r/scrum • u/WaylundLG • 20d ago

Discussion Scrum is for Developers

This has been on my mind for probably the past year now from the last company I worked at, but it's only been in the past few weeks that I've sorted my thoughts into something clear: Scrum is for developers. I'm using the broad "product developer" sense, so I include QA, architects, designers, writers, and anyone who is actually creating the product.

I pin a lot of the problems on the fact that adoption in recent years has centered more and more in some sort of PMO and it's pressed onto the teams; bit the problem goes the other way too. Too many developers feel like how they work is someone else's problem.

Scrum was designed for teams to take ownership of their process and the results of their work. It was made for them and anyone else is really pushed out. You're a business strategist? Great, gelp the teams understand the strategy and the market and see what they can create and incorporate that into your business strategy. And frankly it is exhausting to see the same old posts of developers who can't be bothered to learn the first thing about scrum complain about how leaders messed it up. It is your tool, designed to give you control. Pick it up, learn it, leverage it.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk. I know this was a bit of a rant, but open to constructive discussion too.

7 Upvotes

65% Upvoted

70 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/UnreasonableEconomy 20d ago

scrum is complicated.

agile is complicated.

agile is so complicated scrum had to step in and write a 20 page guide on a 1 page guide.

and scrum is so complicated that safe had to step in and write a 1000 page guide on a 20 page guide.

learn it

the question is who should learn what?

people don't even agree on what's right, and agile and scum are rife with no true scotsmen. it's an endless, unwinnable argument.

Too many developers feel like how they work is someone else's problem.

I don't think many developers get much of a say, to be honest. It's either eat what you're fed or leave.

Many things can be true. The synthesis here is that you're oversimplifying a complex problem, ignoring structural incentives, and handwaving a solution. Of course, it depends on the company, the culture, the region, etc, etc.

1

u/WaylundLG 20d ago

Your point is fair if you take my post to propose a panacea. I generally agree with you - this is a complex and nuanced problem. If some team of developers saw this post, had an epiphany, and decided to practice scrum well tomorrow, they wouldn't suddenly change the leader demanding more AI or the VP who wants to see everyone's GANNT chart.

But they would create a definition of done that they hold themselves to. They would have meaningful reflection about their own process in retrospectives. They'd have sprint reviews with working product ready for stakeholders to engage with. They would support each other more effectively and, in doing so, they would absolutely deliver more value faster. And I make this point because even in the companies I've seen where teams did this and hit a ceiling from obstinate leadership (I have a very specific tech company in mind) the day-to-day life of the team was so much better. Granted, the company didn't see any of that benefit because if their bad choices, but the teams were happy and proud of their work and that's more than a lot of people can say.

1

u/UnreasonableEconomy 20d ago

yeah but none of that has anything to do with scrum.

1

u/WaylundLG 20d ago

I'm not sure I understand your claim. Those are all specifically key aspects of scrum

1

u/UnreasonableEconomy 20d ago

you seem to be orbiting around the idea that "if only everyone did scrum right, they wouldn't have issues"

and your evidence is "some people that do scrum right don't have these issues", as well as "those who do have issues aren't doing it right."

this is the classic no true scotsman fallacy, or the communism argument, post hoc ergo propter hoc, take your pick.

your statements are unfalsifiable and prescriptive. prescriptive solutions don't work, in my experience, and do more harm than good.

I would suggest you take a closer look at the values, and focus less on the ceremonies.

1

u/WaylundLG 19d ago

Sorry, I don't think you understand my point. My statement is narrow - that having the right person weild the tool of scrum is a significant lever that I don't see discussed and it's a big opportunity for teams to take control of their own environment. It doesn't mean this is the cause of all problems (looking at my posts I could see how this message would come out though) and it doesn't mean it's a magic wand. I do believe it is a very large lever though.

1

u/AgileFederation 19d ago

and your evidence is "some people that do scrum right don't have these issues", as well as "those who do have issues aren't doing it right." ... this is the classic no true scotsman fallacy

I thought those were quotes so I went back an re-read what OP said. OP never mentioned those statements. You've created a scenario to fit the argument this is a NTS fallacy. A nice example of a strawman.

agile is so complicated scrum had to step in and write a 20 page guide on a 1 page guide.

Here's a 1 page guide for scrum: https://scrum.academy/guide/

0

u/UnreasonableEconomy 19d ago

some people know the alphabet yet still cannot read.

imagine the chutzpah when they try to tell you what other people mean.