if they don't mind the time it takes me to figure it out and maybe the weird style of solution i come up with, fine with me (speaking from having been the sole developer in a production company for 2 years with no one to fall back on)
@@ndchunter5516this was me at work as a setup machinist/cnc-programmer...i made the paretric universal programs for an entire product line...then i was transferred from main production to the two position one-off parts, prototyping and repair work department (just 2 crappy NC-lathes) but in february the other guy who was a heavy alcoholic fell over dead so now it's just me with basically working for 2
yes and no each department is dependent on other departments so being in the know is needed to adjust the work load. know every team should have a actual manager who goes to the meeting every dev hour taken from doing there actual work is being wasted. the management job is to make sure the "operators" dont have to worry about anything but there primary function. is that simple the thing is most of the people who go to became managers have two problem first the peter principle and second they got there because they are a smooth talker(and the reason they want the position in the first place is insecurity when they get the job they feel no different so they start to be creative) again does position exist for a valid reason but the people who want does positions want them for the wrong reasons. nothing to do with salary, people always go for salaries is just jealousy at display.
Try working for a public body. I joke not when I tell you they used to have meetings about the meeting we were going to later that day. It was exhausting and I still had to do all the regular work.
@@CorvoFG I work public sector. My boss is very good at insulating us from unneeded meetings. Basically we will get a heads up that there is a meeting with a summary of what is going to be discussed. We submit any updates on the topic to our boss and he attends the meetings and reports for us. If any other questions are needed, they usually just hit us up on teams so we can continue our work. Granted there are some meetings that we have to go to, but those are the ones where we really need to be there - Stuff like me having to sit in with vendors about our complete datacenter refresh and making sure that all our storage, compute, and networking gear is coming in as the right equipment. The rest of the time, everyone is just kinda left alone as long as targets are being met according to our Monday morning meeting about completed and upcoming tasks.
The irony of taking the Agile Manifesto, which is all about being ultra flexible and developing a customized system that works for your team's needs, and turning that into a rigid system of meetings and absurdly obscure metrics will always be funny to me. At least as long as i don't have to participate.
The problem is people take a solution which worked in one case and try to apply the whole of it to everything. When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
@@domvastaactually, in my experience, agile is bad because people who don’t know what we do are the ones calling the shots… The generals who are leading the wars, have never put a hand on a gun in their lives…
Ahh yes, the old "make myself look good" by "increasing" productivity, most often fixing issues that the other workers were well aware of, but never empowered to correct, often issues caused by the "solver", or others just like them. Then after an initial burst of good results, they leave a path of inefficient new systems once they get past the low hanging fruit. For instance, the sprint meeting. Developed to eliminate long wasteful meetings. Now Hijacked and overused by the same people who created the problem of overly long standard meetings before.
Its because despite the fact on the first god damn page of the book it says this is a suggested and in no way are you supposed to follow this line by line just use what works for you and your team they follow everything down to the letter and just kill any sort of flexibility that may have been had.
Jared probably doesn't play golf with the Shareholders or glad hand them or take them out to fancy dinners. So Jared will not be getting the CEO position lol
Legitimately thought they were making the meeting a social to play poker so I didn't join. Got told off later and when I joined the 2nd one, realised it was a very real and dumb thing.
As a former scrum master and product manager, this video was both accurate and more evidence that I should be very happy to have gotten out of that line of work
As a current Scrum Master I understand the frustration but I am happy to be one of the apparently rare Scrum Masters that are able to create a happy Scrum environment. :)
@@valentin_din_romaniaspending more time repeating barely in change in progress to higher levels of management because you are spending all time reporting and no time working on the actual project. Then instead of reporting minor progress in emails, everyone ignores said emails forcing it to be a meeting instead. Because they don't have time to read emails. Because they are always in meetings.
I heard of a tool that calculates how much each meeting costs, based on salaries and travel cost. Then you have to justify it, before sending the invite.
Long ago, Sales would keep coming into the bullpen to ask us questions. I put a sign on the door: "Each interruption will push release back two hours. Can this be an email?" Sales complained to the boss, but when we showed how much we got done when the Sales department was away on a junket vs. how much regularly, he backed us.
Effective working hours from 3 to 8 = 266% Added lack of interruption bonus = 80% No irrelevant side quest bonus = 80% Satisfaction of getting the job done = 75% -------------------------------------------------------- + ---------- total productivity gain 501% Yep 500% increase sounds legit.
