Can Agile tools really teach you Agile practices, or are they just supporting players? Join Brian and Steve Spearman as they unpack the myths surrounding tools like Jira and discover why the process should always come before the tool.
Overview
In this episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast, Brian Milner and Steve Spearman debunk common myths about Agile tools, with a special focus on Jira. They stress that tools are not a replacement for Agile principles, and the process should guide the choice of tools, not the reverse.
The conversation dives into how Agile tools can enhance transparency, why communication is key to effective Agile practices, and the importance of adapting tools to fit unique team workflows.
References and resources mentioned in the show:
#43: Cultivating Agile Team Culture in a Virtual World with Richard Cheng
#29: Influencing Up with Scott Dunn
#71: The World of DevOps with Carlos Nunez
Jira
Miro
Mural
Trello
SAFe
LeSS
Certified ScrumMaster® Training and Scrum Certification
Certified Scrum Product Owner® Training
Mountain Goat Software Certified Scrum and Agile Training Schedule
Join the Agile Mentors Community
Subscribe to the
Agile Mentors PodcastWant to get involved?
This show is designed for you, and we’d love your input.
Enjoyed what you heard today? Please leave a rating and a review. It really helps, and we read every single one.
Got an Agile subject you’d like us to discuss or a question that needs an answer? Share your thoughts with us at [email protected]This episode’s presenters are:
Brian Milner is SVP of coaching and training at Mountain Goat Software. He's passionate about making a difference in people's day-to-day work, influenced by his own experience of transitioning to Scrum and seeing improvements in work/life balance, honesty, respect, and the quality of work.
Steve Spearman is a Certified Scrum Trainer® and Agile coach, passionate about helping teams thrive, drive business improvements, and master the art of managing change. With expertise in Agile training, scaled Agile, and leadership, Steve empowers organizations to navigate their Agile journeys smoothly and effectively.
Auto-generated Transcript:
Welcome in Agile Mentors. We're back for another episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast. I'm with you as always, Brian Milner. And today I have a very good friend of mine, a mentor of mine, Mr. Steve Spearman is with me. Welcome to the podcast, Steve.
Thank you, Brian. It's great to be here with you. Nice to see you.
Nice to see you as well. Yeah, Steve helped me out when I was trying to become a CST and I got to learn a lot from him, watching him teach his classes. So he's a pro. He's a CST, he's a coach and trainer and if you're interested, I recommend his classes. I think he's an excellent trainer and would have no hesitation sending anyone to one of Steve's classes. We wanted to have Steve on because we had this topic that got, actually, this is a listener suggestion. So we're always happy to take listener suggestions. And this is one that one of you sent in saying that you wanted us to kind of dive into and discuss a little bit about myths that are out there about Agile tools. So Steve, what does that mean to you? are some of the, is there a main kind of myth that you? you've heard more often than others about Agile tools.
I think, Brian, the one we hear all the time, right, is this one that essentially Jira is Agile, right? And we're like, well, Jira is a very popular tool for people to use with Agile. It's might or might not be like most of us who do this. That may not be our favorite, honestly, but it is very popular for some pretty good reasons. So that's, I think, the most common one. And then just the idea that somehow it gets to the confusion people have about being a methodology and stuff, right? That essentially, if you just would implement the tool, then you'd be doing Scrum well, right? And that would be the important thing when in fact, I think most of our recommendations would be a little bit the opposite of that, right? Which is to come up with your own approach to doing things in Scrum and then maybe figure out a tool that helps you with that.
Yeah, I agree. I've heard that quite often. And I've encountered organizations in my career where I'll ask them if they're Agile or if they are familiar with or no Agile. yeah, we have JIRA. OK, well, not quite what I was asking, but I appreciate the sentiment. But yeah, I mean, I agree. There's probably some mixed reviews on that as a tool.
I mean, personally, I'll say I've used it to run, you know, Agile organizations before. I'm not a hater of it. I think it's fine. I think it works. I mean, I don't know what your opinion here is, Steve, but people often ask me if there's a tool I recommend to kind of run projects and. You know, my standard answer is there's not one that I think is better and outshines all the rest. I think they all have their strengths and weaknesses and you just kind of have to tweak and adjust them to make them match, you know, your process. But that's the key, right? Is that process over the tool.
