8. Moving all team
members into a dedicated team room or team area does not cross-pollinate with cubicle
assignments in the per-discipline-organized cubicle farm.
It's good to have engineers sit next to each other so they
can work through solutions to problems. It's also good to have engineers sit
next to content creators so the engineers can offer customer support for the
custom authoring tools. It's somewhat of an inhibitor if a developer has to
walk across the building multiple times per day to collaborate with another developer.
Part of the problem here is that desks and cubicle walls are not moveable.
Lesson Learned:
If you want collaboration to happen, don't mandate it first and then inhibit it
at the same time. Instead first enable collaboration by removing the
inhibitions, and then let collaboration happen by coincidence or out of
necessity.
Best Practice: A
way to make collaboration uninhibited is to first put desks on casters. Second,
give everyone un-interruptible power supplies and wireless network connections.
Next, consider getting rid of some of
the cubicle walls. Team members are now enabled to unplug, and move their desks
around the open bull-pen work area without shutting down and rebooting machines.
Thus a half day of face-to-face collaborative productivity
is not inhibited by the hour it takes to move equipment, re-connect cables and
reboot. Sure, un-interruptible power supplies for everyone are expensive. The hours
of lost productivity, inhibited productivity, lost data, and damages from
dropped equipment are also expensive.
Finally, tell developers it's urgent to get development
tasks done on time and they can push their desks and computers anywhere they
need to in order to get work done. The result is that developers will find it
compelling to push their desks next to each other out of necessity to be
productive, and not because of the mandate to fulfill the prophecy of buzzword
project management.
For added comfort, each development team or development
group can have a designated team area and moveable privacy screens and/or a team
room. Make sure to provide big whiteboards on wheels too.
7. A team member says
"I'm not doing something right now because I was told there needs to be a
task entered into the backlog and the task needs to be assigned to me by the
project manager."
Lesson Reinforced: The
proactive person looks for the next task that needs doing, asks customers if
everything is working, and thinks about what can be done now to make next month's
to-do list lighter weight. The reactive person finished the work for the
current two week sprint and believes they are not responsible for anything more
until the next two week sprint when they are assigned more tasks.
Lesson Learned: Telling
people that the whole team is focusing on only two weeks' worth of work at a
time, and they can't work on tasks unless assigned, can make people reactive
instead of proactive. It's important that all team members can see the big
picture, and are encouraged to take responsibility for the components and
details of the big picture without micromanagement.
Best Practice: Adding
tasks to the Scrum spreadsheet feels like having to ask permission for things
that have trivial granularity. Developers assume ownership and responsibility
for the project. Developers have foresight about what work needs to be done
next month. Developers are able to proactively work on tasks ahead of schedule
as well as provide customer service to each other without needing a task
assigned.
6. Start managing stories and sprints before all
the people are on the team. Decide that your Scrum stories and sprints are 100%
completed months before the project even has a QA tester.
Lesson Reinforced:
Without QA in the first month of the project, you might as well admit that you
are planning to have a death march and crunch time. It is common knowledge that
adding QA to the project up front is not just important, it's mission critical.
Best Practice:
Throughout the development cycle, have engineers and content creators fix bugs
as they go, so that the total open bug count stays at a minimum. Have QA on the
project at the beginning of the development cycle to report bugs and to verify
and close bugs. This is important for reducing crunch time due to overwhelming
number of bugs at the end of a development cycle.
Every day, each developer can look at the open defect count
and their own current dev task to do list. If there are more open defects than
dev tasks, consider the bug count too high and spend part of the day fixing the
lowest hanging fruit before switching to the next dev task.
Even better: each
person on the team is customer-friendly and asks their customers and teammates
if there are any issues that are preventing them from fixing their own bugs. Recognize
that some bugs don't get fixed because they have dependencies on other people
fixing other bugs.
|
All that said, I have had very contrary experiences and learnings to a number of these learnings, and others seem very on target.
