You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I completely understand from the Software Dev’s perspective that Agile is fundamentally a better working practice than waterfall
I wouldnt say that. Its entirely dependent on how the teams actually work. Having some scrum master try to micromanage whilst needing you to do half their job for them is as irritating as an old school PM doing the same.
Likewise a BA who cant write requirements is a problem in either case although if anything its worse in agile since they use the excuse of it being incremental to cover for them not having a scoobies what the actual aim of the project is.
Some people run without standing up?
Rimmer : [reading the test answers he's written on his arms] What does this MEAN? What does any of this mean? I've covered my body in complete and total and utter and absolute nonsense! Gibberish!
Daily scrum for the week and a half I have been here has been between 40min and 1.5hr. all at 09:00 as well.
It's like this mate.
Your project.
Forked.
Totally forked.
Forking totally forking forked.
Could be worse.
You could be responsible for it being forked.
I think Agile starts from a closer framework to reality. Unless you're just copying another existing product, you never actually know what you want as an end product and humans are pretty rubbish at predicting things. The iterating towards a (never ending) final solution based on continual feedback from prototypes etc, seems much more likely to deliver something genuinely useful in the end.
A product which has been refined based on real customer feedback from prototypes it more likely to be genuinely useful than one which just appears complete having been kept under wraps for years.
As for the never ending bit, products only really end when they stop selling enough to cover ongoing maintenance / development costs. It's a commercial decision rather than 'is the specification complete?'.
Going back to the OP's original issue, crap managers are crap at whatever they do, no matter the framework. Good managers just make it work seemlessly and don't get in the way.
I think when you have somebody with the title of scrum master you’ve sailed way beyond silly point and are lost in the deep, dark waters of absurdity
Preumably you don't work in any kind of software role? Whilst not every company has Scrum Masters I think every software engineer is familiar with the concept. What's your field? Does it have any type of manager role? Are there different managers with different responsibilities? Because Scrum Master is just a manager with a specific set of responsibilities. The expectation is I could walk into the OP's organisation and know immediately what the Scrum Master is supposed to be doing (hint its not 1hr long daily meetings!).
so bad management then? The rest of your post has a lot of the word salad I was talking about. Waterfalls, agile, scrum. Just no need for it. Trying to make something really **** boring sound exciting! Marketing for the workplace 😀
No, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean its "word salad". Im all for calling out made up nonsense and frothy bullshit when people talk about ringfencing the unicorn but to those who need to understand then Waterfall v's Agile is like asking a builder if he will use bricks or concrete for the walls. You can scream "stop being poncy - just build walls" but it makes a big difference if everyone knows how this is supposed to work. Everyone in the team knows what the implications of those words are, contractors who arrive for a three week job know how it operates. The business which is going to work with you on the project knows how you operate and how to adapt to you. And "Waterfall" or "old school" project management wasn't necessarily bad, it still has its place, but some people realised that if you do things totally differently that for some types of project it was better. You don't want a medical device or flight software that's "mostly complete, we'll add the rarely used bits's next month" but if you want a piece of forum software you don't want to wait so long for it to get created that the internet browsers have all changed and its no use. If you believe you can manage software better than either of these without using "buzzwords" you should make money. if you can define that into a simple management course and teach others you'll get super rich. I work with a lot of organisations doing both Agile and Waterfall, with Scrum Masters, Product Owners, Sprints, etc. And I also work with organisations who have no particular project management style and are full of people who just want shit done. I assure you that regardless of which structure the company adopts they are all way more likely to launch something that works than those who are in a state of "managed chaos".
Totally different situation but when called to wasteful useless meetings at work I would tot up what they cost – this could be a possible way of getting senior management to focus?
Whenever we have a totally pointless meeting with lots of people I do a back of the envelope calculation of the cost of the meeting - write it on the board and ask people if they think this meeting was worth spending that much money on. The answer is almost universally no. People either say "I don't need to be here next time" or come better prepared so next week's meeting is more productive. [The one time this doesn't work is if its a contract paying by billable hour because even if it achieved nothing it usually generated revenue!]. When you get brave you can do this in meetings that your boss called too - but you need to know them well enough to know how it will go down.
As a rugby fan we all know the scrum is full of fat boys who cheat.