Yeah. I've, you know, Jira I think is popular for a lot of reasons. One is, usually it's about half the per seat cost of a lot of the other ones. And so that for a lot of companies right there, that's that's a pretty big factor thing. I liked about it. Maybe similar to your experience, Brian was that if you're a little bit more of a techie, it's pretty programmable. You can go in and you could tweak it and you can make it do all kinds of things. And so that's maybe it's strength and it's weakness that it takes a little more investment, but you can do quite a bit with.
Yeah, I agree. It is pretty flexible. The main thing I try to tell people who use it and are asking about, this going to be viable? Will it work for our purposes? The main thing I think they have to understand is the history of it. The Jira is really a bug tracking software. Well, let me be clear. It was created as a bug tracking software, right? Right.
Yeah, ticketing system in general, yeah.
Right, a ticket system. And when you know that, and then you get into the nomenclature and you look at the layout of how everything is within it, that makes sense. can see, cause you know, like the standard thing there is an issue, right? There's different issue types, but the standard thing is an issue. Well, that's because it was meant to handle support issues.
Yeah. And also the, you know, we commonly use the word tasks, of course, in Scrum, not an official thing, but a very common thing we talk about. And Jira speak is subtasks. And that's just history again, of, know, where it came from. And, you know, a long, long time ago, you had to have a plugin to Jira to do Agile. It was originally called, I believe, Grasshopper many, many years ago. And then they ended up just calling it like Jira Agile for a very long time. And then as...
it became a bigger and bigger piece of their market, they just kind of wrapped it all up in JIRA now, I think.
Yeah, we both been around long enough to have been part of those days. So I remember those very well. Yeah, I mean, like I said, I think JIRA will do a fine job for you if that's what you're with. wouldn't, you some organizations using it, I wouldn't say, by all means stop and use something else. I think you can make it work. I think you just have to look at it and say, all right, I understand this is based on this. So now I just need to configure it and adapt it. really for the process we want to do. And I know from my standpoint, I've used it multiple times where when you configure it the right way, it will handle things the way that you, at least from my perspective, the way I usually think is the right way to implement it with a team or an organization. So it works. I can make it work. It just takes some tweaking. I guess for mine, but yeah, it's not Agile. It's not being Agile just because you're using Jira.
Yeah, and it's kind of the good and the bad thing about tools. think people like them because, you know, I can assign people tickets and things like that, you know, and so like, you know, people, it's clear who's got things and stuff. That's also a weakness though, too, because it, you might say, all I have to do is assign it in the tool and I don't have to talk to you now. I just say, look, you, I signed you this ticket or something. And that's not great from my perspective. And then the other one is that when you, when you, change states and things in the tool. That lets everybody know where things are, and that's good, and it gives you tons of reports and things, and people like those. But it's also less visual than a lot of us are, which back in the day, we liked sticky notes on a board. I that was the thing. That was the thing. And so what I'm leaning toward myself a little more these days is tools like Muro and Mural and so forth that are very visual, and they're often sticky note-based kind of things.
And that allows you to do a lot of the stuff we used to do physically, but they don't have the same reporting capabilities. And so that's where we get these trade-offs that I think we're going to see with these tools.
Yeah, I agree. I agree. Yeah. I'm, I'm, I'm the same way. And in fact, you know, when I said that earlier, someone asked me what my favorite tool is, you know, I said, my default answer is usually I don't have a favorite, but, if they push me, what I'll tell them is my favorite is just no cards or post-it notes, you know, like that's really, that's really what I, I have found works best. But, yeah, something like Miro or mural, I think is a, is a great, kind of virtual replacement for that. Cause it's just so open. and you can configure it however you want. It's not going to pull a report for you. You have to understand that. But it is the equivalent of having a virtual wipe.
