That just sounds like Agile...
Agreed! It's Scrum. Scrum has the cargo cult.
What do you see as the problem: Scrum itself, or the cargo cult of folks who do it badly?Scrum done properly is very low overhead, at least from a developer's standpoint. At my old job we did fairly strict Scrum and I estimated that it consumed only about 4 (so, 10% of a theoretical 40-hour week) of my hours per week. I feel that is very low overhead. I don't know of a lot of development scenarios where you don't need to spend at least 10% of your time communicating with management. I mean, people really have to think about what their actual dream scenario is. Some kind of world where they only have to spend 1% of their time interacting with management? 0%? These people need to get real. Management/stakeholders exist and you are going to need to communicate with them. I have had jobs where upwards of 50% of my time was spent in seemingly endless meetings, plus "drive-by shootings" where management randomly stopped by and wanted to see progress and dump new shit onto my plate. Scrum is not perfect, but for most workplaces would be an upgrade. Agile just seems to get drug through the mud by
everyone that implements some authoritarian variant
of Scrum.
I feel it is close to the opposite."Agile" is a nebulous term that has lost nearly all practical meaning. Bad management does some weird, loose version of "agile" (usually with some trappings of Scrum) and gives both Scrum and "agile" bad names. |
Scrum itself. Sorry, but when you create a list of ScrumButs and indirectly deride everyone for not being able to take "Full Advantage of Scrum" so that your purists can go out and attack it at full force, yeah, that might be the problem.
The idea that different organizations might actually benefit from not adopting a methodology wholesale isn't that farfetched.
You could argue that's part of the cargo cult, I'd agree to some extent. But it becomes difficult to separate the 2 when you're literally derided for not following it to the religious T.