Poly - why use language to make things hard to understand - there is a lot of this going on. Plain english is best to avoid misunderstandings
why use language to make things hard to understand – there is a lot of this going on. Plain english is best to avoid misunderstandings
What’s hard to understand about the language being used?
I just see it as a subset of terminology used by certain industries. It may not make sense to people of employed in those industries but that is fine. I don’t understand a lot of language specific to industries I am not working in.
I'm with poly on the wordy stuff. If you said your bottom bracket bearings had failed we'd all know what you mean even though someone outside the cycling world would say that a plain English version is "the spinny bit that lets the pedals go round". Or in a road team we all know what a domestique or lead out rider does - is that so different from calling someone a scrum master or having a daily stand up meeting?
As for agile itself, for me the problem is having a team that has its work planned weeks in advance working alongside a (B)agile project that wants our support but won't confirm how much time it wants and when. Sadly nobody up the food chain will make the tough call to fix this one way or another.
Language is often used to make it harder for others to understand as used as a "gatekeeper"
there is no need for all this jargon - its meaningless. My work world was full of it. People using fancy language to make themselves feel clever. It gets in the way of doing stuff
I also used to send jargon filled emails back to the person who sent it asking for plain english versuions
Yes some of you are used to this language as I got used to in in the medical world - but that does not excuse it. Using plain language is better and gives rise to less misunderstandings
I hate Agile.
I used to try to be positive about the benefits it could bring like iterative development, not deploying something long after the requirements were gathered and fancy MacBooks, but now I just hate it.
Yes I'm an old fossil but at least they're giving us something useful now, like oil for making the plastic pig to throw at each other so people can have their turn to say something nobody else is interested in at the daily stand-up before sodding off into the horizon after delivering something that's not what's actually needed (technical term: MVP)
EDIT: STW are selling cleats? Cool 🙂
there is no need for all this jargon – its meaningless.
It's not jargon if you know what it means, as poly so eloquently explained above.
Too much documentation in that post though, that's not the agile way 😉
Jargon is a specialised language used to obscure meaning to outsiders and is used to gatekeep - its not the same as technical language. there simply is no need for it and indeed it hinders good communication
Technical language is needed.
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
I don’t think it is bullshit. Traditional waterfall projects were taking too long to deliver business benefit.
Hence new agile methods were developed to deliver incremental business benefits faster.
I think this quote may have been meant sarcastically but its a classic example. Its really unhelpful
</div>
Preumably you don’t work in any kind of software role?
no thank ****. I get to sit in meetings where people talk absolute bollocks though. I’m firmly with TJ on this one. I just find it amusing. I work in Sustainability mainly and try and speak like a normal human where possible. Quite a few acronyms but no waterfalls or journeys
The expectation is I could walk into the OP’s organisation and know immediately what the Scrum Master is supposed to be doing (hint its not 1hr long daily meetings!).
So it doesn’t work then unless well managed?
God this was a depressing read. It is rivalling the "STW is finding it hard" thread but for very different, and all to close to home, reasons.
I have decided that the main issue lies with the person who chose "Scrum Master" as the title for the person leading the meeting. because that is all it is, simply a meeting of people.
If I walked into a pub now, or 2 decades ago, and announced to my friends & family that I was now a "Scrum Master" not only would i personally die a little (lot) inside, I would be widely mocked, probably even by my own mother. If on the other hand I announced that I ran a meeting at work today that lasted 15 minutes and got everyone motivated and sorted out where we had some issues, they would all nod sagely and agree I was doing OK.
effing Scrum Master FFS
there is no need for all this jargon – its meaningless.
I don't think you quite understand. Agile isn't being used as a nebulous adjective here, it's the Agile Method which is a very specific and clearly defined process that has been developed and published as such. It is quite specific. We use the word because that is the name for the process. There's not really any other word for it.
The problem is that it's usually implemented badly, just like most other things in IT.
Jargon is a specialised language used to obscure meaning to outsiders and is used to gatekeep – its not the same as technical language. there simply is no need for it and indeed it hinders good communication
It's not a gatekeeper - it's basic knowledge for working as a software developer in 2023. Saying "scrum master" is obscure is the same as complaining that a building site has a "foreman" or a hospital has a "head nurse".