Exactly. And that's just, it's kind of a halfway physical feeling thing for our virtual world, which I think is helpful. Another interesting thing that I haven't played with a lot myself is that I know now in Miro, a sticky note in Miro can now be tied directly to a ticket in Jira. And so effectively you could have like the backend framework of Jira with a pretty front end on top of it or something is kind of how that looks like to me. So
I think that's got some promise maybe to give us both that physical thing that some of us miss while still having that reporting structure that a lot of our companies kind of want.
Yeah, that's awesome. Yeah, that speaks to what you were saying earlier about that it's highly configurable. can make it do a lot of things. You just have to get into the guts of it a little bit.
You know, another thing about the tool market here, know, Brian, I was just looking this up, not like I knew this, but apparently it's a $5 billion market this year, Agile tool, and it is projected to go up to 13 in the next 10 or 12 years. So it's serious money. And this is why there are so many players now, right? I mean, the number of tools out there now is just, I've lost track of them. I know it's easily 20 plus tools out there. Now there are...
Certainly the most common ones that we think about, Jira is probably number one. Asana comes up a lot. Rally is a long time one that comes up quite a bit. Interestingly, one of our biggest ones from years ago that did such great reporting out on the network for us and great Agile materials was version one. It was a super, super popular one.
And when you look now, they are a fairly small player percentage-wise in the market. So there's been a lot of shifting here. And of course, Microsoft shops tend to go toward Microsoft tools. And so there's that factor that goes on here, too. So it's not trivial to figure out which tool you would want to use here.
Yeah, that often drives a lot of even discussion in the classes, I know, from people who say, what do you, you know, they'll bring up a term like feature and say, what's, how does Scrum define? Well, Scrum doesn't define what a feature is, you know, like that's, that's a term that comes from your tool. And, know, that your tool might have a definition for it, but you know, Scrum doesn't. So, yeah.
One of the challenges I think is also that because scaled Agile has become such a big factor these days, almost all the tools have adopted their terminology. so terms like epics and features and things, most of these come from scaled Agile. And if you're doing scaled Agile, that's great, right? If you're not, it can be a little confusing. So for example, I think it was, Mike Cohn maybe, who said that epic, he famously defined as being a story too big to fit into a script. That was sort of the definition of an epic. And now in most of the tools, an epic is something giant that you have a handful of in three months or something. So yeah, there is some terminology confusion out there now as well.
Yeah, which may have all come from just the tools. You hit on something a little bit earlier that I had as one of my kind of common myths here around tools. And that was that these Agile tools replace the need for just the typical communication that we have. Because as you said, I can assign something to someone else. that way, I don't have to talk to them. I just put it in their queue. And it's there. And I think that's a huge myth here with the Agile tools is, you know, my, my, my goal with any kind of tool, whether it's a software tool or whether it's a, a template or something that I'm using for a specific thing, like story mapping or whatever, my, my goal for any of those things is that it drives conversation, right? That it is an encourager of conversation, not that it is something that takes away from or detracts. from conversation and communication. So I think that's a big myth sometimes is that people, even if it's unspoken, right, there's just sort of with some people an assumption that because the tool communicates and because the tool can communicate between people, I don't have to actually talk to anyone. And that's that couldn't be further from the truth to do Scrum well.
I think it gets us to another subtle thing in the scrum that you know scrum that could say more clearly maybe than it does. But that is shown as a good pattern in our pattern site, you know, the one called scrumplop.org. The idea that we should swarm as teams, you know, is something that I think a lot of us feel is a really important concept. And swarming is this kind of strange idea that says you know, don't give everybody their own work item and then just say disappear, go do it, you know, good luck. Instead, we try to work more closely like teams on the same items, divided up, work together closely. And this of course involves a lot of communication, a lot of needing to talk to each other. And so sometimes people say, well, can we just send out a Slack message or something, you know, every now and then and say, hey, you know, I'm done with mine. You can, but I think it's sort of missing the the really cool back and forth of a true swarming culture where it's like, hey, is anybody ready to pick up a piece of code and run the testing on this one? I'm gonna move on to the next one. Swarming was this idea of doing things in short cycles and gets into issues of test-driven development and things like this. so none of the tools really help you with that concept at all. And they may even hurt you with it little bit, in my opinion.
