Last updated November 28, copyrightMichael Rhode crbcontact yahoo.
But from where I'm sitting, "correct" SCRUM looks like a whole lot of weird not-overhead-but-totally-overhead that seems difficult to manage across multiple projects.
For example, what a "point" represents is constantly in flux. Instead, I actually prefer subsets of the methodology. When the company I work for was young, we all worked from home, and so daily standups were extremely effective at keeping us on task and productive while maintaining good balance once you're done, you're done -- no creep.
The board has been effective as organizing tasks and their progress. What would not have helped, or been in any way productive, would have been spending time trying to figure out how many "points" my tasks for the day are worth.
I still don't see how that system is actually different from just using hours beyond philosophical arguments. Basically, I prefer a more focused and leaner version of the approaches. Agile has quickly become "whatever you were doing before Agile but now with stand-ups and kanban boards.
Totally my take on the whole point system, but: They're definitely related hours and pointsbut basically the whole idea is vagueness. Figuring out if something will take 3 hours or 5 hours is kinda meaningless, because you really have no idea until you get into it.
Saying it's worth "5 story points" might suffice as a rough representation of that hour chunk. If it ends up taking 20 hours, oh well - good to know for next time! The idea is not to bicker over whether something will take 3 hours or 5 hours or 7 hours, but to just slap a vague label on it as "low-to-moderate difficulty.
I think any reasonable Agile advocate would tell you to discover what's working for your team and what isn't, and to adjust accordingly. The point is mostly to move away from that extremely long-winded waterfall process and move towards rapid iteration.
Story points and stand-ups are just tools for accomplishing that by estimating velocity and having regular check-ins. LoSboccacc 11 months ago Agile requires flexible features since the deadlines are fixed.
The point system is there to give an idea of how much you can cram before the deadline and negotiate with the client about what to axe from the release Easy bullshit scrum test: If your manager is doing that, you've already kinda lost the Agile battle.
I think that's sorta what people mean when they say people are doing Agile wrong - they do these things that are explicitly discouraged. Whether there's any way to reconcile that, I can't say.
Usually how it goes. It's like critics of communism. Maybe--just maybe--it's a shit ideology that is totally unworkable.
I think my current place is on their, what, 8th "reset" now? Where they try to correct their process because it's "not working. It would be more amusing if I wasn't one of those caught in this demented whirlwind.
I think I'll start a new fad. Instead of Waterfall, I'll propose we call it: It's where management focuses all their attention on a single project for a short period of time, stressing the developers to the breaking point and eventually moving on. But not before completely destroying the code base in their wake.
Much like communism, it's something that seems to work remarkably well for small groups of people but seems to have problems with large, entrenched groups. There are enough agile success stories though that I don't think the ideology is completely silly. I think it's tempting to dismiss Agile as stupid or unworkable because it's failed to produce any results at organizations like this and often just made things worse.
The truth is really that your organization is highly dysfunctional and the problem is management. For more functional organizations, or even organizations where management is willing to admit they might be wrong, Agile can be a nice set of guiding principles for development work that makes life easier.
Any lonk to read one account of such written by devs themselves, as opposed to the vast majority that are written by consultants selling agile packages?Once we switched over to his style of planning sessions, everyone walked out of the room genuinely happy with what we were going to do that sprint!
For one seeking to truly understand the origin of the "Dilbert" cartoons, this article nails it. down voters: I take issue with the idea that business BS started in the 80s.
If you read. The Golden Age show provides a close look at their talents.
Studying the work of only one – Maurice Tillieux, say – shows immediately that Spirou was hardly kids' stuff. Tillieux's 'Gil Jourdan' is a boy detective (a swipe, of course, at Tintin).
Animation & Cartoons Arts & Music Community Video Computers & Technology Cultural & Academic Films Ephemeral Films Movies Understanding 9/11 News & Public Affairs Spirituality & Religion Sports Videos Television Videogame Videos Vlogs Youth Media.
Tributes to Kim Thompson. BY The Editors Jun 24, Circa early s. Kim Thompson was more than a business partner. He was an aesthetic compatriot.
Art always meant more to us than business, and Fantagraphics Books was always a means to an end: a way of getting art we admired into the world. Our internal Dilbert exchange that Mr.
The Johnny Ryan Interview by Noah Berlatsky. Tim Maloney, he puts out the Naked Cosmos DVD, and he also did the God Hates Cartoons DVD, which has little animations by Tony Millionaire and Kaz and a bunch of other folks. Well, I was definitely getting interested in the money that I was making.
It’s really nice in this kind of business. It was a bipartisan issue in the 80s. All of the clean air act variants were passed by conservatives. There was a widely popular environmentalist children’s cartoon (Captain Planet) in the early 90s.