Anyway, decently run agile projects are a joy to work on, compared to traditionally run projects - at least for normal software development. I wouldn't want to use Agile to develop nuclear powerstation control software, for example, but for building a website or a backend enterprise application it's a lot less stressful for all parties, client included.
. Saying “scrum master” is obscure is the same as complaining that a building site has a “foreman” or a hospital has a “head nurse”.
It isn't that it is obscure, it is incredibly w@nky. Putting the word 'master' on the end of anything indicates that they are better than anyone else in the room. Not a good place to start if you are trying to get on with people
because that is all it is, simply a meeting of people.
That idea is what leads to aimless 90.min meetings every day when people get bored shitless. A scrum is a specific kind of meeting that has rules and those rules exist to make sure what needs to be done gets done and noone wastes time.
If you were building a house you wouldn't just have ten blokes turn up with no roles and just let them grab whatever tools and have a crack at it, would you? You'd organise it into specific roles and they'd each get their parts of the plan to design or build and you'd have someone making sure that they were doing things in the right order and everyone had what they need. That's all this is.
It is obscure and it is all about gatekeeping / making yourself sound clever. Molgrips - I do get it. I get Agile has a specfic meaning to those that speak the language - thats the point of it to make those folk sound like they have special and arcane knowledge. Its just a management process
Scrum master indeed. this chap is the scrum master. 
Putting the word ‘master’ on the end of anything indicates that they are better than anyone else in the room.
Wow, really? It's called the scrum master because they are the person who runs the scrums. It's not like everyone else is a scrum servant. There is no point at which the people in the scrum can move up to master. Most would not want to and do not have the skills. Absolutely noone is subordinate and everyone present knows this.
It's like being the conductor of an orchestra. That doesn't mean they're the best musician there.
Have you seen the attitude that comes with conductors?
Molgrips – I do get it.
No you're saying you get it then following on with saying things that demonstrate you don't get it.
I'm sure there are nursing methods that I know nothing about and you could name drop. But that's fine, I'm not a nurse and I wouldn't be expected to know. Same for project management. You're not a software developer so you wouldn't be expected to know. It's industry specific* and everyone in the industry knows it. I have no idea why you think everything in a technical industry should be obvious to you who doesn't work in it.
* it actually isn't but most people know it from IT
Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with the principle of the thing, it is just the naming convention that sucks. Head MASTER. School MASTER. He Man MASTER of the Universe (now he was the MASTER) Grand MASTER Funk. Edit: Bow before your MASTER
We use traditional project management methodology (in a non-IT environment)
Every so often some consultant or other will arrive and suggest that we should be using Agile - but whenever we have, it ends up just being code for "making shit up as you go along".
We tend to focus more on realistic planning (particularly when it comes to timelines and budget), and then executing to plan - mostly because thats what our clients want. I am working with more biotech clients these days though, who definitely change their minds more often - but thats easier if you have a clearly defined scope in the first place.
I understand why IT use Agile - but it'd do my head in.
Molgrips -Agaile - its just another management technique that is in vogue right now especially in IT. I do get it.
The best of healthcare is done in plain english. there are frequent attempts to dress it up in fancy language but it hinders not helps. I have been thru dozens of iterations of outright winkery in Nursing and thats why I abandoned doing a masters.
Scrum master is particularly stupid. its not a scrum, you do not need a master. Its a meeting to a specific aganda with a specific format with a convener.
Scrum does not even fit at all - a Scrum is two opposing teams trying to push each other off a spot and they all cheat
TJ, I believe the current phrase is "stay in your lane". Have you ever been on a properly run Agile project?
Scrum outside of rugby means a small crowd of people hence it's use here.
It's perfectly plain English. It could have been called the Fred method or anything. It's a name for a set of practices. I'm struggling to see why there's a problem here other than you being a cantankerous old grump shaking his first at the modern world.
If you have specific reasons as to why Agile doesn't work then please join in, but don't just moan non-specifically.
I mean yes there is a lot of **** around, but there always is. But in this case there's also a method that is distinct from the alternatives and can work very well if done right.
My moan is about using fancy language to dress things up and to obscure meanings. Scrum and Scrum master is an utter classic.
