Re: Deviating from Scrum: The standup meeting
- --- In email@example.com, Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...> wrote:
>This clicked with me. Yes, I think this is definitely a part of it.
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 6:05 AM, peterskeide <peterskeide@...> wrote:
> > The best argument I have heard so far in favor of dropping the standup is that it can be redundant in a small, colocated team. When you sit around the same table all day, pair program often and generally talk to each other a lot, it's a bit like gilding the lily.
> It's not so much that it is redundant as that the information is
> arriving at the wrong time. It is too late to for me to help you with
> what you were doing yesterday, and I am less interested in what you
> are doing now - while I am busy with something else - than I will be
> in what you are doing when I finish.
> > There are obvious downsides to dropping the standup: the visibility aspect of it lost. Granted, this only matters if people outside the team actually bothers to attend the meeting. Still, if there are no standup meetings, there will be nothing for potentially interested stakeholders to start attending.I encourage stakeholders to come down to where we sit and have a look at how we work. That way, they are exposed to our information radiators, and can easily view the progress of the current sprint. These radiators tell the truth about the current situation, because we update them continuously. I also feel that this is a great way of spreading information about Scrum to the organization. I don't mandate a strict "contribute or be silent" regime, but welcome questions. I have a feeling the team likes answering some questions about how they work, as it also gives them opportunities to reflect on what they do. I step in if someone appears at a bad time.
> I don't think so. What I like to do is open the room up to anyone who
> wants to be a fly on the wall, but if you want to ask questions you
> have to participate in whatever it is we are doing. That way customers
> can show up at whatever time is convenient for them, but their ability
> to interfere and "break the flow" is limited by their
> willingness/desire to directly contribute.
>I'm in favor of the inspect and adapt approach too, and I will discuss this option with team in next retrospective. However, if there is some way to keep the standup but in a way that adds value, I'd rather we do that.
> Some folks suggest switching up the format of the stand-up meeting to
> keep it fresh. Personally, I would say that if the team is not getting
> any value out of it then consider not holding the meeting for a Sprint
> or two to see what happens.