The Problem is it can really make sense to do meetings and to work with a framework. The Problem a lot of mindless middle Management drones have basically no idea what it is about. So they try to micromanage stuff they have no clue about. Its Like driving in the fog of incompetence, you dont know whats coming next. And instead of improving on there Knowledge to get rid of the fog, they Slow everybody Even more to Not hit anything. Its insane that a Team of five devs working on one project using agile to do stuff. Its Intended to Deal with huge complexity Not micromanagement.
Jeah, sometimes people forget the positives when met with poor implementation. Or they even wont notice the positive, only notices when the system fails now and then.
And a lot of people hate agile now but the way these managers implement it is literally antithetical to all the original principles of agile. One of the core ones being that it should put people before processes. If you look at the original thesis it makes perfect sense
Agile is even better with small teams. The whole purpose of agile is to be bottom up instead of top down. People keep complaining about dark-agile or the anti-pattern. Shit management is shit no matter what, because they are shit not because of what you do. If you where doing waterfall you would have the same problems but you would also have to do all nighters when you deploy once a quarter.
Daily Stand-Up Meetings are completely useless. I made a point by being last to update the team on my work for the day and 2 minutes later I asked can anyone tell me what I'm planning on doing today? Not even the Scrum Master could say anything. I said, "See? Status updates are much better as an email. At least then you can look back and see what everyone is working on hours after the day started."
Thats because the scrum master isn't running it right. Devs should run the stand up and it's time for them to assess amongst themselves (maybe the SM is there but they shouldn't have to) if they are on target to meet the sprint goal. If not, blockers are identified and the SM is supposed to help remove those. Too many places run it as a "What did you do, what are you doing, and what will you do" which is wrong.
@@xalwine - Exactly! I made the comment that we should change what we're doing to ONLY saying what we are having issues with, no offense but no other developer cares what other developers are doing, only if it affects them.
My 'ideal standup meeting' isn't. Teams: "Any blockers?" Dev1: "nope" Dev2: "All good" Dev3: "VPN's busted, working with IT. Not late, but at risk." Dev4: "Sucks for Dev3. I'm good" It wasn't long before I've seen it even less formally. Sign on in the morning: Dev1: "morning, no blockers" Dev2: "yo. Away for dentist, but on track." Dev3: "heya, all done and have cycles, gimme work" Dev4: "HH3-88 is harder than I thought. Can you take HH3-17 off me?" Dev3: "Okay" The SM can deal with the paperwork, devs just roll on.
I am a middle manager. We need exactly 2.143 internal meetings per day. One short, like 15 min or less meeting, to compile all the needs / problems with the people below me and solve what I can. One a bit longer with my manager to relay any issues I couldn’t solve and game plan for the day / receive guidance that my manager got from the higher ups. The .143 comes from a once weekly meeting where all departments in our region deliver snapshot reports on a call. It’s a pretty good time to share issues that other departments ran into, and how they solved them, so that you have good info if you run into that same problem. Now there may be more “emergency” or unscheduled meetings, but those maaaaybe happen once a month or less. I could have external meetings or calls with suppliers and such, but those aren’t daily.
@@AzraelAlpha Conversation is faster than messaging. Using things like slack and emails for essential meeting material is like having people stop by your office every 5 minutes and asking questions, you never can truly focus on your work. The other upside is that it is very unambiguous what everyone is working on with a morning all hands meeting. If someone gets sick or needs random personal time, you can quickly fill the slot with help instead of having to clue someone in from ground up.
My previous job where we had to use Jira, we had 1 meeting every morning for 30 minutes. That was it, unless you had to discuss something further with someone you had no meetings throughout the day as much as a dev. Overall you had way more freedom to actually do work.
I'm a dev at a relatively small software/IT company. We have 1 dev meeting a day to keep everyone on the same page. I (we all do this) work very closely with my other developers, asking questions, problem solving together, etc, so we all usually have a decent idea of whats happening at most times. If one of us needs to put our nose to the grindstone, the others have the respect not to bother them unless its needed. I can't imagine not using Jira or something similar. None of us have enough space in our brains to track helpdesk tickets and development tickets and what things are due when. It genuinely makes us more effective at the cost of only a little time and detail-orientation. My point is, that if you dilligently use Jira for what you need it for rather than following some arbitrary dogma about how to use it, it can be an invalueable tool.
I literally just use a mix of org-mode notes & github issues to track everything with my team. I don't really see a point in Jira when github already has kanban boards, projects, and milestones. As for daily meetings. Nah. Meetings are as needed. Everyone already has a good idea of what they need to do.
Or just outline what needs to be done for your project at the start, have everyone do the same, Get started on the project and if something comes up, Bring it up at the next meeting. Notepad exists, Sticky notes exist, Github exists. Bro, Jira is just wasting your time and money. I genuinely doubt that your company is working at an optimal flow.