Yeah, absolutely agree. And I'm absolutely on board with you. I think that's such a vital component of it. I tell people in classes, you know, I know sometimes people get a little frustrated with sports analogies, but I tell them, you know, Scrum is a sports analogy at its core. You know, it's a rugby thing. the other thing I kind of think about is if you've ever gone to see, and I know lots of us have done this in our life, but you've ever seen a kid sport kind of team sport. If you ever stand on the sidelines of a kid's soccer or most of you out there, most of the world would say football. But you know, if you ever stand on a side of a field like that, what the coaches are constantly yelling at the kids is talk to each other, right? Communicate, talk to each other. And they recognize, you you recognize in that kind of a team sport how important it is to, you know, call for the ball or or just let people know where you are or where you're going. And that same thing is what we want with our Scrum teams. We want people to be able to just constantly talk to each other. So you're right. I think sometimes the tool might actually get in the way of that communication and just could create some communication problems. Which tool are we talking on? Which tool do I look for for that kind of a conversation or whatever? And it just can get lost in the shuffle sometimes.
You know, the rugby analogy is such a core one for us, but it's getting to be kind of old history now because the whole rugby analogy came out of this original lean paper, right? Long, long time ago. And the reason they chose rugby, you know, is one of the reasons they chose rugby. Rugby is such an interactive thing. So unlike American football where, you know, you run down the field and you can, you know, you can only throw the ball once and then you run and try not to get tackled. In rugby, you throw the ball back and forth constantly. Continuous interaction and basically the guys from Toyota said look we got to learn to treat our teams like rugby teams When they're on the field don't be on the sideline yelling throw it to Brian You know let them figure it out themselves, and that's the whole concept of a self-managing team Which you know is a really big concept for us in scrum and one that a lot of companies struggle with
You By the way, if there was anything being yelled with my name on it from the sideline, would not be throw it to Brian. It would be don't throw it to Brian. That would be the response. Yeah, absolutely agree. What else, Steve? What other kind of myths have you heard or do you commonly hear about Agile tools?
I think one of them is the idea that there is a right tool because there are real pros and cons to all the tools and some of them are much more advanced than others and yet some of them are a lot more expensive than others. Some of them are tuned for people who work in Microsoft shops. Some of them are tied to particular tools like GitHub or something like that. So figuring out the right tool is a non-trivial exercise, I guess is what I would say. And especially if you're going to wedge yourself to a tool, I think doing some prototyping, some research. The good news is the vast majority of them have free versions. You can go out and try. I often get asked things like, are you going to teach us Jira in this class or something? And the answer is no. No, I'm not. It's just one of 20 plus tools. But the other thing is that The good news is tools are a lot simpler than Scrum and Agile are. Scrum and Agile are tricky, they're subtle, they're hard to understand. They're a lot about humans and interactions and patterns and these tricky things. Tools are relatively straightforward and there are free videos on how to use Jira out there. There's a public version of it you can go get and it's true for the others too. So anybody who's really looking for a tool, that'd be my recommendation. Go out and... Find a few of popular ones, go check them out, get a free version, watch some videos. I don't think you'll probably find you a class for that.
Yeah, I agree. I mean, and if you do, know, you know, again, don't want to make this sound like we're only talking about Jira, but I know for things like that, I've seen, you know, meetup groups that are dedicated to those purposes that you can find on like meetup.com or other things where you can, you know, maybe go once a month or so and learn something about it for free. So there's lots of stuff like that that's out there. But yeah, I absolutely agree that, you know, As I said, I don't recommend one specific tool. And I think the thing that's kind of really important there when you're selecting a tool is to know what your process is first. Don't get the tool to set your process, find what your process should be, and then find the tool that's going to fit with that. It's the whole individuals and interactions over processes and tools. We don't want the tool to drive what we do. And unfortunately, I've been a part of several organizations where, hey, we use this tool and the tool only works this way. So that's the way we work, whether it's right or wrong for us. And that's just a terrible way going about it.
