The Daily Standup Trap


The 15 minute daily standup, or daily scrum, is one of the more widely adopted artifacts of the iterative software movement. Even companies who only dip their toe into Agile practices typically adopt this since it seems so easy to do.
scrumology.net trap

  1. What did you do yesterday?
  2. What will you do today?
  3. What is blocking progress?

While you can certainly take these questions and use them as the basis for your daily standup, you may be surprised at how your team actually responds to them. Some may find these questions laughable and not take them seriously. Some may become defensive, even if they have no reason to be. Some may clam up and provide almost no detail at all, while others ramble on about every minute of their day.

These issues can be addressed in 1-on-1 conversations and in retrospectives of course, however I wanted to provide a bit of insight into people focused and story focused facilitation techniques.

The people focused approach is generally where teams new to agile begin. This format is rather simple to remember since you basically go around the room and have each team member answer these three questions. At first the facilitator may ask each team member individually, or simply state these questions at the beginning. Either way the questions themselves become unspoken because let’s face it, no one wants to hear them asked repeatedly every morning.

If you find that the team becomes defensive or eventually grows tired of this format, then you may want to try a more story focused approach. Instead of going around the room asking the three questions, speak to the User Stories and Tasks on the wall. Start off by asking the team as a whole, Can someone update the team on where we are with this User Story? Chances are team members who have been working on the stories and tasks will chime in. Make sure they are speaking to everyone, and not communicating to you as if they are delivering a status report.

If you sense that impediments are unstated, ask questions like Anything else? or mention specific oddities in regards to a story or task. For example, if you notice a task estimate has increased or decreased greatly overnight, give the team a chance to address it before speaking up. When asking the question, do not carry an accusatory tone, but merely try to get an understanding of whether or not this adversely impacts your end of iteration commitment. The standup isn’t the time to perform an in-depth root cause analysis on the issue. Depending on its severity, you can have a separate discussion right after the standup with a smaller group or address it in the retrospective.

Remember, don’t be discouraged if your team is reluctant to embrace the daily standup with open arms right away. Keep an open mind, be patient, and feel free to switch up your facilitation techniques!

, ,

  1. #1 by ginomarckx on April 21, 2010 - 8:00 am

    The format of the standup is what it is for a very good reason. In my humble opinion, if Scrum is good for only one thing, it is for making issues visible, issues with the process, issues with the product and issues with all stakeholders. Allowing team members not to give a status update is allowing potential problems to be hidden again (e.g. team member is working on something outside of the team's commitment). I agree that taking on a judging attitude is counter-productive, but if issues like these are visible, they can at least be addressed in retrospectives.
    Shifting to a facilitator to ensure all necessary things have been discussed also takes the responsibility away from the team and will slow down the process of becoming self-organizing. Another way of doing this is to let a token go round, like a talking stick, it puts control back in the team's hands. The task of the facilitator is then reduced to ensuring that everybody's reminded of the format, without any judgement.

  2. #2 by Max Keeler on April 21, 2010 - 8:53 am

    Astute observations, David. We've tried both techniques and as you mentioned, it really depends on the team. I've been encouraging a new approach lately that emphasizes “what's the plan for today? Does it differ from our original plan? Should we change our plan?”. Of course, all this assumes you HAVE a plan in the first place, but more and more I'm finding that having a plan is a critical part of Scrum.

  3. #3 by Sameer Bendre on April 21, 2010 - 8:54 am

    Great post, David. I like how you get across the point in pretty concise format – I don't have to read pages and pages. And very much agree that one single method can become a boring routine. Great suggestion for the alternative “elicitation” technique. It definitely helps answer the same questions, without putting someone in spot. It may be a (little bit of) challenge for the SM to track the details, but worth a try.

  4. #4 by David J Bland on April 21, 2010 - 11:15 am

    Good point about the token, as I did not mention that technique. I've also worked with teams that rotate the facilitation between team members to mix it up.

  5. #5 by David J Bland on April 21, 2010 - 11:19 am

    Max,

    It does depend on the team, and over time you may see that teams go back and forth between story and people focused.

    While I didn't deep dive into teams on this post, I've found that using the 3 Q's works well with Distributed teams. It gives us order, and people may just start talking over one another on the phone or video chat if you try a story focused approach.

    Collocated teams however, may get annoyed at times if you ask them what they did yesterday, especially if you sat in the team room with them all day.

    I like the plan approach, and I'll have to borrow that idea from you!

  6. #6 by David J Bland on April 21, 2010 - 11:20 am

    Thanks, I made it a point to keep this one short even though I rewrote it about 5 times :)

  7. #7 by ginomarckx on April 21, 2010 - 2:03 pm

    When only discussing the results, and not the effort, this annoyance is typically not present. Even with teams sharing the same physical space, the 'ceremony' of marking a task as done is motivating for everyone.
    Requirement to be able to do that is off course making sure that the tasks are sufficiently small to show progress on a daily basis.

  8. #8 by David J Bland on April 21, 2010 - 3:15 pm

    Good point about the token, as I did not mention that technique. I've also worked with teams that rotate the facilitation between team members to mix it up.

  9. #9 by David J Bland on April 21, 2010 - 3:19 pm

    Max,

    It does depend on the team, and over time you may see that teams go back and forth between story and people focused.

    While I didn't deep dive into teams on this post, I've found that using the 3 Q's works well with Distributed teams. It gives us order, and people may just start talking over one another on the phone or video chat if you try a story focused approach.

    Collocated teams however, may get annoyed at times if you ask them what they did yesterday, especially if you sat in the team room with them all day.

    I like the plan approach, and I'll have to borrow that idea from you!

  10. #10 by David J Bland on April 21, 2010 - 3:20 pm

    Thanks, I made it a point to keep this one short even though I rewrote it about 5 times :)

  11. #11 by ginomarckx on April 21, 2010 - 6:03 pm

    When only discussing the results, and not the effort, this annoyance is typically not present. Even with teams sharing the same physical space, the 'ceremony' of marking a task as done is motivating for everyone.
    Requirement to be able to do that is off course making sure that the tasks are sufficiently small to show progress on a daily basis.

  12. #12 by Prashant Pathak on July 14, 2010 - 12:42 pm

    Great post David ! I believe it really helps to be Story/task centric rather than people centric.

  13. #13 by Bachan on August 18, 2010 - 3:53 am

    Great post David, we precise and has lot of valuable information. I never thought about the virtual pairing , great idea.

    Another way to get distributed team engaged is to effectively communicate the vision and goal of the product to team members who are not co located with the PO. In my opinion this makes the team members align with the purpose and vision of the product.

(will not be published)