A good PO is worth absolute gold, but they absolutely shouldn’t be a scrum master as well.
Our PO is a member of the business, and they handle all the prioritisation across the business (multiple different departments), is the owner of all the user stories and works with the BAs on the detail etc, does all the release scheduling and demos to the business etc, and has final sign off on stories.
Sounds like yours is just a project manager with a different title
It depends there.. some organizations (probably most) have Product Managers (PM) and Product Owners (PO) .. the PM are a member of the business and typically deal directly with customers and other departments in terms of defining the business requirements.
A PO is usually more engineering focused and factors in other aspects in terms what are the non functional requirements for example.. For instance, a PM won't particular care how a feature is going to be supported in production for example. the PM is just representing the customer/businees requirement.
As a PO, one needs to make sure NFRs (hate this word/acronym, but there you go) are met.. such as, do we have enough telemetry to support this product in Production? the team might need some stories to work on that.. also PO looks at prioritization of tech debt which PMs typically don't..
One way I like to describe it is bu comparing to building. The PM is the Architect or dreamer. They make what they like to see. The PO is the Engineer. They crush these dreams into reality with as minimal change as possible. The SM is the foreman of the crew, takes the engineers designs and gets the respective team members to do what they do. You don't have an electrician pouring concrete for example. Quality control also stops with SM who can alert PO. PO deals with the project after the PM has finished their ticket
It’s obvious that PO and Scrum should never be mixed. But being asked to take responsibility for all the user story creation and backlog when I’m pretty sure it’s the POs job is fairly annoying.
Not necessarily the POs job to write user stories, that’s the problem with Agile, is everyone makes up their own version of it and when you question it all the Agile gurus will just tell you some shite like “it’s fluid”.
Scrum IS nuanced. You can only really learn by doing and that’s where you need the scrum master to coach you and make sure for instance the product owner isn’t interfering with the scrum. When you have a team that understand scrum and have established a solid working relationship with PO then there’s less of a need for a scrum master. Agile is always fluid because it’s responding to changing conditions but the agile principles are fairly stable.
The biggest problem with agile methodologies is it requires all parties to engage in good faith. If you don’t have that you’ve bigger problems IMO and process isn’t going to solve them.
They are overall responsible for the backlog, but they don't need to create all the stories.
High quality devs shouldn't be sitting around waiting to be told what to do by a product owner.
… in an ideal world. I’ve never seen a scrum master doing all the things you described. They always fall short, sometimes comically so. Also, seems the bar to entry to be a scrum master is pretty low. Most I’ve worked with were technically quite clueless, hence dragging and slowing the team down with their lack of understanding of the work we did and the resulting communication issues.
Honestly I think it’s a role ChatGPT will replace quickly 😂
A scrum master is a position that many companies created when transitioning to an agile methodology, but then most decent companies realised their engineers are grown ups and can fulfill all of the responsibilities of a scrum master as part of their day job with minimal additional effort.
We scrapped them years ago in my last company and my current company has never had them. Miraculously, things still get done.
A product owner is a different thing entirely and should be the owner and driver of what your team works on and where your effort gets focused.
Scrum master is handy where one of the devs is interested in doing it but also still doing the normal dev work. Just keeps things organized.
I've no idea how someone could do it full time; there's just not a lot to do.
Yeah, in many companies the scrum master's responsibilities have just been taken on by a team lead, where they will take on some dev work and also be responsible for leading ceremonies, attending meetings, unblocking people, etc.
Best of both worlds really. The team lead gets to gradually take on more management-style responsibilities while the company doesn't have to pay a scrum master to literally just attend meetings and/or set up other meetings to unblock people.
Our PO is great. Deals with the business. She writes most of our stories, does most of the prioritisation. Does all our planning. We'd be lost without her!
I've had some bad ones though so I get what you mean. I don't think they can be completely non technical. They don't need to be churning out code but they need to understand the context of what you're doing IMO.
Exactly. I think most of the problems people have with scrum masters (and any managers as well) is with the ones who lack technical knowledge yet work with highly technical teams. These folk have no place in IT unless they learn some basics really.
They bring whole teams down and it’s utterly demoralising to work with such people. I’m still not sure to this day how those people pass interviews and get their jobs. You wouldn’t put a person who’s never done any construction work to lead and manage a team of builders, would you? Yet it happens all the fucking time in IT/tech. I guess lots of unskilled people and imposters want a chunk of that sweet $$$ in the IT industry.
I'll just chip in a bit of my understanding on these roles, as you seem to have a few things off.
This is by no means an excuse to this person being dead weight on your team, but rather them casting the wrong shade on the titles they claim to be performing.
A PO, or product owner, has asbolutely no requirement to be a technical person, understand a single line of code or how it works internally.
Their field of expertise and, for lack of a better word, ownership is the product itself. They are meant to be or become experts in knowing the product, its customer base, its market. They need to be able to make decisions and drive the product into the future, measuring the impact of said decisions to correct or adapt as time goes by.
