- cross-posted to:
- programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
You must log in or # to comment.
I’ll take top right and bottom left please.
Damn, I’ve encountered all of these, and my current job features most of them.
My first helpdesk job had daily “standup” that often went for over an hour. We’d be sitting there getting chewed out by the owner about how we’re not getting enough done, while we can hear the phones ringing and angry voicemails from clients stacking up in the background. One of the worst jobs I ever had.
some people really seem to think that shitting on the ones who actually do the job solves anything
That guy was an egomaniac with a pathological need to be the smartest person in the room. Which was unfortunate for him, because although a competent technician, he was awful at running a business. Also he decided at some point that he knew enough about his craft in a field where everything is constantly changing.
More like Bing of Awful IT Practices!
I’ve added this comment effort to my time tracker in story points.
Ingo
I’m guilty of 1 hour standup.
if i fill every space, what do i win?
Return to office mandate and a slice of cold pizza.
Another row and column to make an actual bingo card
A BRAND NEW CAR (emoji) 🚗
Can’t I at least have a sticker?
Weekday drinking as a hobby.
Making a copy of a folder on the same drive is a “backup” 😝
What’s wrong with a time tracker? If you’re billing a client, you need to know how much time you spent on them. If you’re tracking internal projects, then it’s still worth knowing where your time is spent and if it might be better spent elsewhere. If it’s work hours that are tracked, then that’s a solution for ‘Unregistered overtime.’
I imagine this is a problem mostly for people who do all of their time tracker recording at the end of the week or month or whatever billing period they have. This requires a lot more thinking and time, and thus becomes a problem, compared to just filling it in at the end of the day.
Just a guess though.
I’ve a slight manageable case of ADHD and I tend to obsessively hyperfocus on tasks. It’s a good relationship because I get a lot of shit done well, and enjoy my work.
If you start forcing me to plan out my day every day, down to 15 minute increments, my productivity drops by around 60%, because I stop concentrating on getting shit done, and start working to rule. Not because I’m vindictive, but because that’s what you asked me to do.
Is that what people mean by time tracker?
I meant just writing down what you did and how long you worked on it during that day.
I’m quite lucky, I just have to basically fill in “8h” every day on the same project and then I’m finished. But other people are forced to be very detailed and it sucks.
When you work on the same thing for 8 hours a day for years and then suddenly management decides that they need “detailed time tracking.”
They just gave you a new job without additional compensation. New responsibilities, no new title, no raise, etc.
Then—months later—they realize that everyone’s spending at least half an hour, regularly to figure out how they’re spending their time. Some bean counter adds up how much that costs in real money and then—out of nowhere—management decides they don’t need detailed time tracking anymore.
I’ll offer a different explanation: After checking for a few months they realized that all’s good and that the tracking isn’t needed anymore.
So they got their feelings satisfied with only a major annoyance to everyone and about a month of work wasted among everyone.
What’s wrong with a time tracker?
I’ve worked in once place where I was support (no projects, all work came from and was tracked in tickets). Since everyone had to use the time tracking system anyway, I had to enter 8 hours every day. I was salaried, so no OT or docked pay for time off; I entered the same 5x8 every week, regardless of what or when I worked that week. Pointless.
Another time, I was subcontracting and had to enter time for the same projects for both my employer and the company that hired us. My employer wanted time submitted twice a month, and the hiring company demanded weekly. Tedious.
Two of these three companies were irrationally anal about pre-filling the time sheets, even when the hours were well planned or functionally irrelevant.
It’s good when you are involved on a single team, so you only have 1 ~1 hour standup to participate…
Worse than 1 hour standup and 4 hour planning:
1 hour daily standups and 30 minute planning meetings.
I’ve been on a team that consistently congratulated themselves on how fast and smooth planning is, when none of the stories would have acceptance criteria or real descriptions at the end of the meeting, and then we’d have to spend tons of extra time during daily standup actually figuring out wtf the work was
My project is doing 12 of those. Guess who has another job interview round next Friday?
You’re getting job interviews?
Rarely, but it happens.
But I can’t shake off the feeling that in most cases recruiters completely misunderstood or misrepresented requirements for the position to get me to the technical interview stage. Like scheduling me for an interview with a team heavy with functional, big data processing while I barely have any purely functional experience.
Non-technical people doing recruitment work is a scam.
For my team it’s been “oh your out of work? Let’s just pull in another card for you from the backlog”
And then they get pissy when the burn down chart looks like a camel, finishing at the same place we started.
This is a dream job!
I mean, nightmares are dreams, too.
Story points = hours just makes sense though. Even if your team doesn’t do it, then everyone will do it in their head anyway. Especially management. But everyone will have a different formula so you start arguing about how many story points something is. Just do it in the open.
In the “right” use case, story points should just represent relative effort.
The hours dont matter, its more about ranking how challenging a task is, in order to help the manager rank the priority of tasks.
You should have typically 2~3 metrics:
-
Points, which represent relative effort of the task to the other tasks you are also ranking.
-
Value, how much value does doing this task provide, how important is it
-
Risk, how risky is it that this might break shit though if you make these changes (IE new features typically are low risk since they just add stuff, but if you have to modify old stuff now your risk goes up)
If you have a good integration testing system automated, Risk can be mostly removed since you can just rely on your testing framework to catch if something is gonna explode.
Then your manager can use a formula with these values to basically rank a priority order for every ticket you now scored, in order to assess what the next thing is that is best to focus on.
-
Story points are evil because they were intended to help teams set achievable goals but are almost never used as such. Once a manager catches wind of this practice, they will bastardize it into a pile of shit most high. Scrum doesn’t prescribe this practice so ditch it. Reject it and move to something only the team members will understand. If you move to relative animal sizes or some shit and you meet your goals, managers can fuck right off.
Maybe you need to find a job with better management…
The point is that if story points=hours, you should just fucking use hours from the beginning.
Any extra points for hitting the “Finished the feature?” square three times for the same feature?