Scrum does not mean " small crowd" It has connotations of disorder and rowdyness from some online dictionaries the non rugby meanings
A disordered or confused situation involving a number of people.
a usually brief and disorderly struggle or fight
a usually tightly packed or disorderly crowd
this is why its not plain, simple or good English
Scrum means a crowd of disorderly people. Does that mean a scrum master is responsible for the scrum being disorderly? Did they arrange for this shambles to happen? How do you be the master of something that is disorder? So many questions 🤔
Edit - Beaten to it.
You say it's not good English but everyone who needs to know what it is knows what it is. So the word is doing its job quite well.
What's your experience of Agile projects?
Boom! So suddenly the master is just a master of disorder, not so cool anymore 🙂
Though I'm wondering why TJ is in this thread, hilariously most of you are proving his point by misusing the various terms.
Firstly it's a daily standup not a daily scrum. So called so that the meeting is supposed to be short. Plain English at it's best.
Secondly, Scrum is a flavour of Agile. They aren't interchangeable. Agile came first and is a beautifully simple set of ideas and principles that you can read and understand in 5 minutes. Also written in plain English.
Scrum was invented pretty much as a project management framework to make money/reputations from the simple ideas in Agile. Scrum added roles, ceremonies, and artefacts that sound great to people struggling to regularly release valuable software, and allowed for the invention and monetisation of accreditations, tools and conference speakers.
Lastly, everyone here that works in the industry and hates how your place does agile - why don't you speak up (maybe in the "sprint retrospective 🤮")? You're all (hopefully reasonably) well paid and experienced individuals (given the age demographic here). Why just moan in the corner and hate your job?
It is obscure and it is all about gatekeeping / making yourself sound clever.
thats the point of it to make those folk sound like they have special and arcane knowledge.
What utter tosh. Sorry, but if your take away from this is the framework is all about outside appearences then you could not be any further from the truth. It is an entire framework, components of which are used to get a certain type of job done better and more efficiently. The components and roles within the framework have names because using a plain english description - even a brief one - for what they are each time would get quite tiresome.
Just because you don't know what the terms or job titles mean, does not mean the terms should not exist.
everyone who needs to know what it is knows what it is
Careful now, apparently that is gatekeeping or having sepcial and arcane knowledge. Get thy to hell!
Jargon is a specialised language used to obscure meaning to outsiders and is used to gatekeep – its not the same as technical language. there simply is no need for it and indeed it hinders good communication
it’s not Jargon like you think it is and it’s not used to gatekeep. Anyone who was actually interested in Agile techniques and Scrum (they are not the same thing but often used together) can find out about them with a quick google and watching a few videos. Literally every software team in the world knows what they are - to them knowing if you are managing the project with waterfall or agile is as important as knowing if you are using a compiler or interpreter, or whether the data is going to be passed in xml or json. In a software team it 100% does not hinder communication - the reason for the words is for clarity on how fixed / rigid the requirements are - used correctly the words and the techniques associated with them solve communication problems.
Yes I wouldn’t have picked Scrum master as the name but it’s an industry standard. I wouldn’t pick Charge Nurse or Sister to describe senior nurses either, but within your profession they are widely used and people understand their role.
I don’t think Scrum is derived from rugby (it’s far too popular a term in the US for it to be a rugby analogy) it’s more the general meaning than the sporting one. Although the scrum masters job is to make sure that it’s a well structured gathering of people which engages quickly, gets the job done and let’s people get back to work swiftly so it may be that the originators thought there were analogies to rugby.
FWIW the term “master” might be perceived as in some way mysoginist but in Software, which has a real issue with gender balance, there’s actually a disproportionate* number of female Scrum Masters so I don’t think it’s a big issue. I believe the term Master probably originated from master of ceremonies, because their job is to perform that MC role across various processes (often called ceremonies). The scrum master doesn’t just facilitate the daily scrum meeting - they deal with a whole load of other stuff throughout the day to remove blockers for developers, communicate about the project to external parties and generally help the developers get on with doing their job of writing code whilst the scrum master keeps all the plates spinning.
* compared to actual developers.
This thread eh?
Safe to say, none so blind as them that will not see.
I wouldn’t want to use Agile to develop nuclear powerstation control software, for example,
Horses for courses.
Waterfall or spiral fits better.
More generally, lots of methodologies work. All can be well run. Or, badly run.