#10 - I think this could be number one, not number 10. Very important
#9 - I think you can see a pretty direct relationship between #5 and #9. If you let daily stand ups turn into status meetings then you have already lost. They are not status meetings, and you those speaking should not be reporting progress scrumaster or Project Manager. They are commitments to the rest of your team, in front of the team, to achieve the current sprint. No electronic tracking will every replace face to face interaction about what an individual is doing to make the team succeed, in my opinion.
#8 - Interesting approach, very cool if you can pull it off.
#7 - pretty straight forward, as long as the person is not compromising the sprint by pulling tasks from beyond it and neglecting tasks they could do in the sprint
#6 - This one is kind of a mess, you are talking about QA and process management in one item. They are seperate things. Integrating QA from the start is a HUGE win, 100% agree there. But I dont see where the "Decide that your Scrum stories and sprints are 100% completed months before" comes from, thats very un-agile. You should know that you cant possibly plan 100% of your stories months in advance, thats why you break them down as you get closer to their delivery (Epics/Themes/Stories).
#4 what? again a confusing entry. Of course scrum is just a tool in the toolbox, it shouldn't necessarily be mandatory for every process in the company. But then you switch to management feedback...kind of lost me there. Management feedback is important but whats that got to do with scrum being mandatory?
#3 - good point. We frequently employed design stories that were intented to guide future stories (in and outside the current sprint) to help solve this. Also employing XP in conjunction with Scrum helps here.
#2 sounds good
#1 kind of the same as #10...but agreed
Interesting read, thanks!
-jobe
Have you actually have a book describing Scrum, Agile or XP? Just one? Perhaps read a few more before applying it.
I think you need to think about the roles on the team, perhaps consider designer to be a customer. The customers generate user stories and the programmers generate the tasks for the back log. Often games design docs are fully of designers supposed technical information that is useless. This really cuts down the ammount of work the designer has to do.
With 9 non-Scrum games and 1 Scrum game under my belt (and another on the way), I am a firm believer that when Scrum is done right it results in higher morale, better games less risk and less overtime.
Every single problem mentioned (yes, all 10) come from a misinformed and improper implementation of Scrum and not adhering to the principals of Scrum and Agile development.
Scrum doesn't stop bad managers from being bad managers. No project management system in the world can do that.
Paul - it would be very interesting if you took a couple of nights and read "Agile Software Development With Scrum" by Schwaber/Beedle and reflected on your experiences with Scrum to see how they lined up.
http://www.agilegamedevelopment.com/2008/06/daily-scrum-question-2.html
http://www.agilegamedevelopment.com/2008/07/feedback-top-10-pitfalls-using-scrum
.html
Scrum is a tool, nothing more and it always takes great people to make great games. It only takes "weak" management or "feature creep" to destroy milestones.
You have to adopt processes before you can adapt them.
sad ,because the article tells the exact opposite
Again, game development needs to be treated as an entertainment industry devoted to creating projects - not as a conventional operating business, focused on maximizing efficiency. Efficiency isn't the aim - effectiveness is. You can efficiently make a piece of garbage (it happens all the time).
And his comment was completely erroneous.
There's a lesson in there somewhere...
The problem with software process critiques is that a software process is like a user interface. Everyone *thinks* they know the best way to do something. As a TD, I'm more interested in what works.
I usually find case studies on successful projects much more useful than top 10 lists. I like to hear a real story of how a successful project came to pass, rather than "this sucked", or "this was great".
Every organization has it's own context. I can imagine an environment where all 10 of these pitfalls were actually beneficial. If you can't, you haven't been around long enough :)
In other words, they are assigning tasks to individuals and waiting for them to know by themselves what to do next. Because in the first place they (workers) have to wait for management team they'll start to adopt that behavior.
Just an opinion ;)
It’s true that I can’t address Agile and Scrum methods to any real degree, as I’ve only a cursory understanding (I bought the books, etc – never actually on a project).
