I agree with Ron 100%.
Forcing people to work overtime to ensure that the actual work done
exactly matches the work that was planned is a characteristic of
hierarchical, command and control methodologies.
In the best case scenario, the estimates are simply wrong and the team
has done everything they could to meet the estimates. Better to learn
that the estimates are bad and take steps to adjust the estimating
process. Why punish the team for bad estimates?
In a worse case scenario, the estimates may have been correct but
someone may have gone ahead and worked on something not defined as in
scope for the sprint because they thought it was a good idea or they
received direction from someone else to go ahead and work on the out of
scope item. By forcing the team to work overtime, the problem gets
covered up and the bad behavior may actually be enforced. It would be
better to have the team fall short of the Sprint goals and make the
reasons well known to all parties so the behavior can be addressed.
Forcing people to work overtime doesn't change their behavior.
On Friday, October 1, 2004, at 11:02 PM, Ron Jeffries wrote:
> On Friday, October 1, 2004, at 11:36:32 PM, Marc Hamann wrote:
>> So if you find that happening, I don't think it is unreasonable to
>> let the
>> team suffer with unacceptable overtime, keeping the hope that they
>> self-organize into sustainability in reaction to this by developing
>> courage to speak up when changing conditions make the original
>> impossible to sensibly deliver.
>> The price of the freedom and joy that Agilists seek in their work is
>> responsibility and discipline. And sometimes those values are painful
>> before we master them. Letting the team both suffer and enjoy the
>> consequences of their choices is part of the inherent power of Scrum
>> like approaches), and I think it is almost the duty of the Scrum
>> Master to
>> let that happen, and point it out when it does.
> There are few notions expressed in the agile arena with which I
> more than the above.