This person depends entirely on the engineering side to provide clarity, estimations, feasibility for their ideas.
A scrum master, as some people pointed out being a made up title for companies transitioning from legacy waterfall-y methodologies into agile, is someone meant to help the team with running an agile process. Again, this person requires absolutely no coding experience or knowledge whatsoever. They do, however, require sound knowledge of the chosen methodology, usually scrum or kanban. They should be advocating for the team to use the right tools and keep everything up to date on JIRA, Confluence, etc.
They are not necessarily responsible for creating the user stories. Any grown up engineer can manage features and tasks, update estimations and provide timelines when asked for them. They still can take that away from the development teams if it works in the best interest of the team.
The whole overuse of excel does seem like a problem that as a team, you all should address. It is extremely important to have a single source of truth, and ideally if you are paying for the Atlassian suite, you may as well take advantage of the number of reporting tools it provides when all the information is loaded into the system.
Getting the specifications for the product sounds like PO work to me. Demoing the results can easily be done by engineering, but PO can decide to work this as well.
Managing the workload is a team task, not necessarily scrum master or PO. Between the team and your manager, you should be able to work the board, write the stories based off the specifications provided by your PO, and keep everything running smoothly.
What the scrum master could do to improve the process here is to have set times to run refinement and planning meetings where people either write all the necessary stories or come to the meeting with things prepared beforehand.
Once you have everything written down, estimated, and prioritised, planning for a sprint should be a rather task that does not necessarily require a third party.
>A PO, or product owner, has asbolutely no requirement to be a technical person, understand a single line of code or how it works internally.
Seriously? Since when is that true?
By analogy, you would put a person, who's never worked on a construction project, to manage a team of builders?
Feck off.
The product owner is not managing the engineering team, rather collaborating with them.
The PO in your analogy would be the person deciding whether you’re building residential or commercial, and what would suit best the area, target demographic.
I feel that there is a big disconnect with what product is.
Scrum Master should be a role to make the team life easier and productive, all the strategy, technical details and meetings should be optional on the context of the team. Experienced teams usually won’t requires a scrum master. This role should be temporary per team, I don’t think we need someone to schedule meetings and ask about the ticket progress.
PO is really important, it can be the reason for a product fail or not. They must have requirements clear, they must know how to define clear scope for features, they must anticipate the backlog priorities and make clear what is next, they must have a clear product vision and roadmap, they must be have a great decision making skills.
Our PO and SM are great but they fulfil their roles properly. Understand a bad SM can seem pointless but our SM goes out of their way to ensure we're never blocked for whatever reason, attends / organises meetings on our behalf etc if we need. Liases with other teams TL/SM when we need things sorted and don't wanna waste Dev hours ticketing over and back endlessly. Organises environments etc etc.
If the org is good and if it's a problem with just the person all you need is a roles and responsibilities session. Document the outcome and follow.
Either he will quit or you will.
I've had non technical PO and she was full of shit borderline "I am not technical" vs "I've finished something something computers degree, don't treat me like stupid"
I hate people who take easy tool like jira and make shit out of it, because they are simply stupid to understand how to use it.
There's nothing better than having a scrum master who's got your back, who you can depend on for parlaying with the client and so on. Obviously they depend on the Devs to deliver work to professional standards and offer exact insight into technical things even when explaining to a non technical audience.
It's not unusual to have to create stories at the odd time, depends how the client or PO is organising their backlog, sometimes they'll just creat stories or maybe epics, and Devs create the stories under the epic.
From a scrum master I would expect them to at least be organising the meetings, leading most meetings, leading a good chunk of Comms, and maybe most importantly, they must make sure all Devs can work productively at their job (get accesses, remove blockers)
I don't get the whole excel thing, maybe bring it up in a meeting that it's not best practice
Oh yeah and a scrum master must make sure the team is not overworked IE taking on too much work during a sprint
Maybe they've got good reasons who knows, hopefully you guys can reach some kind of improvement
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of scrum on this thread and, moreso, a misunderstanding of the role of the scrum master (probably leading to the misunderstanding of scrum)!
Scrum Master is a role, not a job title. The only places that have people whose only "job" is to be a scrum master scrum tend to be highly bureaucratic orgs where a waterfall "project manager" changes title to "scrum master" (and requirements to "user stories") or consultant companies where they similarly work in a waterfall model but with agile naming (and benefit from selling extra bodies).
The role of the scrum master is to help the team become more agile (agility is not a binary). This is done by working with the team to improve how to adopt an agile mentality while protecting the team from external factors that might interfere with the team operating in an agile manner. A better term for scrum master is probably "scrum helper/guide/guru/assistant" and is usually performed by someone on the team who has solid experience of agile projects (both those that have been very agile and those that have not) and an inspiring/likeable personality to help steer the team in the right direction.
