Scrum, Sprints, Estimates and Braggarts

And what a topic it is!

Every year, in a strange inheritance of miracle diets, magic formulas that promise to be a revolution appear in the business world, especially in the technology sector. In addition to this, there are those who, by attending a conference, chance discovery or coffee conversation (with or without mystery) with a colleague in a similar position in a larger company, "soak it up" or look it over or create a concept in their head, arrive at the office and say: Eureka!

You have probably heard of, or suffered from, the Scrum method or similar. They are working methods, really applied to any sector, oriented to groups, in principle, with a common project whose tasks are dependent.

In many cases you will attend, or you will have attended, meetings where each professional is really in charge of a sprint (the estimated time for that group of tasks), although for some reason the "specialist" on duty has mixed non-dependent tasks in a sprint, hence it is said that each professional is in charge of a sprint. The meeting goes on forever, as it is really a meeting with those present who are not all involved in the same project or who do not have dependent tasks. 

The company has just fallen victim to a braggart, and you have just suffered the consequences. For that word which the "specialist" heard and which led him to say "Eureka!", has become an absurd method of control and stressful examination of skills.

If you have understood anything at this point, you have suffered. Welcome to the age of technological fanfare.

If an agile methodology such as Scrum is applied correctly, we are in a quagmire if we are talking about services, especially if we are talking about IT development.

One of the bases of this type of methodology is time estimation. And that, in IT development, is a problem.

Let's see what time estimation would be like for a carpenter.

A carpenter is asked to make a chair. With a specific wood, varnish and shape. The carpenter has never made that specific chair. The carpenter is asked the question: when will it be ready? The carpenter has that wood. If he didn't have it, he would have to look for it and talk to suppliers, which would take an indeterminate amount of time. But fortunately for the person involved, he has the wood that has been requested. 

How long will it take? He has worked with that wood, and it takes him 3 days to make a chair. But he does not know the design, so he answers: "6 days". 

The carpenter finds that certain aspects of the design, with that particular wood, are not feasible. He has had to make some tests that have delayed him for a day. In the end he finds that for some elements he needs to change the wood. He writes an email (he is a modern craftsman) to the client who replies a day later, accepting the change of wood in those elements. 

The carpenter, when varnishing with the specified liquid, discovers that the liquid, which he also had, behaves differently on each type of wood. So he needs to change the type of varnish, writing back to the customer. The customer responds within two days, agreeing to the change. 

The carpenter delivers the job after 8 days. In this case he is lucky and the client (or project manager) understands the circumstance. 

The following month, another customer arrives asking for a design very similar to the previous one, with the same wood and the same varnish. The carpenter informs him of the changes that will be necessary, and when asked "when will it be ready?", the carpenter answers 5 days, delivering the work in 3 days. 

Is that understood? Yes, it is. Normally a computer developer does not repeat a task. Moreover, a good computer programmer/analyst will reuse threads of code (classes, traits, etc.), the initial preparation of which will take an indeterminate amount of time for the sake of saving time later on. And with this in mind, what do you think the answer to the question of when it will be there should be?

This is the big problem that a programmer, analyst or any position that needs to make a previous study of an unknown task before the time estimation. Any developer knows that, except for maintenance tasks with localised errors, something you estimate in five days can be done in two hours or a month.

Something that, no doubt, will never be understood by the agile methodologies braggart who uses it as a personnel control and who makes him feel useful with the conviction that, if it were not for him, the company would not be able to move forward. 

There are many types of workers in all companies and sectors. Some bring speed, others excellence, others creativity. A project manager who does not know how to make the most of his team is not doing his job properly. No matter how up to date he or she may be on miracle diets.

WORKING TIME: Promotion of the incompetent

For many years now, from a business profitability point of view, I have been arguing that, in certain types of jobs, subjecting a professional to strict or even non-strict working hours is unproductive and unprofitable. And of course, I have had many discussions with certain "professionals", businessmen and "experts" in labour relations. The fact is that when a company asks for innovation, especially in Spain, few dare to take their feet out of the traditional economy. Of course, until, like a monkey watching someone else use a stick, they see that other companies are profitable and "realise" that their competitors are more innovative.

Companies are full of workers and managers who come up with innovative ideas that remain in the wastepaper basket or in forgotten folders, whether they are material or virtual.