This thread, oh my goodness.
why don’t you speak up (maybe in the “sprint retrospective")
Anyway, this is what needs to happen. You don't ask, you don't get.
using a compiler or interpreter, or whether the data is going to be passed in xml or json
Careful now, that's pretty obscure language and I wouldn't want you to be accused of gatekeeping 😀
I've just had some Agile training, for non-software projects. I must admit I was a bit skeptical before, but it does make a lot of sense now. But our trainer was very insistent that Agile isn't always the best method, and a project can fail, not because of the methodology but just because it's badly managed. Also there's nothing to say that a project can't be a hybrid of Agile and waterfall, depending on the stage of the project. I'm sort of looking forward to being part of an Agile project.
The names make sense once you understand the process, but what the OP is involved in isn't Agile (based on my huge!! experience).
Have you ever tried explaining the bits on your bike to someone who knows nothing about bikes?
You're not using jargon, you're just using the names of the components (headset, stem, shock mount, valve stem, etc). Because the person doesn't know anything about bikes, they can't tell if you're using deliberately obscure jargon or just calling things by their names.
That's the stage you are at, @tjagain. You don't know enough to tell if it's jargon or just what things are called.
Put a meeting in your calendar 15mins after the start of the stand up and type “ntd” in the chat window and leave.
The irony is that the scrum master is actually the servant* on the team…
Whilst we’re on about obscure gatekeeping, what is a Charge Nurse anyway? I mean I could Google it and learn something but…
(*I know, it’s a joke…)
I find it quite insulting that someone who doesn’t work in a given profession is telling those who do, and are quite likely experts in it, that how they work is stupid.
I wouldn’t dream of telling someone in another profession that, because I respect other professional’s knowledge and expertise. They know more about their profession than I do.
If thats aimed at me that is NOT what I am doing at all. I merely object to the mangling of language. I said nothing about the validity of the technique apart from that its popular in some fields.
What I object to is the use of ;language to hinder communication - and we have some classic examples here
The bunk appears to know his stuff and he said
"
, hilariously most of you are proving his point by misusing the various terms.
Firstly it’s a daily standup not a daily scrum. So called so that the meeting is supposed to be short. Plain English at it’s best.
Thats merely my point - that using obscure language actually hinders good communication. Scrum and Scrum master is being used in different ways by different folk on this very thread - because the actual meaning is obscure whereas "Daily standup meeting to do X" is clear
TLDR
sounds like this is something to raise in the next retro.
Thats merely my point – that using obscure language actually hinders good communication. Scrum and Scrum master is being used in different ways by different folk on this very thread – because the actual meaning is obscure whereas “Daily standup meeting to do X” is clear
To go back to the bike analogy, if someone says their damper is leaking air when what they mean is their shock is leaking air or their air spring is leaking air, that's still not an example of jargon. It's just what the things are called.
People call things by the wrong name all the time.
you know the word scrum was deliberately chosen by consultancy firms to sell the next best thing to all things business, as it would be latched onto by the public school rugger buggers in senior management roles... for that it worked a treat, the only downside is the promoters of the methodology sound like twits
Just gonna put this here and run away....😉
o assuming a charge out rate of £300 an hour, and every comment has taken 30 minutes (very fag packet) that's £18,900 for the thread to this point.
Is that good value?
Has it solved the original problem?
Will I come back tomorrow?
Or, like the OPs problem, is it the usual suspects running off topic down blind alleys wasting energy on something else (as is so often the STW way)
Agile came first
Did it? I was told SCRUM predates the Agile Manifesto which was about 2001. Or are you just saying agile development practices in general?
TJ's point is valid, in that it doesn't need a name, it could be the morning meeting. Calling is stand-up isn't the same as calling it the Obsfuscation event, but it isn't perfectly clear to someone from outside the field to know what it means, it could be called the daily standing-up meeting.
To me (and I realise it's my interpretation) is that the Scrum term represents a group of people working towards a common goal, pushing in the same direction. But feel free to disagree.
Given how innapproriate I was tld my job title was earlier in the thread I've applied for a Software Development Manager job instead, have at it you lovely lot.
… I see countless, endless and pointless "Ways of Working" meetings in your future.
It’ll be a fine day indeed when the whole scum & sprint thing gets booted for a new flavour of the month.
Exactly what I thought when I first encountered 'Agile', in 2007 ...
