You make it all sound like a factory and blame developers for going rogue.
That’s not how it works. It’s as though developers are dumb and can only execute if you tell them to do exactly as needed. Rather where’s the leadership and direction? Perhaps that’s not clear or the developers don’t even agree with what’s going on. You statement is so 1-sided.
If someone is not performing you shouldn’t need scrum to work that out otherwise you have bigger problems.
I’d argue alignment is useless as most of the time developers are told to implement useless features. Perhaps with some guidance and direction what the developers come up with is better than product.
It’s sad but product is like a theory machine that’s often impractical.
So what would you prefer? Developers without scrum delivering in 4 months or with scrum and taking a year? Even if they do go off for a few months on their own it’s more than worth it.
The problems aren’t accountability or alignment. If people aren’t following a plan, that is if there is 1 then it’s a leadership problem.
It's not about blame. Developers are paid to develop. They're not paid to care about the interlocking parts, so many of them don't. It's not an indictment. It's just what it is. They have a different set of skills.
> Rather where’s the leadership and direction?
We're right here, implementing scrum for the reasons I listed.
> If someone is not performing you shouldn’t need scrum to work that out otherwise you have bigger problems.
I have found that poor performance is often not because an employee is "bad." It's because the team dynamic is not working. Maybe their skills are poorly utilised. Maybe the team isn't make accommodations for their neurodivergence. Maybe they don't understand how to integrate well into the team. Maybe they don't feel confident to bother the senior devs, and maybe the senior devs have told them to fuck off. I've seen all of this and more.
> I’d argue alignment is useless as most of the time developers are told to implement useless features.
Sure, there's no point in any of the work you do if you're being told to develop things that no one wants. My baseline assumption here is that the business has need of your work. If it doesn't, you should brush up no your CV.
> So what would you prefer? Developers without scrum delivering in 4 months or with scrum and taking a year?
If the four months gives me something no one wants, I'll take the year.
> The problems aren’t accountability or alignment. If people aren’t following a plan, that is if there is 1 then it’s a leadership problem.
That's the whole discussion: how best to follow the plan. I don't think it's as easy as criticising developers for "not following the plan" if we don't provide a strong foundation in which to do so. Cue scrum.
> It's not about blame. Developers are paid to develop. They're not paid to care about the interlocking parts, so many of them don't. It's not an indictment. It's just what it is. They have a different set of skills.
That's the problem. That's not how it used to work and we've lost that. Developers are a lot more than develop. If you really think you need to pay someone 200-500k in better places to just "develop"; there's the problem.
Software exceeded because developers innovated and did a lot more than that. Shrinking them to just robots is where the problem starts and you can hire copy/paste "developers" for a lot less.
> I have found that poor performance is often not because an employee is "bad."
My point being and as you've actually explained - it still has nothing to do with scrum.
> Sure, there's no point in any of the work you do if you're being told to develop things that no one wants. My baseline assumption here is that the business has need of your work. If it doesn't, you should brush up no your CV.
The business has need for work - it doesn't make it a useful feature. What the client wants and what gets trickled down after 10 layers is a different story.
> If the four months gives me something no one wants, I'll take the year.
How do you keep concluding no 1 wants it?
> That's the whole discussion: how best to follow the plan. I don't think it's as easy as criticising developers for "not following the plan" if we don't provide a strong foundation in which to do so. Cue scrum.
Point being scrum doesn't provide this foundation. Read the comments. You lose long term planning and try to squeeze everything in 2 week compartments = find quick wins and hack everything so it fits. It's a disaster. What happens as other have explained is the estimates get padded. People do less work. People are unhappy and you're just left with the illusion of "success".
US and in particular SF didn't succeed on this but on elevating developers to innovate. Please don't kill it.
That’s not how it works. It’s as though developers are dumb and can only execute if you tell them to do exactly as needed. Rather where’s the leadership and direction? Perhaps that’s not clear or the developers don’t even agree with what’s going on. You statement is so 1-sided.
If someone is not performing you shouldn’t need scrum to work that out otherwise you have bigger problems.
I’d argue alignment is useless as most of the time developers are told to implement useless features. Perhaps with some guidance and direction what the developers come up with is better than product.
It’s sad but product is like a theory machine that’s often impractical.
So what would you prefer? Developers without scrum delivering in 4 months or with scrum and taking a year? Even if they do go off for a few months on their own it’s more than worth it.
The problems aren’t accountability or alignment. If people aren’t following a plan, that is if there is 1 then it’s a leadership problem.