I feel like I've never fully understood Scrum. The core premise of Agile is to continually evaluate and change your process to improve your effectiveness at delivering value. To codify a specific process to follow to the letter while calling it "Agile" feels like missing the point. If you're in an "Agile" team and you feel that a part of your process is slowing you down, the whole point of Agile is that you should be able to point that out, change or remove that part, and if productivity improves, make that change permanent.
My Dad just mutes the meetings and works in the background because 90% of the meetings are useless. He is a senior developer so he can do it without getting fired but I wish it was more acceptable
Not as simple as that. In a large org the solution to your problem may be in another area. The answer for that area might be to re-prioritise and that may require CEO decision. A CEO should be having an understanding of what is going on, the buck stops with him, he needs to be aware of what is going on and he's not clairvoyant
I’m a product manager and my philosophy is that those meetings are blockers that we can use if there’s something to discuss. But the amount of reviews, grooming a and retrospectives that I have cancelled is definitely higher than those that I have kept. And we deliver.
I lowkey do this on leadership days. My team is almost always the most productive at the fastest pace and they love me for it lol. I usually do meeting review with our higher ups and screen any meeting I deem unnecessary into email format for them too. 😂😂
Regularly scheduled meetings are important so that everyone is able to be on the same page, but if it's taking up more than a couple of hours a week, you're going to need some reforms to try and get all that needs to be done in those meetings into a shorter amount of time.
Yk, I like my company's take on scrum. One 15 min meeting a day, talk about whats in the way/where ya at, ask for help+ setup paths to ask quick questions. Nobody pushing for stupid certs. Just a quick "Heres where Im at and what I need" from everyone, logoff, work rest of the 10 hrs. Super productive
That's called a "daily" meeting, because you do it every day and basically as quick as possible so nobody wastes time but at the same time everyone is aware of what everybody else is doing. One of my friends worked at one company back during pre-covid era and their stand-up (like a daily, but mainly aimed at informing managers instead of developers) meeting involved them all standing in a plank, including the PM. A rather good incentive to finish as quickly as possible and to not waste time on unrelated bullshit.
Like I’d genuinely would love to do more work cause it something I enjoy doing, but it’s just so hard to get actual stuff done with how many meetings there when it could be condensed down to just a slightly long email
it sounds worse than it actually is. Basically, you pick a task for the next sprint and every developer "votes" on how much effort it would take to implement. If the majority agrees on one thing - it's picked as the estimation. It's called poker because the original version involved cards with numbers.
NASA has a lot of bureaucracy, because the US government wastes a lot of money, but they demand to know where every single bit of it was wasted, unless you're a defence contractor or a foreign government.
All the work gets done, not to design, no specs documented, no-one else in planning, finance or business readiness or test environments knows where the project is at.
If the meeting could have just been an email, it is a waste of time. If you're actually collaborating and discussing instead of giving reports, it can be productive.
Omg. One Friday I had a deadline and an entire day of unnecessary meetings. The Regukar Friday morning meeting. Then the regular one in one with the boss. Then it was the monthly team meeting and then it was the Friday payday pints in the afternoon.
The trick to meetings is that they need to justify themselves. The benefit you get from the meeting has to be more than the same amount of work a person can do I'm that time multiplied by the number of people in that meeting. Sometimes, that's true. If you're assigning story points or estimates to stories every day, chances are you could do better.
Unfortunately, people who are above average at their job get promoted... again and again, until they are no longer above average, but below average, and their advancement opertunities stop based on merit alone. Oftentimes, the best job is one rung under your peak. One of the flaws in a meritocracy that can be fixed but often is an issue in legacy companies. Hence, the growing and shrinking of companies as these positions are filled and replaced
Yeah i rather be a mechanic, blue worker, heavy lifting shit rather than listening to these ceo, executives always motivate people to do work ran 3 hours meeting for embarrassing themselves infront of their employees
Scrum is only as effective as the Scrum Master managing it. I don’t know if any team within our org that ever has 5 hours of meetings a day, or even once a sprint. We try to keep the meetings as lean as possible and only add additional ones if the Devs say they need it.
Honestly "Stand up"-Meetings just mean there's no work getting done before Lunch. Not even a full hour after starting work means you won't get into anything, and when it's done it's almost time to eat so everyone just tries to figure out what they want to get today.
What dev is against using jira? Every branch should be a jira so you can document wtf it was and testers can work against it, release notes can be generated and you can link them to projects and bill clients for enhancements if required. This is good for water fall, agile or even teams with no process.
I'm so impressed that you developers are apparently able to remember everything that needs done, rather than relying on a cooperative tool that helps you to remember. By all means, get rid of stupid meetings, but I need my tickets
