| > My current company spends 4 out of 8 hours every day in meetings This doesn't have anything to do with agile. You can run "agile" with as little as an hour of meetings a week if you want. Planning, retro, refinement in one weekly, async standup in Slack. You can bring standups in person, have them daily or less frequently, adjust the frequency, change your sprints from 1 to 2 weeks. Even the heaviest weight version of this I can imagine (daily 30 min standups, 1 hour planning, 30 min retro, weekly sprints) adds up to 4 hours total for the week. So what you're describing is 80% something beyond that. > taking 2 weeks and 4 meetings with 10 developers on each call just to deliver a simple list-filter feature fit in? This sounds like you've moved from smaller company to bigger company and are noticing things move slower, though correct me if I'm wrong. Either way, these are the questions: Why does the feature actually take two weeks to build? Are there more factors beyond the team? Larger scale? More testing / QA needed than pushing out to prod? Just plain worse developers? Bad PR practices that delay the feature? These factors again are nothing to do with "agile". Another person asked this well, but really you've offered no notes on what your old team did differently that was not "agile". What's the alternative that people are missing? |
Pivotal Labs, well known for "doing Agile right," spends the entire Friday doing no work every week.