Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, this sounds like some twisted morons version of AGILE. While I think AGILE definitely has some faults, this is definitely NOT one of them. Someone seriously really misread the manual.
I recently started a new position and am already incredibly dissatisfied with the environment. It is based around an open desk plan, with the only meeting rooms directly in front of where the elevators exit into. The result is that people literally schedule meetings in the middle of team space, disrupting everyone around them. One day I left to use the bathroom, only to return to find that someone had sat at my desk for a meeting! Apparently the idea behind this is that it leads to a more "open" work environment. I find it ridiculous. I can't concentrate or get anything done without feeling partially-involved in everything going around me. Everyone working here seems to have bought into it. Of course, they all seem like mostly young devs who don't know the difference. Don't get me started on the ridiculous "stand-ups" that occur every morning, forcing team-members to become utterly unproductive while they stand forced to watch some idiot move note-cards around a white board with such intense deliberation that you'd think they were directing air-traffic.
Nearly in tears from laughter - thank you.
Jokes aside, I worked in a similar environment at two companies; it was miserable. I have learned that I don't function at my prime in such environments, so I avoid them now.
Is it possible for you to negotiate a remote/WFH structure? The company's priority is for you to do your best work, so if you pitch it as such, do you think they would comply - and would you even want that?
I've been involved in a company that went from a waterfall development methodology, where we were often late in delivering products, had too many bugs, and didnt deliver what customers really wanted. High stress, crazy hours. I had heard about Agile, read some books, and suggested it as a change to the CEO of the company. He jumped in and backed me up.
Agile changed it all. We delivered on time, with the features promised, 1/10th the bugs, and worked sane hours doing it. It was awesome. Customers didnt recieve product faster, but they received a BETTER product, and when it was promised. Our employees were happier as well.
I then went to another company that was a step up, but not a leadership position for me. They also did "agile" except...they didnt. Oh they called it agile all right, but it wasn't. It was waterfall crammed into agile by some folks who refused to try something new, but wanted to use the words. ZERO understanding of the concept. They won awards within the company for it....and it sucked.
Agile is not a fad, when properly managed it is awesome. Its not a replacement for good management, and that makes the difference.
Heres some examples:
Standups that take more then 15 minutes regularly indicate bad management of the process.
Assigned tasks instead of task choices is often bad management
If they follow a agile book without variance...its bad management
If they add tasks without adjusting either the schedule, or the manpower...and just say "just work harder" or "we can do this" without realizing that they're making promises for others..... its bad management.
I could go on for hours. I understand Agile, its not going away, but its also not a replacement for good management. If you have good management AND use agile the results are incredible. And I mean truly incredible. If you have mediocre management, and good agile you will be ok, if you have bad management, it doesn't matter, you're in a bad place. Leave or change it. And lets be honest-you're better off leaving usually.
I recently started a new position and am already incredibly dissatisfied with the environment. It is based around an open desk plan, with the only meeting rooms directly in front of where the elevators exit into. The result is that people literally schedule meetings in the middle of team space, disrupting everyone around them. One day I left to use the bathroom, only to return to find that someone had sat at my desk for a meeting! Apparently the idea behind this is that it leads to a more "open" work environment. I find it ridiculous. I can't concentrate or get anything done without feeling partially-involved in everything going around me. Everyone working here seems to have bought into it. Of course, they all seem like mostly young devs who don't know the difference. Don't get me started on the ridiculous "stand-ups" that occur every morning, forcing team-members to become utterly unproductive while they stand forced to watch some idiot move note-cards around a white board with such intense deliberation that you'd think they were directing air-traffic.
The PRIMARY problem with Agile is that you can slap the Agile label on totally anarchic and chaotic business practices, conduct stand ups and pull ups, and think that the ship will magically steer itself. If I were in your workplace, I would head for the exits as soon as possible unless this is just a passing fad,
I think the fact that something might be the primary problem with Agile doesn't mean that the problem occurs in every case, and surely doesn't mean that it is the case in what the OP described. That assumption is such a ridiculous logical fallacy: Because some people do something wrong, no one could possibly do it correctly. Silly.