Yeah. And unfortunately, most of the tools do force you to some degree into their approach, right? Because there is a struggle, I'm sure, for toolmakers between you could make it completely general, like here's some sticky notes, just go do whatever with them, you know, which is kind of what you do with a Miro or a Miro board. But most of them have tried to make it more, you know, you do this and then you do this and then you do this and it kind of leads you through it. And that seems like it would be helpful, right? But at the same time, it means they've already decided that the right sequence is to do this and to do this and to do this. And so just got to watch out for when is the tool prescribing your approach and when is it there to facilitate your approach.
Yeah, I agree. I'll tell you another one that I've heard quite often that I always kind of makes the hair on my spine kind of stand on end is when people seem to take this approach that the Agile tool itself is going to teach them how to become Agile. You know, it's kind of akin to the idea of because we have Jira, we're Agile or some, you know, fill in the blank or whatever tool it is that you would be using. But yeah, I've seen different teams or organizations that take that approach of, well, we're buying this software. And so we'll learn by using this software how to be Agile because it's an Agile tool. It's an Agile software. So everything we need will just be, we'll come by osmosis because we have this tool in place. yeah, I found that to be just a terrible approach. If you don't have some kind of a some guide, right? If you don't have somebody to guide you through that in any way, shape or form, then you're lost in the wilderness. You just don't have anyone to help you find your way. And the fact that you have a tool that could be useful doesn't mean it's going to teach you how to be useful, right? You have to know, knowing Agile is not knowing the tool.
It's like, imagine going to a Ferrari dealer and deciding you're going to buy a Ferrari. And you've driven a Honda Civic, so you feel pretty comfortable with driving. And they give you a 10-minute overview of the dashboard of the Ferrari that you just purchased. And they say, I hear you're planning on racing professionally next month. Good luck with that.
And because I can sort of drive the car, I can therefore win races, you know, at the, no, right? No. So now we both are going to be a little biased here as trainers, obviously, but I think we pretty strongly feel like without somebody to help guide you through the subtleties of things like Scrum and Agile thinking, you may let the tools dictate and that's not the intent at all. It should be your team comes up with what makes your team be amazing.
And we own our own processes in Scrum, right? That's a key concept is that Scrum tries not to dictate processes and it wants you to continually evolve them. And so even the thinking that says there's a right way to do it is actually incorrect Agile thinking. so, yeah, tools are not gonna be a lot of
Yeah, I agree. We might be a little biased because of what we do, but you know, I like your analogy. I'll give you another one. if you are just because you buy a parachute doesn't mean you know how to skydive, right? And no one would would buy a parachute and think, I know everything. Just I'll just use it and I'll learn how to do it because I'll jump out the plane and you know, I'll learn how to skydive. Well, no, you go through training. figure it out, you probably do a lot of tests and things, so that by the time you get up there, you know exactly what you're doing. you've gone through all the safety checks and all those other kind of things. Nobody would see those things as being synonymous, but somehow we do that in the Agile community sometimes, as we see the tool as synonymous with knowing Agile.
It's a really good example, though I like the parachute. I have never parachuted because I find it terrifying. But if you were going to be a skydiver, this is an area where there is a high cost of failure. It's like one of these things where a certain kind of failure you can only do once because you won't have a second opportunity. And so one of the things that is kind of an integral idea in Agile thinking is that we like to make
experimentation and failure inexpensive. And so one of the whole concepts of why we often encourage things like short sprints and scrum is the idea that we want you to feel free to experiment with your processes and to make mistakes. And I'm sure many of you out there have heard the fail fast thing we say all the time, right? And all of this comes out of this mindset of making failure affordable and learning part of the culture. And so all of that is very different than any of these kind of instruction-based follow a tool sheet, follow a standard methodology of Agile or something. None of that is really the right thinking according to the way the Agile Scrum people see the world.
Yeah, I agree. Any others that have crossed your path that you would call out?
