers (whatever "customer" means)
The interaction and feedback inside the developer team
What means fun for me. I think its more the smile in the face of the user than the use of cutting-edge technology.
How to deal with the sometimes overwhelming processes.
Last but not least to find my comfortable place in the big pond. It may be not the one where I'm staying at the moment...
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I work with scrum about 2 months and don’t have all the experience I wish, so I would like to hear some inputs about it.
My concern is people never say about drawbacks for the two sides; company and workers.
I know the benefits of a cross-functional team but which are the drawbacks? What is hidden beside the amazing Eden Garden?
I'm confused because as a company benefits of replaceable people, for the team is good because the opportunity of having knowledge and share experience (besides all teamwork benefit).
Again, I know all the benefits but I want explore the drawbacks just because in the middle there are the ordinary people.
Normally these people dedicate heavily to gain knowledge. They buy books, courses, attending seminar and so on.
In every company when someone knows much more than everyone else, people and managers get desperate wishing or even demanding that these ordinary people share all their knowledge.
And that’s strange.. Because these are communism thoughts and we live in capitalism society and since I was born, everything was so competed and now people say about collaborative.
Can Scrum and Lean principles ruins (or making hard) the professionals' life?
Scrum and Lean, in and of themselves, cannot ruin anybody's life. Nor can they, alone, make your life.
The culture of your organization will always be a far more dominant factor than the particular product management or development management method in place. Scrum can be misused. Lean can indeed make workers feel replaceable and pressured to perform all day, all the time.
On the other hand, both tools (they are just tools) can be used to create high-performing teams where all members value each other and each others' contributions. Being on a team that delivers consistently good results at high velocity feels great.
You will also find every result in between. It depends much more on culture than process.
I believe that culture flows from the top. Therefore, look at how the company leaders treat each other, their subordinates, their vendors, and their customers. That will tell you much more about what your life will be like than which methodology the company follows.
I'm only going to address your comments about sharing knowledge reducing your own value. In an ideal team culture, knowledge itself isn't as valued as someone's ability to acquire new knowledge and solve problems they haven't seen before. When I think about the star engineers I have known, it's not because they know this or that, it's because it's obvious they could be on nearly any task, on nearly any team and they would both begin to solve the problem and raise the level of the entire team.
There are a few things I've seen from agile methodologies which I'd put against it when you're weighing it up.
From a developers perspective there are two things:
1) The short sprints often lead to short term decisions - which is as intended but can be frustrating for some developers. While delivering "just enough" is great for the project, asking a developer to do something that they know that they're going to have to very heavily refactor, if not rewrite, two sprints down the line can be demotivating.
2) Where you've got opinionated developers (and is there any other sort) I've seen conflict over prioritisation. Adding not only what should be done but how important it is and therefore when it should be done brings on a whole other level of disagreement. In theory the developers don't have a say here but hard delination never works.
From a management point of view they don't like the uncertainty. "When's it going to be ready?" "No idea, when we get to the point you say you're happy". Essentially for them it's a leap of faith - if they do it once then generally they're sold but getting them to do the first time is hard.
I will assume, that as one commentator suggested, you meant to ask: "What are the drawbacks of Scrum?"
I think that the biggest problem with Scrum is that it is easy to understand - but very difficult to implement properly. Scrum, like XP, like most methodologies is not built on individual atomic practices, each capable of improving an existing process.
Scrum requires a shift in the organizational mindset. It requires a shift from ego-centric to communal behavior. The entire organization should focus on bringing the most value, constantly, and do so over perceived self-interest.
For example, a cross-functional team member may be required to do things out of his comfort zone (the flip-side of being able to experiment with new interesting tasks), because it needs to be done by somebody.
Team Leaders and project managers need to relinquish authority when they are called to take on the role of servant-leaders, and when they are asked to stop telling team-members which tasks to pick, instead relying on the team to manage itself.
Stakeholders are forced to face the reality that they can't eat the cake, and have it whole, when they are forced to choose between having all of the scope they want or having it by the date they want it done (this is always true, but Scrum is really in-your-face about it).
Most of all, the drawback of Scrum, is its tendency to disillusion beginning practitioners. This comes from people expecting something from it that it can't deliver: A solution to their problems!
That's right! Scrum does not solve an organizations problems. It highlights them. It is up to the organization to step up to the bat and do something about them. Incidentally, this is done with what I consider to be the single most important ceremony of Scrum - The Retrospective! If you do nothing else in Scrum - do the retrospective:
Find out what you did well, and continue doing it.
Find out what you need to improve and do something to improve it.
Rinse and repeat!
In a presentation by Ken Schwaber to Google on Scrum, he once said that Scrum isn't necessarily good for the organization. It could tell you early on that your project is doomed to fail. If you avoid Scrum, you may have a few more months of ignorant bliss to prepare you for the day you lose your job. Funny, but true. Think on that.
