15097Re: Scrum is bad for employees (apparently)
- Aug 1, 2006Richard Banks writes:
> Employee B (who just happened to be mentored by Employee A)That's one possible translation. I hope you allowed for other
> left because "scrum is too restrictive". "What do you mean?"
> asked innocently. "Well", came the reply, "when I have to do
> a job I really like to investigate it, to understand what's
> going on deep in the code, to really get a feel for the inner
> workings of the problem and the intricacies involved. Having
> to deliver every 2 weeks means that I don't really have time
> to do a lot of investigation. There are a lot of things I do
> at home that could really improve the product and I don't
> get to try them here because we keep having to do things from
> the backlog".
> Translation: I can't muck around and play as much as I used
> to. Why don't I get to decide on my own how the product works.
> Scrum means I'm accountable for my time and I don't like that.
possibilities. "I like to ... understand what's going on deep
in the code" might mean "I don't understand what's going on
deep in _this_ code." That could say something about employee
B, or it may say something about the state of the code base.
Sometimes it's the newer employees (I'm assuming B was a
newer, based on his being mentored) who are the first to
notice a design or refactoring deficit that the old-timers
have grown numb to.
"There are things that could improve our code base that I
don't get a chance to try" can also mean "This code base is
stale and we're not letting in new ideas". If you're one of
the old hands who had the original ideas, this can be hard
to hear and easy to dismiss. But it is worth checking out,
since a stale, debt-ridden code base can be a barrier to
lots of things, including bringing new people in to the
team. This might be a good agenda item for your team's next
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>