You know, it's really hard to avoid the thousand pound gorilla here, which is safe, because safe has so dictated the tools and things that you just have to think through that. I don't want to get us off into scaling, because that's obviously another very large conversation of its own. I have come to think of safe this way. that scaled Agile is as Agile as many large companies can tolerate. Which is to say, it's not my favorite, but it is very prevalent out there. And so, you know, in some cases, you're not going to have a choice, right? Your company will have dictated a thing, whether it's safe or whether it's whatever it is. And just be aware that that decision is also reasonably tightly tied to these tools and things because... You know, you can get a really nice lightweight tool like say Trello, which is, you know, even free sometimes still. And that can be perfectly acceptable in, you know, nice small scrum team environments. But if you're going to do, you know, giant, you know, release train planning exercises, and you want the ability to put all this stuff into tools, then that will constrain you to a certain class of tools. Now it's a lot of them these days, but just be aware that how you choose to approach this and how heavy of a method you use. will also impact your tool choices.
Yeah, I agree. I don't want to get, I know we're not going to dive off into the pros and cons of safe, but the kind of picture in my head that I always think about with safe is it's kind of like one of those Swiss Army knives that has a million different blades and attachments and things in there. It's designed to solve any possible problem. that you could encounter in that arena. you know, just like when you use a Swiss Army knife, you don't open all of them up and say, all right, well, I got to try to use them all at once. You find the one that you need and you use that one. So I don't think it's a problem to have the choice to use these various things. And when I've talked to really, you know, lifelong, safe trainers that really are successful with this, I find a similar attitude from them that it's not intended for you to have to implement every component. It's intended for you to find the things that fix the problems that you're encountering and then implement those things. And if you start to encounter other new problems, well, there's other parts of the framework that you can implement then that will help solve those issues for you. And I think that's one of the mistakes people make with SAFe sometimes is that they just You know, they take the whole, it's all or nothing. And while Scrum does say, hey, you have to implement all of this or you don't get the benefits of it, SAFe, I don't believe says that. At least I haven't heard trainers say that who teach it. So, yeah, yeah.
It's more like a smorgasbord effectively, right? know, if you know different choices and maybe it's worth saying a word about why that is compared to because Scrum tries so hard to be a minimalist framework that it's sort of like saying, you know, I could choose not to eat vegetables and you know, that could be a good choice for me and the answer is no, that's not a good choice for you it turns out. You know, so Scrum, because it tries to tell you so little, it's basically telling you the stuff that is basically essential. You you just can't get along without it. So it's a super minimalist framework. Some of you, I'm sure, are familiar with what happened in the last version of the Scrum Guide, where, you know, typically, like with SAFe, when they add a new one, it gets bigger and bigger and bigger over time, right? And they add more and more details. And that's what people love about SAFe, right? You can go open up a page. and click on a keyword and open up another massive page of exactly how to do everything. And Scrum has taken the exact opposite philosophy to make it the most minimal framework they could. And they actually went from 18 pages to 13 pages in the last version of the Scrum Guide, taking all of the advice out, basically. And so we're just looking at two very different philosophies here. So Scrum is a minimalist framework. SAFe is the... I guess the Swiss army knife, if you will. I would like to say one comment about a Swiss army knife. I used to carry those many years ago, but essentially you have every tool in them and none of them are great, right? So every one of them is basically a tuned down version of the tool. So yeah, there's a corkscrew in there. It's not a very good corkscrew. And yes, there's a screwdriver in there. It's not a very good screwdriver.
So I think sometimes over time we start to learn that you should have the right tool for the right job and not try to get by with the Swiss Army.
Yeah, always whenever I saw, you know, whenever I would see a Swiss Army knife that would have the the kind of saw component of it, I always think, you know, it's it's it's it's, you know, two inches, three inches long. What kind of tree am I going to saw through?
you have to be desperate, right? This would be like, I'm cutting my parachute cord or something, but.
Right, exactly. Exactly. Well, I'll throw one more and then we'll we can call this. But there's one that I've heard that I just thought was I don't hear this as often, but I have started to hear it more. And that's just sort of it's kind of an attitude. It's this attitude of, hey, we're having a problem with and seems specifically around transparency. Right. The team is not being transparent. We're not having much transparency into how the work is going on. And so sometimes I've heard people kind of take this attitude of, well, you know, we're gonna implement this tool. And so by default, we're gonna increase our transparency, because now we're using this tool. And I would caution people on that as well, say that that's not true at all. You know, it's the old phrase we used in computers, you know, way, way back when I was in elementary school was garbage in garbage out. And I think that applies to our tools as well, you know. We can get greater transparency through a tool, but it takes the right input. It takes the right effort. And you could still have the attitude of, I'm going to obscure the way that the work is really happening and do that through any tool. So the tool itself, I don't think it's going to do that. The tool could help you with it, but you have to deliberately seek that out.
