Submitted by Mark Jean on March 11, 2008 - 9:38pm.
Around the Los Angeles basin, it's clear a number of people who've adopted "Scrum" do so out of frustration with a senior manager or a company's current development methodology.
Several times I've heard that Scrum represents an "egalitarian" or "meritocratic" approach - that a team can use to overcome their idiot manager or out-dated processes.
This has come up multiple times in conversations at geek "network" functions. Clearly, some people perceive Scrum as an "equalizer" of sorts.
But - does Scrum truly represent a utopian vision of equality? Where we can all "collaborate" ourselves to success?
Do "collaborative teams" - ones without a bozo calling the shots - work?
Around the Los Angeles basin, it's clear a number of people who've adopted "Scrum" do so out of frustration with a senior manager or a company's current development methodology.
Several times I've heard that Scrum represents an "egalitarian" or "meritocratic" approach - that a team can use to overcome their idiot manager or out-dated processes.
This has come up multiple times in conversations at geek "network" functions. Clearly, some people perceive Scrum as an "equalizer" of sorts.
But - does Scrum truly represent a utopian vision of equality? Where we can all "collaborate" ourselves to success?
Do "collaborative teams" - ones without a bozo calling the shots - work?