Nonetheless, I have been part of the game industry for a long time. So, like Mr. Christophe I have seen it done six ways from Sunday. I have spent years working with producers, designers, and engineers (artist too, but mostly the ones with the more nebulous interactions) in attempts to figure out best methods. Hmmm. I think I might be the guy that rolls his eyes every time I hear some “can’t plan a thing” wack-a-mole start talking about lack of communication. To me this is often more indicative of those not well versed in the job. Don’t get me wrong, please. I don’t want to be negative, or slight the strengths of any particular methodology. But that’s just it, some methods work better with certain sorts of development/developers, perhaps even based on genre or pre-existing technologies. I agree with the general consensus here (Grassroots, good stuff!). If you have a good idea and great people, and you can stomach microsoft project, then you have a chance at success (I'd like to think there’s some out there that can do it with postit notes). Mediocre staff, or vision/leadership, and all the scummin’ in the world won’t help. Anyway, your suggestions are forged from real world experiences. So even if these methods are a response to “those not managing scrum correctly”, they are valuable bits of knowledge for that very reason.
10. Nowhere does Scrum say that a GDD isn't used. Features and tasks are not Design specific, they are planned goals. If you need to collaborate there is a perfectly good way to get lots of people on a single document, and lots of crappy but "good enough ways". This is a failure to research collaboration tools or to read up on Scrum methodology.
9. Scrum meetings dont have to take place away from the developer's stations. A phone and a shared desktop view is more than enough for each station. In the end, people being late has to have consequences for there to be incentive to attend. Some take a soft hand to it, I always suggest a hard stance. It's a business requirement and making the product owner wait for a demo meeting versus making your team wait to start a scrum meeting needs to have the same impact. If you can't stomach that in the early stages, we'll replace you. You agree to come in to work every day, you better be on time when it counts and nap after, we have a couch.
7. Scrum tasks should be continually updated by the Scrum Master. It's a role with RESPONSIBILITIES. If the scrum master says he's creating a task, that should be good enough to start. Again, it's a matter of not being a dick about process. If you're gonna be a problem, you're gonna be replaced. If the task never gets made, add it to the story of the next task you work on. Documenting what everyone does is part of scrum.
5. This is exactly what most scrum meetings are. This is a Good Thing(tm), since it brings up issues commented on in later points as a complaint "where do we talk about this". Daily Scrum meetings is where. Once you see adherence to documenting whatever is said in the scrum meetings, just have the members mention the feature, task, and that's it. Joe: FEAT-31, task 2. Started FEAT-31 task 4 and 5. The Scrum Master should be reading through the task notations. All of them. Welcome to 50% focus factor OR LESS.
3. Design is not the scrum's concern. They are handed that BEFORE starting (Sprint 0). The fact that the features are obviously incomplete or not planning for the future is something you bring up during sprint planning. "We're not going to do FEAT-52 because xxxx was not thought of." as you pull things from the backlog and leave others behind and either the product owner revises, adds, rethinks FEAT-52 for next sprint, or replaces a member with some schmuck who will do it and that's a choice members have to make. Product owners make the decisions, developers implement them. If you wanna design games, change your job title.
As teams grow, you simply create scrum hierarchy with scrums of scrums. This is how Microsoft created the MSN AdCenter and a number of other products.
The primary problem with SCRUM is where Bugs fall into the work flow and how to categorize, prioritize, and handle them. Most people assume QA is handled outside of sprints which is terrible. Concurrent QA is necessary from the start.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but I disagree that design is not the scrum's concern.
One of the strengths of scrum is that each of the team members has an input into the design and therefore has increased buy-in into what they are creating. Sure there should be a high level design for each area of the game so that you have an overview, but the design for each area should be fully fleshed out by the team assigned to work on it in conjunction with the lead designer at the start of a sprint. This leads to greater motivation from team members and a fuller understanding of the overall area they are working in.
Agreed with your last point about QA though and about scrum masters being at about 50% focus.