You know, I, it's such a mindset for me, this concept of things like transparency and how that relates to how we work as a team and swarming concepts and all these things kind of come together to make scrum a really an effective thing. And the problem sometimes is when you try to force things, it has the opposite effect. I'm, don't disagree with the scrum authors very often, but I very much do with what they did with the daily scrum, you know, and the daily scrum. used to have the three questions, And the three questions, you know, what did you do yesterday? What am I going to do today? You know, do I have any impediments? And then they made it longer. They added more words to it to try to clarify things, which was just more structure effectively. And then finally, in the last version of the Scrum Guide, they threw out the three questions. And I was really happy to see those go. because they sounded like a status report. And so guess what was happening to most organizations? They think of the Daily Scrum as a status report, which developers hate. And now as soon as there's this status call, then the managers are talking and they say, hey, did you hear there's a daily status call we can come to? And now they start coming to another meeting. And now you have completely destroyed the concept of this really simple meeting, which was effectively just to let team members coordinate their plans for the day. It's kind of a swarming based thing. And so it makes beautiful sense once you understand that, but it's misunderstood 90 % of the time because it just sounded like status.
Now, but hey, pass the plate, because I'm a member of that church. I agree with you on that wholeheartedly. I've always said that, you know, I think it's just one of the things I try to tell people to come through classes. Hey, Scrum Masters, if you don't remember anything else about these events, right? If you forget, you know, six months from now, what the exact time box is on something, I'm not as concerned with that. Make sure you understand the purpose of each one. Make sure that you embed that and print that in your memory. I know what each of these meetings is there for, why we are meeting in that situation. And if you know that, then I don't care about the format. The format will flow from that, but we're accomplishing this purpose and we're gonna figure out the best way to do it.
Yep, and we can even take that back to the tools and say, can make most tools work, right? As long as you get the freedom to use it as you, as a team, see fit. You know, one of the guys, the guy who created the kind of the opposite end of the spectrum scaling approach, Craig Larmann with LESS, he says, why do you need more than just a shared Google Doc to do everything? You know, why couldn't you just have your, you know, all your stuff up there in a spreadsheet and, know, good enough for what you needed to have visible and you can generate a few reports and maybe that's all you need and maybe you don't need a heavy tool. that, you know, so there's a spectrum of possibilities.
Yeah, I mean, when teams started out, there weren't any tools, and that's what everyone was using, was things like that. So, yes, it's entirely possible. Very cheap. And you don't have to be a big organization. You don't have to have a massive budget for software. can use the tools available to you and get by very well. Well, this has been great. I really appreciate you taking the time, Steve. I love this discussion, and I hope that...
For our listener who suggested this, that we kind of hit the nail on the head and gave you what you were hoping for in this one. But yeah, when it comes to Agile tools, Agile should drive the tool, not the other way around. The tool shouldn't drive how you do Agile. And I think that's kind of where I would sum it up. Any last thoughts?
So if I was going to quote Craig Larvin one more time here, less is more sometimes. And so the concept of minimalism and being more about how you and your team work together and how your meetings work and how you respect each other and how you learn how to work effectively together, way more important than your tools. ideally, let your approaches dictate the tool. Try not to let the tool dictate your approaches.
Awesome, yeah, completely agree. If you've been listening to Steve and feel like, I really clicked with that guy, I really resonate with the ways he's speaking on this stuff, I encourage you check out his course schedule. You can find that at the Scrum Alliance website and see what courses he's teaching and sign up for one. Because as I said, Steve's an excellent instructor. So Steve, thank you so much for coming on the podcast.
Thanks, Brian. It's been a pleasure to be here with you.