I see the penchant among developers to go down the chaos path: We recently hired a new principal to lead development as I take on more of a product oriented role. He seems to want to push our agile process to focus only on the small to the exclusion of understanding the big picture. "Request denied." Problem solved.
Based on your description, you don't know what scrum/agile is. Is more than the daily standup.
Absolutely correct. Thread is full of misinformation and the typical skeptic that only looks at the observable surface to draw conclusions.
Tools have been around for a long time but the process around the tools is very different. I will admit, that many text that speak to the process don't explain the "why?" up front which tends to lead to skepticism. Heck standing up while talking every morning seemed to be odd at first. Once you start really getting into the process you realize that there is a logic to some of the "madness". In the case of stand-ups, it was intended to keep people from getting too "comfortable" in a meeting setting... to remind everyone that the meeting is short and too the point and not discuss problems/solutions. Open workspace isn't suppose to mean someone can take you desk over for a meeting... its to facilitate team cohesion and communication.
We adopted Agile/Scrum and things really improved in our environment in just about all aspects of development. Our biggest problem was silo'd areas of people... lack of communication... it turned all that around fairly quickly. Unfortunately, we had an upper management change that didn't subscribe (didn't even give it a chance) to Agile. In part because, they didn't like the concept of cross-functional, self-organizing, self-managing teams..... read.... micro-managers.
We as an organization tried to push back but overtime we threw out bits and pieces of the process. The expected happen. Once you throw out bits and pieces problems start to rear its ugly head back into the workplace. My boss (Agile practitioner) and I had discussed this during our one on one sessions..... we both feel that these are problems that the originators of the Agile/scrum probably encountered and adjustments were made to the process. Adjustments we were workout out of our system at a consequence.
In turn, the new management used these problems as a reason why Agile isn't working... sounds very similar to what's being described here. Improperly apply the lessons learned from a methodology and then blame the methodology.... oh well.
I will say one thing.... I personally found the most career growth during the years we practiced Agile. I'm not as educated as many on my team and worked ancillary functions to development teams. The traditional siloing of people prevented many opportunities for growth. The combination of building a cross-functional team and paired-programming allowed me to pickup up tasks that normally wouldn't be assigned to my former group. I am now a core senior member of the development team. A transition that could be difficult now that we are in the process of returning to silo'd functional teams.
Most of my acquaintances that recently went through a job hunting process all mentioned that Agile is alive and well. If you reject opportunity due to Agile's presence in the workplace, you'll be rejecting a lot of job offers in my area.
No doubt about it. The original methodologies often start out as sound concepts and principles, and have often been employed for ages.
The turning point is when marketing, sales, senior administration, and other non-technical buzzword fetishists get all excited and go off their chains with the use of words that no longer mean what they used to. They spin it up until "Agile" (for example) washes your clothes, massages your feet, saves the children, and even takes out the trash for you too.
Before long, you end up with bungled buzzword-driven directives dished out by what amount to corporate cult leaders who haven't got a clue about how technology actually functions. Then someone, somewhere, pushes a new methodology, because the only way to get away from the old polluted one, is to level it and start with something else.
At this very moment we have a VP who can't keep from dumping "Agile" into every third sentence. He also has a tome of sports metaphors somewhere too, which he whips out and uses from time to time. It's embarrassing, really.
I'm certain he "engages and delights" quite often without knowing this person.
the daily standup is supposed to be a standup...so no, they shouldn't be sitting at your chair. however, it is common in an open environment for people to talk to each other during the day and if the discussion goes on for more than a few minutes and there is an empty chair, they will take it. if you come back, they will quickly get up and give you back your chair though.
agile, scrum, kanban, xp (extreme programming), etc. are all fine ways to get work done if it works for the team.
uml is still used by many of the senior engineering staff at a lot of the large tech companies.
forcing team-members to become utterly unproductive while they stand forced to watch some idiot move note-cards around a white board with such intense deliberation that you'd think they were directing air-traffic.
Do Scrums use post-its? We do a 15 min scrum but reserve the post-its for the Sprint. Of course, now we've 'improved' the sprint by adding an ominous black star for any carried over activity. If you carry over multiple sprints then extra black stars are added. I think some companies use Agile to shame the employee (4 black stars on a task anyone?)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