Hope it helps,
Assaf.
I'm no expert in any particular methodology (Agile, Scrum, etc.) but I empathize with your feelings. One of the biggest issues I've seen is that a team that really isn't interested almost unanimously in the methodology will tend to have problems. A few outliers isn't a problem, but if 1/3 or more of the team isn't interested, it becomes a nightmare. Writing good software is important and a company should hire professionals that help them meet that goal, but if the team is forced to meet that objective without finding the experience rewarding the quality will soon drop off.
No, I don't think it will ruin your professional life, but it can be pretty miserable if a company is pig-headed and doesn't realize that they need an environment where their workers are finding rewarding work.
I'm not totally sure of the question because it was kind of hard to follow.
Basically... no? I fail to see how an agile principle could 'ruin a professionals' life'... if implemented incorrectly it could waste some of their time, meaning a small lack of experience gained. Other than that, if the methodology fits the business and is implemented correctly, then is is a powerful tool that is useful to everybody.
Any methodology only works if the people are competent.
Silly question imo.
I've certainly seen things packaged as Scrum and Lean make the development process more difficult. Usually the result of managers picking and choosing the aspects that support their purpose, without buying in to the underlying spirit. Any process can work if properly applied, and process can fail if applied poorly.
Cross-functionality isn't a means to make people replaceable. It's a means to solve flow bottleneck problems that decrease productivity.
Cross-functionality doesn't mean that everyone can do everyone else's job, it means that people are capable of assisting with the work step that come (immediately) before their work or (immediately) after their work.
A better term for this is "Local Generalization", or "Special Generalization". And again, the goal has nothing to do with making people more removable from the organization. Creating the kid of people who can use Local Generalization to their advantage costs a lot of money in teaching and guidance. Once an organization makes such an investment in a worker, they're even less motivated to remove them. And organizations tend to only make such investments in people that they already want to keep around.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
My organization has been experimenting with the introduction of more "Agile" methods. We've been trying the Scrum approach for a short while, and most of the team has, more or less, adapted to it. I like it as a whole, but I'm concerned about one potentially severe impact of the methodology: as teams are consistently focused on features and backlog items, and testers are more integrated with the overall development process, it seems like skill sets are becoming blurred, and people are sensing less respect for their individual abilities.
Some of our developers are excellent at server-side technologies and optimization of heavy-weight data provisioning. Others have invested a large amount of their careers learning GUI technologies and have developed a fundamental understanding of users and usability in an application. Neither skill set is better than the other, but they are certainly different.
Is this an inevitable result of the Scrum process? Since everyone on the team (as I understand it) contributes to satisfying the next feature/requirement, backlog item, or testing goal at hand, the underlying philosophy seems to be "anyone can do it." This is, in my experience, simply not true. Most engineers (developers, testers, etc.) have a particular skill set they have honed over the years, and the Scrum methodology, in my mind, tends to devalue those very abilities they were previously respected for.
Here's an example for clarification:
If a sudden change of technology occurs on the server-side data provisioning, and every item on the to-do list for the sprint is based on this new change, the GUI developers (who likely haven't had time to become acclimated with the new technology) might not be able to contribute to the sprint. At the very least, they will need to invest time to get ramped up, and then their code will be suspect because of their lack of experience.
I understand the need for rapid development to discourage "role silos" but doesn't this discount one fundamental reality: people develop skills in accordance to necessity, their interests, or their experiences. People seem to be less motivated when they perceive their position is one of "plug-ability" (e.g. we can "plug" anyone in to do this particular task). How does Scrum address this? If it doesn't, has anyone addressed this when adopting the Scrum methodology?
The short answer is an emphatic NO! Scrum does not blur or depreciate the skills required for specialization. Scrum does not promote generalization.
The long answer is that in Scrum, the most important thing is to get the work "Done". The team, as a team (as opposed to a collection of individual "stars") collaborate, as needed, in order to get the job done. Whatever it takes - however they want (Scrum is about self managing, self motivating teams, right?).
What this means is that a scrum team may be composed of several specialists, who primarily do what they specialized in (DBA, Graphic Design, even technical writers). The team, as a whole, should have all of the skills required to fulfill the requirements. This is not the same as saying that each team member has to have all of the skills aforementioned.
That being said, it is often desired - often by the members themselves - that members other than the specialists be at least adequate in skills different from their specialty. Another poster already mentioned Scott Ambler's "General Specialist". This helps the team when there's too much work of one kind, when the specialist is absent, and it helps the member when he really would like to gain experience outside his specialty.
Given that the team is self organizing, if for some reason a specialist finds himself in the middle of the sprint, without any work to do in his specialty, the best way to deal with it, is to simply ask the specialist what he wants to do. Let the team decide. The specialist can decide to help in his other areas of adequacy, do a POC for the next sprint, "shore-up" the defenses by fixing some long forgotten technical debt, or shine the shoes of the members who are working.
