Show all posts
4 years ago

Bored at a Daily Stand-up? Question the “Who” and “Why”

It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that posts on daily stand-up meetings take a top standing (*pun intended*) among the blogs related to Scrum. Looks like I'm ready to put my two cents in as well.

When researching on some practice, I first look if there are any meaningful clues in its name. According to the classical definition, daily stand-up meetings are held with people in upright standing position for the reason that looks quite ridiculous: discomfort of standing for too long is supposed to keep the meetings short. Hmm... If there's no other motive to keep the meetings short, rather than the urge to get seated faster, something must be missing in the whole concept of daily stand-ups. It means they can get so boring, that people would lose focus even in less than 5-10 minutes. Most likely, they would have trouble focusing on what the others are saying, because it's in no way related to their current work (or related remotely).  As a consequence of this boredom, the team skip preparation for the stand-ups since they know that it's a formal thing, and sometimes all they have to share with the others is:  "I was digging into some bugs, looking how to fix them, will go on with that today as well". No commitments are made, and the same status updates are delivered for several days in a row.

oceans-11-1960-bluray3 All of the above are surefire signs that your daily stand-up meetings need a serious health check. If people go with the formal "what" (I'm doing), "how" (I'm progressing with my task), and "when"  (will I complete the task), and this seems to be of no interest to everyone present at the stand-up, then it's time to question the "who" (is attending), and "why" (the reasons for attending).

It might be that the crowd of folks at a stand-up gets too large, and as they still think of themselves as one development unit (and they are, on a higher level), their daily tasks have become more autonomous, and progress reports they share don't seem relevant as daily updates anymore. Could be they're each doing smaller features, or sub-projects; or it could be that your large team has inconspicuously turned into several smaller teams. Now, will the guys in those mini-teams be genuinely interested in sharing and listening to tiny details about the work that isn't in their current focus? Daily? For sure, not. But they would want more meaningful high-level progress updates from the other mini-teams, as they are still interested in the bigger picture. It would never do harm for everyone else in a larger team to know what's going on if those mini-teams report on their overall progress as one unit, not as standalone developers.

So, a daily stand-up meeting can morph into various shapes, depending on how your team morphs into various work landscapes. Boredom and lack of focus are sure signs that "who" and "why" need to be questioned. Naive hacks such as keeping meetings short by standing-up, or other trickster stuff like that will not get to the root of the issue. All the problems with daily stand-up meetings eventually boil down to sharing the irrelevant information. If you sense any single hint of boredom in the air, it's time to do a health check. No need to make it time-specific: what good it is if you decide to re-frame stand-ups once a month, or once in 2 weeks, but something in the work changes, and adjustments have to be made right away?

Your daily stand-up may turn into a status meeting, nothing wrong with that. It's just another example that the goal is not to follow some practice by the book (a daily stand-up is a recommended practice for Scrum), but tune it to the way you work, not the other way around. That's what they call Agile, and that's what the "work-get feedback-iterate-get feedback-iterate" loop is about. In this case, the feedback cycle would run in the context of daily stand-up practice.

  • Chris Riesbeck

    Agree completely, though I’d say the “who” is “the team” where a group of 40 is not a team to begin, so the real question to address is the “why.”

    I have two answers I buy: to brag and to beg. Either you want to brag about something you added to the system yesterday. Good for team spirit. Or you want to beg for some help on something you’re doing today or a problem you hit yesterday.

    I think if you need the meeting to let people know what everyone’s working on, the team is too scattered. If you need it to say how far along people are on tasks, the tasks are too big.

  • Nisha Shoukath

    Eagerness to go back and grab a seat cannot be the driver to keep the daily stand-up meetings short. Lot of times the meetings get messy because the team not supported by a good visual board that is organized around priorities and the work progress. Consciously lead the discussions into the direction of product progress, blockers and priorities, it will work. Conversations that go in tangents need to be moderated and taken offline. Do not make the format so rigid that it becomes repetitive, boring or useless.

Try for free

Account url: *
How many people would be using Targetprocess?
  • Myself
  • 2–20
  • 21–100
  • 101–1000
  • 1000+
By clicking Continue you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy policy