If you distil the manifesto, it seems to me to boil down to "make sure you talk to the right people at the right time".
A skill I learned at school.
Perhaps this is why agile feels so infantilising to all those people who are caught up in it but really just want to get on with the job they trained in and don't need all the additional enforced vocabulary, ceremonies, and general pointless overhead.
And the idea of starting to build something, before you know what the something is, is obviously absurd and too stupid for words.
The iterating towards a (never ending) final solution based on continual feedback from prototypes etc, seems much more likely to deliver something genuinely useful in the end.
Let's start building a kitchen. By the time we're half way through, if we're lucky, we might have found out:
• Where the foundations should have been
• That nobody ever wants to cook anything in this building
• That what we needed was a bathroom
… so we can start all over again, keep our jobs for another 18 months, and put the consultancy rates up while we're at it.
Nice article, Mr Knob! Alan Cooper is worth following on Twitter, for as long as that survives.
I'm retired now but this was absolutely my specialist subject for the last 12 years or so of what might laughably be called a career. This thread has reminded me why this stuff is so hard, and although it hasn't made me want to get back into employment I do feel compelled to respond.
Scrum (1997) does pre-date the Agile Manifesto (2001), and according to Ken Schwaber, one of the two original authors of the Scrum guide, it was named after the game, . It was a product development methodology, and although I haven't read recent versions, for at least the first 20 years of its life the Scrum Guide contained no reference to software at all. Scrum has always seemed slightly self-contradictory to me, insisting on following the guide, yet encouraging teams to 'inspect and adapt'. What if your adaptations lead you away from the Guide? Then you aren't doing Scrum. And don't get me started on the certifications scam.
I mentioned that Scrum isn't a software-specific methodology. If you are going to use it for software, you need a lot of other stuff to fill the gaps. The Extreme Programming practices are a good start. The other essential element, whatever kind of product you are trying to develop, is that everyone on the team should have a clear, shared, understanding of the project vision. Who is your customer? What problem are you trying to solve for them? What are your cost and time constraints? What is your acceptable level of quality? When things get tough, what will you let go of/compromise on and what will you defend to the bitter end?
As to the OP's original point, as many others have said the daily stand-up should never last for that long - 15 minutes is the aim. No competent SM would ever let it go on for 45-60 minutes. The sprint retrospective is the obvious place to raise the issue, particularly as a newcomer to the team, but I've always thought it a bit odd to save your problems up for the end of the sprint - if you see a problem, fix it, was always my advice to teams.
By the end of my career, I had distilled my values for software development down to two - Respect, and Continuous Improvement - inspired by Taichi Ohno's work at Toyota. I observed that most dysfunctions in a development team could be traced to a lack of respect towards someone. In the OP's example, the SM is being disrespectful to not only the entire development team but also whoever is paying for the team, by wasting their time and money in an unproductive meeting.
And TJ, if you object to any of this because you don't understand it, that's absolutely fine - you aren't the target audience.
If thats aimed at me that is NOT what I am doing at all. I merely object to the mangling of language. I said nothing about the validity of the technique apart from that its popular in some fields.
What I object to is the use of ;language to hinder communication – and we have some classic examples here
The bunk appears to know his stuff and he said
”
, hilariously most of you are proving his point by misusing the various terms.
Firstly it’s a daily standup not a daily scrum. So called so that the meeting is supposed to be short. Plain English at it’s best.
Thats merely my point – that using obscure language actually hinders good communication. Scrum and Scrum master is being used in different ways by different folk on this very thread – because the actual meaning is obscure whereas “Daily standup meeting to do X” is clear
TJ - no, arguing about whether its called a daily standup or scrum is like arguing whether I have a hoover or vacuum cleaner. Everyone actually knows its a bloody dyson (of course this is STW!). Its clear from the context to those who live their working lives this way what this meeting is and who is responsible for its effectiveness.
However, my teams have a daily standup (which given it's virtual is a misnomer now!) but we don't use Scrum and have no Scrum Master! When you find out we use Lean and Kan-Ban you'll probably pop a blood vessel! Calling it a standup meeting only tells you about the furniture not the content. Other teams in the business have daily standups too - but they aren't working with software so they have completely different purposes, agendas and even direction of information flow.