Yup. I don't know if this is the long answer. But it definitely was a long answer.
:-)
The point of Scrum is for the developers to self-organize. We use scrum where I am, and jobs get passively sorted by a person's focus. We don't do it on purpose with a chart and list, it just happens. We all know who's best at what, or what their main/secondary focuses are. If the 'main' person needs help, they get the person/people with a secondary focus in it to help. We do get plenty of tasks not necessarily in line with whatever our particular focus is, but you always know who to ask for help then.
For your example - I don't know that if you say had 3 server guys and 5 gui guys, that you'd expect to get all the work done in that sprint (if the server guys + some help from the others wasn't enough). The way the sprint is supposed to work is that from a prioritized list, the developers pick what they think they can get done in that 30-day timeframe. If that meant the GUI guys needed 2 days of server-side training in order to help, that's what it'd mean. Unless there were concurrent things also high up the list that they could do instead. The sprint tasks are not supposed to be dictated by management as a psuedo-deadline.
If you have a Safari account, there's an interesting mostly case-study book by one of the guy/s who invented scrum.
I've been working as a ScrumMaster for about 18 months and have worked with two different teams. I initially expected to experience the potential issues you raise but this has not been the case. What I generally observe is that the team evolves into a mixture of specialists and generalists as people find the appropriate role for themselves - one that they can enjoy and be successful at. This is self-organisation at work. I have never had a case where our specialists were sitting idle.
If this did occur, I would expect it to be raised as an issue in Sprint Retrospective and the team would discuss how to improve the situation. The most obvious (and brutal) conclusion would be to change the team composition.
I am not sure why skill set will get blurred. There is a fair amount of confusion in the agile world. Scrum is a project management process and not a software development process and should not be seen as one. The engineers have to follow their own methodologies like TDD or extreme programming to add their own part to being agile.
Nothing goes away in scrum.
PM's still document as they go
Architects still architect their components. The only thing is they just delay some major decisions to more responsible point in time.
Developers should still follow best practices such as SOLID principles to enable for refactoring in a consistent manner as features change.
I think Scott Ambler addresses this issue very thoroughly in http://www.agilemodeling.com/essays/generalizingSpecialists.htm...
His concept of a Generalizing Specialist is exactly the thing Collective Ownership / Scrum Team calls for, and makes total sense to me.
Its hard to achieve in real life though ;-)
If you find for any reason ('sudden change of technology' or not) that the amount of work required for a system over a sprint is greater than the amount available then there's a problem with your scheduling.
One fix is that, as you suggest, you take programmers from other areas and throw them onto the mix. How well this works depends on the skills of that person and how different the problem domain is, but treating programmers as generic units that can be farmed out as needed is generally not a successful strategy for developing software.
This is still a scheduling problem though.
The best thing about Scrum is exactly the fact that skills do get a bit blurred! The point is to avoid silos at all costs by spreading specialist knowledge across the team and letting people work a bit outside their comfort zone.
Obviously this is not for everybody. Some developers are happy in their own narrow specialist field and such people are more of a hindrance in a Scrum process than an asset, whereas well-rounded and multi-talented people who are determined to get the job done, usually adapt very very well to it and are far more productive.
One of the key benefits of Scrum is to get the whole team actually involved and invested into the project instead of tackling their own special tasks and then riding off to the horizon. I'd claim that for most people, this is a far more rewarding way of working than the conveyor belt -approach of waterfall processes.
So I'd advise to boldly embrace the mixing of skills and having people come together to take down nasty problems instead of relying on specialist silos. The result of teams consisting of motivated people can be surprising.
Sounds like this would lead to more well-rounded developers, and also allow those who are experts in certain areas to continue to contribute their expertise.
I haven't used Scrum much myself (yet), but from your description, these types of teams would lead to a team/organization that is also more well-rounded as a whole - and shouldn't that be the goal of any team?
Handling sudden changes is part of Agile and this may mean that some people have to go off and learn new skills. Course this is more within the general Agile philosophy than anything Scrum-specific. There may be some extreme cases where the customer or business decides to change the world by bringing in something new and thus has to handle the subsequent pain of those people ramping up but if this is what they want and the developers are overruled, then there are only a couple of choices: (Take your lumps and try to handle the major changes) or (quit and get out of there).
While there can be some cases where someone that has specialized in something may be able to do things faster, this doesn't necessarily mean much if that is just one person on the team that is an expert and there is enough work in that area for 10 people for the whole sprint. Should those not an expert simply not do that work and let that one person attempt to get through as much as he or she can? I don't think so but there should be something to be said for those that aren't the best at something still trying to get done what they can get done.