Nine Agile Antipatterns That Lead To Disaster
Agile antipatterns or scrum antipatterns are (poor) practices that are utilized to enhance a process. Nonetheless, they impede your efforts and slow your progress towards attaining Agile objectives, thereby achieving the opposite effect.
It is a disguised form of Agile Development that masquerades as a solution but creates negative outcomes that you may discover later. Therefore, retrospectives must be treated seriously so that the development team can identify potential issues with the current process (based on past errors) and implement improvements.
List of destructive agile antipatterns and how to avoid them
1. Miscommunication
The first principle of the Agile Manifesto is to prioritize people and interactions over processes and technologies. Nonetheless, organizations fail to implement this fundamental rule when developing software and instead operate in a somewhat mushroom-management environment. Agile antipatterns include scrum teams conducting daily stand-ups to comprehend the team’s progress.
In such a situation, it is essential to remember that the success of agile delivery depends on establishing strong relationships and trust among team members, which can ultimately lead to improved cooperation and collaboration.
Additionally, everyone must understand their duties and responsibilities within the team to avoid confusion and conflict in the future. For everyone to be on the same page regarding the project’s progress, it is crucial to have an effective tool or platform that can aid in project management, communication, and task allocation.
2. Unclear requirements and expanding scope creep
The Product Owner is primarily responsible for maintaining the product inventory and ensuring that it contains the appropriate items. Additionally, they communicate with the client to ensure that the requirements are captured accurately and communicated to the dedicated development team.
Nevertheless, the requirements are frequently ambiguous or incomplete, resulting in misunderstandings and ultimately a mismatched final product, loads of revisions, a delay in time to market, and technical debt.
To avoid this, the product owner must exhaustively discuss the requirements with the client and development team from the outset, so that everyone is on the same page. This will ensure that the final product satisfies the client’s requirements and prevent costly rework in the future. Moreover, expanding scope creep adds to the confusion and prolongs mismatched requirements and team frustration.
3. Scope stretching
Scope expansion is the act of extending the workload without justification and working on something unnecessary to begin with.
The agile team frequently extends its responsibilities unnecessarily. In the process of overextending themselves, they are observed deviating from the initially defined scope, resulting in inconsistencies and delays with the deliverables and, consequently, dissatisfied clients and customers. Most of the time, neither the product owner nor the scrum master is aware of the growing (unnecessary) burden that the team places on their shoulders.
After each sprint, the team must map the produced results to the underlying requirements. In addition, a constant communication channel must exist between the product owner and the Agile Development team so that everyone is aware of any changes or enhancements.
Lastly, the development team must adhere to the documented requirements; anything outside of this scope must be discussed beforehand with the relevant parties. By adhering to these rules, we can ensure that the product meets all requirements quickly and effectively.
4. Scrum master acts as team lead
The Scrum Master is accountable for ensuring that the entire team adheres to the Scrum methodology. The Scrum Master is not a team leader, but rather a servant leader.
The manager at Hexacta, Paulo Soto, makes a valid solid point in this article when he states, “Since Scrum is not prescriptive, neither should the Scrum Master be.”
How to avoid: The Scrum Master should not enforce anything without the consent of the Development Team. Instead, they should be a servant leader who serves the team without imposing their will.
5. Avoid conflicts and debates
Conflict is an inevitable aspect of team dynamics, and the Scrum Master is not exempt. Frequently, the Scrum Master is responsible for resolving team conflicts before they become unmanageable. This role can be challenging, but an Agile team needs to function effectively. The Scrum Master should receive training in conflict resolution to be better equipped to handle the inevitable problems that will arise.
By addressing conflicts head-on, the Scrum Master can contribute to the development of a more cohesive and efficient team.
Scrum Masters who dislike being challenged, on the other hand, should be instructed to provide more context when deciding on processes. This will increase the clarity of the decision and decrease the likelihood that the team will query it.
By supplying additional context, the Scrum Master enables greater comprehension of why a specific decision was made. In addition, this increased transparency can contribute to the development of trust between the Scrum Master and the team. This can ultimately result in more harmonious working relationships and improved team performance.
6. Frequently change sprint backlog
Once a Sprint has begun, the Sprint Backlog should not alter. Beforehand, the Product Owner and the Development Team will have selected the stories for the next Sprint, considering their priority and refinement level.
Even though Sprints have brief durations, stakeholders may want to add high-priority items to the Sprint Backlog in the middle of a Sprint. They submit their request to the Product Owner for this purpose. However, according to the Scrum Guide, only the Development Team can modify the Sprint Backlog. Consequently, the Product Owner must consult with the Development Team to conclude.
How to avoid: While requests in the Sprint Backlog may infrequently occur, they should not be the norm. If this occurs frequently, it indicates that something is amiss. Before a ticket enters the Sprint Backlog, the Product Owner should communicate frequently with stakeholders so they are aware of upcoming features and can provide timely feedback. The stakeholders should also be instructed to respect the Product Owner’s decisions and refrain from second-guessing them.
7. Retrospectives Don’t Fulfill Continuous Improvement Objectives
Retrospectives ought to conclude the Sprint. Its purpose is to facilitate inspection, one of the three pillars of Scrum, so that adaptation can follow (another pillar). The Retrospective should reveal ways to enhance team quality and effectiveness. To accomplish this, it is necessary to discuss tangible outcomes of the team’s working methods.
How to avoid: If your Retrospectives are not producing any results, your team may be avoiding discussing problem points. Perhaps team members lack the confidence to raise problematic issues in front of everyone. If this is the case, it is the Scrum Master’s responsibility to discover ways to create an environment where everyone can speak freely without fear of repercussions.
8. Scrum events not being done or being done erratically
Scrum prescribes five events: sprint planning, daily, review, and retrospective are all included in the sprint, the fifth event. The other events, besides the daily, should occur once per sprint, every sprint.
For the sake of saving time, it may be tempting for some teams to occasionally or even consistently omit them. However, these occasions are opportunities to inspect and modify work, and missing them would mean losing out on these chances.
How to Avoid: It is the responsibility of the Scrum Master to ensure that these events occur. It is also their responsibility to ensure that the team understands the significance of attending such events and regards them as an integral part of their work, not a waste of time.
9. Lack of sustainable pace
Before resolving the issues of the previous sprint, development teams are frequently under duress to move forward with the next user stories in line. However, this can frequently lead to problems in the future, as unresolved issues from previous sprints resurface in subsequent cycles. This pressure not only imposes an additional burden on the agile team but can also result in fatigue and decreased output.
Consequently, development teams must maintain a sustainable tempo and avoid attempting to do too much at once. A software development company can avoid these issues and maintain a healthy workflow by ensuring that each user story is delivered thoroughly before moving on to the next.
