Просмотр новости
Найдите то, что Вас интересует
Спутники
РН
SpaceX
Роскосмос
NASA
СпутникиРНSpaceXРоскосмосNASA
Image
Scrum has too many meetings. I have heard that sentence in training rooms since 2010 and for years I argued with it. Now I do the arithmetic on the whiteboard instead, because the Scrum Guide caps its own events and the cap is far below what anyone in the room guesses.Add up the limits as written. Sprint Planning is "timeboxed to a maximum of eight hours for a one-month Sprint," with four hours for the Sprint Review and three for the Retrospective. A Daily Scrum is "a 15-minute event," and it needs no slot of its own on the day Sprint Planning already has the team in a room. Nineteen of twenty working days comes to just under five hours. Twenty hours in total, near enough, against roughly 160 hours in a working month.That is an eighth of the month, or a shade under five hours a week, and every figure is a ceiling rather than a target.The current Scrum Guide treats Product Backlog refinement as ongoing work rather than a timeboxed event, which puts it outside that total. So the weekly refinement session many teams run is not counted above. The Scrum Guide Expansion Pack, which I co-authored, promotes Refinement into the list of Scrum Events and names it a key element, while still leaving the formal session optional rather than timeboxed. Older guidance did put a number on it. The 2017 Guide suggested refinement "usually consumes no more than 10% of the capacity of the Development Team," which is about sixteen hours a month.Those hours are not purely additive. A properly refined backlog halves Sprint Planning in my experience, because the team stops discovering what the work is while trying to plan it. Credit that back and refinement costs nearer twelve net hours a month, which puts the all-in figure at roughly eight hours a week.That is a figure worth arguing about. Set it against Atlassian's survey of 5,000 knowledge workers, where 78 percent say they are expected to attend so many meetings that it is hard to get their work done. Counted generously, with refinement folded in, Scrum asks for eight of those hours. The rest arrived from somewhere else and kept the name.Talking Is What Makes Complex Work PossibleThe reason the events exist at all comes from complexity theory rather than project management. Alicia Juarrero's work on constraints, which Dave Snowden credits as the scaffolding for Cynefin, separates two kinds. Governing constraints are the ones where "laws, rules, and codes create governing constraints," and they "give a sense of stability but are sensitive to change." Enabling constraints work differently, because "heuristics and principles, on the other side, provide guidance while allowing for distributed decision-making."Cynefin maps these onto the kind of situation you are in. Rigid constraints suit the clear domain, governing constraints suit the complicated domain, and enabling constraints belong to the complex one. These are not the constraints of Theory of Constraints, which is a different idea wearing the same word.Product development sits in the complex domain, where nobody can specify the answer up front and the work is discovered by doing it. Interaction is how a group in that position finds anything out. The events were written as enabling constraints: a rhythm for adapting, holding just enough shape that distributed decisions stay pointed in one direction.Two Different Things Wearing One NameThe contradiction people reach for is real as an experience and wrong as a diagnosis, which makes it a category error rather than a paradox. Interaction and meetings are not the same thing. A meeting is one container for interaction, and for complex work it is frequently the worst one available.The swap happens quietly. An event written as an enabling constraint becomes a governing one the moment attendance turns into the point and the output turns into a status report. Nothing on the calendar registers the change. The slot keeps its name, its half hour and its invitation list, and its function inverts.Evidence that this is widespread sits in the same Atlassian survey. There, 77 percent of workers say they are "frequently in meetings that end in a decision to schedule a follow-up meeting." A meeting that ends that way left the space of possible next actions exactly as it found it. That is vendor research and the page carries no fieldwork date, so hold the exact figure loosely. Halve it and the pattern is still everywhere.Removing Meetings Made Communication BetterIf meetings and communication were the same thing, cutting meetings would cut communication. Researchers at MIT Sloan Management Review studied 76 companies of more than 1,000 employees each, spread across more than fifty countries. All of them had introduced one to five meeting-free days a week over the previous year. Most had settled on two days, with 47 percent running that pattern and another 35 percent going to three.Employees reported improvements in autonomy, communication, engagement and satisfaction, alongside falls in stress and micromanagement. Communication went up when the meetings went away. These are pulse surveys and manager interviews rather than instrumented measurement, so read them as perception. Perception is what people are complaining about anyway.The Sentence I Stopped DefendingSome of what people describe is Scrum done badly, and a trainer who answers every complaint with "that was not real Scrum" has stopped being useful. I have made that move and it deserves the eye-roll it gets.The part I find harder to wave away is one sentence in the Guide. It claims Daily Scrums "improve communications, identify impediments, promote quick decision-making, and consequently eliminate the need for other meetings." Sixteen years in, that is the least honored line in the document. The event was supposed to remove meetings from the week and it is now widely experienced as one more of them, which stopped being the teams' fault a long time ago.Putting the Constraint BackThe theory hands you a test worth running after every recurring meeting, which is to ask what became possible that was not possible before it. If the only result is that people now know something, that was a broadcast, and writing carries a broadcast