Let me explain.

Whether we are talking about production line type jobs or customer-supplier type jobs, it is clear that a timetable is required. In the first case as a matter of coordination of manual work, and in the second case out of deference to the recipient.

On the other hand, in jobs that do not require the above, the timetable is nothing more than a, if I may say so, stupid form of control in exchange for a salary, and certainly the best chance for promotion that the ballsy and incompetent have.

Where there is a timetable, there should be compliance with objectives.

Examples...

An employer gets angry because he sees the clerk who does the payrolls of the employees having a coffee and chatting with a colleague. This employer is evidently taking the archaic idea of "time = gold" as current. The result is a bad impression of the employer and possibly a reprimand.

Of course, at no time has the employer appreciated that this worker always has his tasks on time, that his error rate is the lowest in the company and that on top of that he creates an optimal working environment due to his friendly relationship with his colleagues, thus improving the working atmosphere and therefore productivity. On the other hand, he or she gets the "bollocking" for "losing 10 minutes" of work.

On the other hand, the colleague of the previous worker does not get up from the desk to have coffee, even if he is forgetful in his tasks and the previous worker (yes, the one who has been "reprimanded") has to help him on more than one occasion to finish the job.

It has been two years since the anti-smoking law was introduced in Spain, which prohibits smoking inside companies, and explicitly prohibits companies from providing an indoor smoking area.

As time goes by, there is more and more discomfort for smokers who take their time to satisfy their "need" (remember that tobacco is addictive) for nicotine and other substances (not declared to the public health authorities, by the way) that it contains. We are back to ... wasting time.

But what happens if the smoker performs less well when he has the monkey and the solution is 5 minutes every hour? And what happens if the smoker in question, with his dose of nicotine, happens to perform much better than other colleagues who "don't get up from their chairs"? Should we put a clocking-in machine in the toilets as well? As for me, I usually go home already "shitting".

It is as if the idea is that the wage is in exchange for the worker's time in a given timetable, and not for the result (and therefore productivity) that the worker provides to the company. And that idea, which I do not doubt was applied in ancient times, I doubt that it can stand on its own in the second millennium AD.

But of course, let's not forget that many of the advocates of the "time = gold" idea are still incompetent. Advocates who have 10 degrees, even if they have little or no relation to their job functions. Advocates who can only hide their inability to analyse, organise and organise projects under the concept they defend.

Because of course... to work with objectives, you have to have them. To demand accountability, you have to give it. And for a job to be productive, you have to study its profitability and clearly define the functions, even if they are dozens or hundreds. But that requires... working, and thinking... even if you think about it over coffee or smoking outside the company's door.

To innovate is to be ahead of the game. But to innovate you have to work, and for the positions I am talking about, a large percentage of working is thinking. And let's be frank, not all of them are where they are precisely because they think. Of course, they probably never looked up from their computer screen (even if it was for a personal conversation via messenger or watching a "pogüerpoin"), and they arrived at work first and left last, mostly because if they didn't leave last, the boss or employer on duty wouldn't be able to see their "merits".

Working hours are beneficial. Beneficial for the balls and for those who are unable to organise their work. Beneficial for those who do not see that the worker, and I insist as long as the job allows it, will perform better without unhealthy pressure. Beneficial for those who call their lack of foresight improvisation, and their absent-mindedness, laziness or lack of urgency, improvisation.

Working hours are beneficial for those who are not able to prepare a meeting in advance, knowing what they are going to talk about and with whom. Beneficial for those who hold meetings to clarify their ideas instead of going in with premises to put on the table. Beneficial for those who hold these meetings because they did not study typing and do not know how to send a prior report to all those convened.

Yes, the working hours, the "time = gold" philosophy, is beneficial for those only merit to offer is to leave work later.

Y cuidado, que no sólo hablo con lo de "esos" hacia empresarios o directivos, si no también hacia trabajadores. Porque sin horario laboral, sólo los buenos profesionales, los que cumplen con sus responsabilidades, los que en las ideas que dan normalmente ellos también son partícipes con su trabajo y no con balones fuera, sólo esos... permanecerían.

Fortunately, working time exists, and "those", its advocates, have a place in our "traditionally innovative" companies.

Motivation, responsibility, productivity, profitability... bullshit... Long live working hours!!!!