After 10 years in software development, going from junior to lead, I still fail to see the benefit of sprints. The best performing teams that I have been part of all worked around it, in order to make the team look good, in the eyes of the customer whom we sold Scrum to.
For features, I'd say that Kanban works better, when mixed with ideas from Scrum. Most of Scrum's ceremonies are useful without sprints, and gives, in my experience, the same value to managers as they do in Scrum. The overhead in administration and time that sprints bring are not worth it at all, though. And if management wants, commitments and planning can be done against a deadline, in the same way they'd do with sprints, just without the artificial short periods.
The tweet however contains lots of bad management, and general bullshit otherwise.
"Imagine having a manager, a scrum master, a product owner, and a tech lead. You had to answer to all of them and none simultaneously." I think this is fantastic, not having a single boss, but having different "hats". One person can also have multiple, for different projects. In my experience, this worked out well.
T-shirt and poker.... I don't see why they don't work as analogies, and therefore this is moot criticism.
Even the author himself acknowledges: that wasn't scrum, they were doing scrum wrong. So stop doing scrum? Why not do scrum better? What makes him think that the same bad management will do any other methodology better?
For features, I'd say that Kanban works better, when mixed with ideas from Scrum. Most of Scrum's ceremonies are useful without sprints, and gives, in my experience, the same value to managers as they do in Scrum. The overhead in administration and time that sprints bring are not worth it at all, though. And if management wants, commitments and planning can be done against a deadline, in the same way they'd do with sprints, just without the artificial short periods.
The tweet however contains lots of bad management, and general bullshit otherwise.
"Imagine having a manager, a scrum master, a product owner, and a tech lead. You had to answer to all of them and none simultaneously." I think this is fantastic, not having a single boss, but having different "hats". One person can also have multiple, for different projects. In my experience, this worked out well.
T-shirt and poker.... I don't see why they don't work as analogies, and therefore this is moot criticism.
Even the author himself acknowledges: that wasn't scrum, they were doing scrum wrong. So stop doing scrum? Why not do scrum better? What makes him think that the same bad management will do any other methodology better?