more cheaply than eight calendars do.Trimming is the wrong instrument, because shortening everything by ten minutes changes the texture of a week without changing its shape. The companies in the MIT study cleared whole days instead, and nearly half of them settled on two.The harder change is designing what remains for disagreement rather than agreement. In Snowden's Ritual Dissent the presenter turns their chair so their back is to the group, then listens in silence while the group attacks the idea or improves it. Silence does real work there, since "listening in silence without eye contact increases listening quality" and being unable to rebut stops anyone explaining the criticism away. The reported result is that "plans that emerge from the process are more resilient than consensus-based techniques, while conflict increases the amount of information taken into account." Most meetings hunt for consensus, which quietly destroys the variety that made talking worth doing.The easiest of these changes is the follow-up reflex. A meeting drifting toward another meeting should end instead with a named owner, a decision and a date. That turns the slot back into an enabling constraint, because somebody can now act.The five hours of events Scrum asks for are the cheapest hours in your week, because they are the ones designed to change what happens next. Open the calendar and total everything else. That number is the actual complaint, and it was never Scrum's to answer for.Ralph Jocham is Europe's first Professional Scrum Trainer, co-author of "Professional Product Owner," and contributor to the Scrum Guide Expansion Pack. As an ICF ACC certified coach, he works with organizations to build Product Operating Models where strategic clarity, operational excellence, and adaptive learning create measurable competitive advantage. Learn more at effective agile.References[1] Schwaber, K. and Sutherland, J. 'The Scrum Guide', current edition. Source of all four event timeboxes verbatim (Sprint Planning eight hours, Sprint Review four, Sprint Retrospective three, Daily Scrum fifteen minutes) and of the claim that Daily Scrums "eliminate the need for other meetings." The totals in this article are computed from those maxima rather than quoted: nineteen and three quarter hours per one-month Sprint, treating the Sprint Planning day as not needing a separate Daily Scrum, which is a shade under five hours a week. Available at: https://scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html[2] 'Constraints', Cynefin.io wiki. Source of the governing and enabling constraint definitions verbatim, the attribution of the underlying theory to Juarrero (1999) as "the scaffolding for Cynefin," the mapping of constraint types to Cynefin domains, and the explicit warning that Cynefin constraints differ from Theory of Constraints. Available at: https://cynefin.io/wiki/Constraints[3] 'Ritual dissent', Cynefin.io wiki. Source of the method description, the turned chair, the silent-listening rationale, and the resilience and information quotations. Available at: https://cynefin.io/wiki/Ritual_dissent[4] Laker, B., Pereira, V., Budhwar, P. and Malik, A. (2022) 'The Surprising Impact of Meeting-Free Days', MIT Sloan Management Review, 18 January. Verified from the primary: 76 companies of over 1,000 employees across 50+ countries, one to five meeting-free days over twelve months, 47 percent on two days and 35 percent on three, and reported improvements in autonomy, communication, engagement and satisfaction with decreases in stress and micromanagement. NOTE: the precise percentage gains widely quoted for this study (45 percent communication, 71 or 73 percent productivity) appear only in secondary retellings and could not be confirmed against the primary article, so they are deliberately not used here. Method is pulse surveys and interviews, not instrumented measurement. Available at: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-surprising-impact-of-meeting-free-days/[5] 'Scrum on One Page', Scrum Guide Expansion Pack, version 2026.1. Refinement is listed under Scrum Events and described as "Clarify upcoming or selected work, formally (as an optional event) or informally", with the four timeboxed events (Sprint Planning, Daily Scrum, Sprint Review, Sprint Retrospective) enumerated separately. The companion Scrum Guide Expanded adds that "Refinement is an activity. It may be formal (an additional event) (in the SGEP it is a key element) or informal." Both checked; neither uses the words mandatory, must or required for Refinement. Available at: https://scrumexpansion.org/scrum-on-one-page/[6] Schwaber, K. and Sutherland, J. (2017) 'The Scrum Guide', November 2017 edition. Source of "Refinement usually consumes no more than 10% of the capacity of the Development Team", verified verbatim. Used because the current Guide gives refinement no timebox, so the older guidance is the only published figure for it. Available at: https://scrumguides.org/scrum-guide-2017.html[7] Atlassian, 'Workplace Woes: Meetings'. Source of the 78 percent and the 77 percent follow-up-meeting figures. Vendor research across 5,000 knowledge workers on four continents; the page carries no fieldwork date or detailed methodology, and the article flags it as such. Available at: https://www.atlassian.com/blog/workplace-woes-meetings
| # | Наименование новости | Тональность | Информативность | Дата публикации |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Your Sprint Has Fewer Hours Than You Think: Sprint Capacity in the Age of AI Agents | 0 | 14.09 | 30-09-2026 |
| 2 | AI Changed the Bottleneck. Your WIP Limits Should Change With It. | 0 | 10.22 | 08-09-2026 |
| 3 | Reordering Your Backlog Is Zero Sum. Deleting From It Is Not. | 0 | 9.38 | 13-09-2026 |
| 4 | Scrum's Protocol Is Easy to Copy. Its Agenda Is Not. | 0 | 14.4 | 27-09-2026 |
| 5 | 5 Things the Product Owner Shouldn’t Be Doing | 0 | 16.4 | 29-09-2026 |
| 6 | ‘Batches’ in Scrum | 0 | 13.56 | 24-09-2026 |
| 7 | Your Scrum Team Might Be Excellent at Building the Wrong Thing | 0 | 13.28 | 27-09-2026 |
| 8 | Your Team Isn't Slow. Your Handoffs Are. | 0 | 8.51 | 22-09-2026 |
| 9 | Coffee and Scrum - is there a connection? | 0 | 5.3 | 14-09-2026 |
| 10 | The Real Meeting Happens in the Hallway | 0 | 7.52 | 15-09-2026 |