pracer

>If you’re trying to enforce SAFe on something much smaller then I think you’re probably doing it wrong.

the comment you are answering was on point

>I know Scrum / SAFe proponents will say we were doing it wrong. It's ALWAYS that way

> If they're imposing a cost and not bringing value to the developers, you're supposed to change them.

And then, based on the comments seeing here, you are doing it wrong because

>if your experience of standups, plannings, retros etc is bad it is by definition because they were doing bullshit scrum and not adapting.

> typically a business needs some predictability in output in order to plan ahead. If the business can’t function well because delivery is unreliable

the problem is that this assumes that estimates can be accurate, which in some projects may be the case, but in general there are always unexpected problems, things you didn't know you didn't know, etc.

If it happens that a company goes under because they lost all income because there was no deliverability, the problem was the company had the wrong team of engineers. Either too much "isolated geniuses" or too much inexperienced. Sometimes also happens that the management decides the way of doing work without technical involvement. Even companies I've been that decided to rewrite a mature and solid big piece of software, because they "needed to use more strategic technologies". Meaning, the technologies that were the "cool thing to use if you are a cool startup". And they use Agile (so they claim).

But that's the opposite of my experience with agile and Scrum in the companies, where it is used as an excuse for non tech managers to enforce what they feel works better for them. In terms of control or, in some cases, micromanagement.

> I will second retros. I have seen team cohesion go up and down based on the quality of the retros.

Could it be the other way? That the quality of the retros went up and down based on the team cohesion? If that's the case (and I believe it is most of the times, in my experience), the retros are just an artifact, not the real mechanism.

> The Big Lie is that team building can be replaced by process.

This! They try to do it backwards: instead of building the team that will organically end up having standups over coffee in the morning, forcing the behaviour in the hopes that will build the team.

>That safety comes from trust, and that trust comes from routine demonstration of vulnerability and support

That's my intuition about what's wrong with these ceremonies: they look like they are trying to foster those things by enforcing the superficial behaviours seen in good teams, but it is just the effect. A team with trust, close bonded and efficient has "standups" and "retros" in an organic way, because that's the effect of a team that work together.

I always felt these methodologies try to turn it around, as in "let's force the superficial behaviours we see in good teams, so it will make other teams as good". But it doesn't work that way and it ends up being a tool for managers.

That's my impression too. People talking about the benefits of the office are actually complaining of not having everyone around (either to have social aspect or to what they call "casual collaboration" which reduces to being able to interrupt at any time.

If you think about it, what you miss is the possibility to interrupt others at any time, which is not very considerate once you realise it.

Calling it "casual collaboration" is not honest, as that's not collaboration. The other person is not collaborating, just being interrupted to help you with something. the only thing I agree is that you lost the casual talks in the coffee break or kitchen, but that is not always about being more productive.

At the end it is about finding a place without distractions. Not every home is prepared for that (and sometimes even impossible, due to kids, for example). But it is not the office per se which I claim that tend to be really disruptive in general.

It can help to build a group of friends in the area and not depending on the coworkers. For that I would recommend groups for activities, gyms, workshops and local activities. It is difficult if you never did it before, but it is worth the effort. Besides, your social life will not depend on your particular job.

Obviously, with quarantines in place that almost impossible, so hang in there, it will become better.

You may have a boundary and respect problem there. Working from home just uncovered it and it may be a good idea to solve it.

You are confusing people with companies. A person is political, a company should not. Otherwise, you are siding with totalitarian regimes that decide which services or rights you have based on what you think or believe. It was tried in the past, good luck for that.

And how is that not doable remotely? "Learning new technology" can be done at home (or whenever the employee decides) and deployment will happen in a remote server or in the cloud. So, again, how this full remote prevents grow and invent for employees?

As it was said above: it is a requirement of the job. But making it a requirement without actually being one, that's bogus.

And what about spending the winter in some sunny island for a month? Getting to know the team when one starts is good, and then just working with the tools to meet and talk to them. But my impression is that most of the people who think like you do that because they miss the human contact with people outside of their household (not saying you in particular) and they feel isolated.

I have been working fully remote almost 2 years now, and it felt that way at the beginning. Until I started using the benefits that remote work provides. Going to a nearby gym with cheap prices at my convenience, staying in other places for a month without having to ask for holidays (or even ask for it), joining plans and trips with friends without worrying too much if I have enough holidays or even getting advantage of cheap prices for flights and trains to travel somewhere.

I think most people struggle with the reality that the only "downside" of remote work is not "being disconnected with the team", but having to put effort to meet friends (also make new ones) to have the human contact they usually miss.

Agree. This is another typical article about "how bad big bad companies are" because the technologies were not used as the writers wanted them to be. They are always oblivious to the possibility that the users and developers of those technologies actually wanted to explore different paths instead of their way.

It always feel like anticapitalists that claim "the system" coopted good ideas and turned them evil. When "the system" is the people using those technologies. No matter what Facebook or Microsoft do, if people don't like it, it will fail. It seems the problem they have is that people think differently than they do, and they don't like that.

You better hopw that they are programmers. Meteorologists provide the algos and calculations, programmers (or if you prefer, scientists programmers) then implement it. Scientists focused on science don't have the time to learn good code skills (that's a fact) as there are too many maths and knowledge already in their fields. would not be better if they focus on the science itself?