We had daily standups or "toolbox talks" in various forms over the years. Useful when used properly. Usually hijacked by windbags in charge. I'm all for stuff that works. Im just cynical old bastard and hate ****y language 🙂
However, my teams have a daily standup (which given it’s virtual is a misnomer now!)
Calling it a standup meeting only tells you about the furniture not the content. Other teams in the business have daily standups too – but they aren’t working with software so they have completely different purposes, agendas and even direction of information flow.
So why not just go with the flow and call them meetings like the rest of the working world? If it doesn't pertain to a specific agenda or method of working then it's just obfuscation as TJ says. It's difference for differences sake.
Don't get me wrong, we talk in acronyms all the frigging time (usually specific to the company) and it does my head in but at least they are self explanatory once someone others to tell you what they stand for.
And TJ, if you object to any of this because you don’t understand it, that’s absolutely fine – you aren’t the target audience.
I enjoyed reading it. Understood some of the words 🙂
Toolbox talks are different from standups...
We had daily standups or “toolbox talks” in various forms over the years. <span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">Useful when used properly. </span>
I’ve only been to one toolbox talk in my life, but my understanding is they are a health and safety driven thing. I’m not sure they have a particularly helpful name either - I don’t carry a physical toolbox at work, I didn’t seem to need one for the session I went to and, at least in my case, it was preaching to the choir.
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">Usually hijacked by windbags in charge.
</span>
so it’s almost like you need some sort of ground rules for your meetings, conventions or habits that reinforce how to make them effective and efficient. Imagine if you could drive massive cultural change so that in that short daily meeting it was listening to the team not dictating orders? Imagine if one of the ways to help people understand the way that meeting is supposed to work was just to give it a special name (and train everyone on the idea and reasons behind it)? And imagine if instead of calling the person who makes that meeting (and the stuff that falls out of it) actually work we gave that person an odd title - one that didn’t include the word manager with peoples preconceived perceptions of what that means? Perhaps a really bizarre title would help - because people new to the approach would then say “what do they do?” Rather than assuming they know what a “project manager” or “team leader” does.
FWIW the biggest car crashes I’ve seen with this stuff are when someone at the bottom tries to bring it into the organisation but the folk at the top still think they can run the business the old way. The other disasters are when someone from a software background with their fancy agile ways tries to implement that in another setting - it can work there but it needs a far greater understanding of what you are trying to do and why. More importantly it needs people to buy in to it, and often it’s imposed.
I’m all for stuff that works.
Now it does work in software, when adopted properly, for the right type of projects. It’s widely adopted from startups to massive companies. Like all such things some places make a mess of it, some get overly hung up on trying to do it “right” and so forget to take a step back and ask how to do it better (ironically doing it “right” involves doing exactly that!). As well as organisations that do it badly, some individuals do it better than others. The OPs point was he’s in an organisation which should be big enough and experienced enough to do it right but clearly either the individual or the organisation is not.
So why not just go with the flow and call them meetings like the rest of the working world? If it doesn’t pertain to a specific agenda or method of working then it’s just obfuscation as TJ says. It’s difference for differences sake.
because that’s exactly the point the “daily scrum standup” does have a specific way of working and a specific agenda*. You can have stand ups on anything - our departments that make physical product have standups (imaginatively called “the ten o’clock standup”) and the leadership team have a weekly standup which in times of crisis becomes a daily standup. The name standup is because it’s supposed to be quick where people don’t get comfortable and where the faff of a traditional meeting isn’t involved. These are actually about getting shit done rather than sitting around talking about getting shit done (don’t get me wrong software companies are very good at that too).
* it’s not a printed old fashioned style agenda or usually even a list of bullet points in the teams invite - this is the whole point, everyone in that meeting should know it’s purpose and agenda because it’s got a very specific name and it’s being facilitated by a person with a very specific role. Despite this someone could walk out of a tax software company on Friday and walk into games company on Monday and would have a pretty good idea how their stuff was structured.
You basically just described our morning /start of shift meeting. Changes, upcoming work, challenges and how we're going to manage them.
Toolbox talks are just another term for pre-job briefs but as you say not everyone carries a toolbox so the latter is a clear and concise description of what's on the agenda.
I think we're at crossed purposes here regarding agenda as well, I mean in a general sense rather than written. I can see where the confusion comes from though, I could have picked my words better (irony not lost).