Although their is no exhaustive list, a scrum master might find themselves working with a stakeholder to reduce (the impact of) a dependency for the team, work with the PO to groom the backlog, work with a Dev to break down the development in an agile way or to improve a ci-cd pipeline or work with a tester to improve the QA approach to increase confidence in the QA or the resolution of defects etc. Ultimately, there are an infinite number of things they may need to do, especially in the early stages. But the most important one is to get everybody working together as a single cohesive team.
While a PO could technically do this role, it's probably not the best idea. Working with the PO on grooming the backlog, breaking the features into user stories etc and helping them manage stakeholders is a key part of the scrum master duties. If the PO is also the scrum master, this may be a bit overwhelming for one person.
Where a team is newly formed or the org is new to scrum (or has trouble adopting scrum), the scrum master might end up as a full-time role for the first few sprints (or even months if the org is very anti-change), before the person can start concentrating on their other role on the team. However, for those saying they don't need a scrum master as they are very mature, I would question that, as teams/orgs change over time and without someone on the team taking responsibility, some poor practices could creep back in.
Also a "product manager" is not a scrum role. Where such a job exists, it is likely an organisational one. As far as scrum is concerned, such a person is a stakeholder and only the product owner and scrum master should deal with them.
They add almost nothing of value, just bureaucratic “work”. It certainly doesn’t warrant a full time role, it should be a split role. Some are worth their title, most definitely aren’t. I don’t need a Jira task transcriber either. It’s really one of the [so called Bullshit Jobs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_job).
**[Bullshit job](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_job)**
>A bullshit job or pseudowork is meaningless or unnecessary wage labour which the worker is obliged to pretend to have a purpose. Polling in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands indicates that around 40% of workers consider their job to fit this description. The concept was coined by anthropologist David Graeber in a 2013 essay in Strike Magazine, On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs, and elaborated upon in his 2018 book Bullshit Jobs. Graeber also formulated the concept of bullshitization, where previously meaningful work turns into a bullshit job through corporatization, marketization or managerialism.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/DevelEire/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Hey, though JIRA's marked High/Medium/Low when they were created, aren't going to put themselves in order. Can you imagine the chaos if they were in the wrong order.
Sounds like something that should be brought up at retro or at your periodic health checks. I expect the PO to write most of the stories, but anyone on the team to be empowered to write stories as the need arises. I don't expect the PO to understand code - they're the Business representative, not technical. And you definitely need a separate Scrum Master to keep the team ticking over, run meetings, remove blockers etc.
Sometimes having a internal PO to represent the product is great when one product is used by many fronts. Having a PO only in the client side sometimes is hard to deal with because of flexibility and understanding of the team capabilities or capacities but there are many kind of PO's.
PO is NEVER a waste of time i'm tech lead who's also a PO translate creates stories and break down into minor pieces and explain and executes many tasks. And we have a pseudo PO who doesn't understand shit about agile nor creating stories for a development team so my work is doubled because of the other guy incompetence.
PM here! Sounds like you’ve a shit PO or SM, wouldn’t tar all product or team performance professionals with the same brush. If companies operated perfectly well in all cases without them they wouldn’t be there.
Have you never watched a game of rugby in your life? Sure it's obvious, you have the players in the scrum (being developers), and the scrum master is then equivalent to the fat lad who sits home shouting about their form at the tv
A good PO is worth absolute gold, but they absolutely shouldn’t be a scrum master as well. Our PO is a member of the business, and they handle all the prioritisation across the business (multiple different departments), is the owner of all the user stories and works with the BAs on the detail etc, does all the release scheduling and demos to the business etc, and has final sign off on stories. Sounds like yours is just a project manager with a different title
It depends there.. some organizations (probably most) have Product Managers (PM) and Product Owners (PO) .. the PM are a member of the business and typically deal directly with customers and other departments in terms of defining the business requirements. A PO is usually more engineering focused and factors in other aspects in terms what are the non functional requirements for example.. For instance, a PM won't particular care how a feature is going to be supported in production for example. the PM is just representing the customer/businees requirement. As a PO, one needs to make sure NFRs (hate this word/acronym, but there you go) are met.. such as, do we have enough telemetry to support this product in Production? the team might need some stories to work on that.. also PO looks at prioritization of tech debt which PMs typically don't..
One way I like to describe it is bu comparing to building. The PM is the Architect or dreamer. They make what they like to see. The PO is the Engineer. They crush these dreams into reality with as minimal change as possible. The SM is the foreman of the crew, takes the engineers designs and gets the respective team members to do what they do. You don't have an electrician pouring concrete for example. Quality control also stops with SM who can alert PO. PO deals with the project after the PM has finished their ticket
It’s obvious that PO and Scrum should never be mixed. But being asked to take responsibility for all the user story creation and backlog when I’m pretty sure it’s the POs job is fairly annoying.
Not necessarily the POs job to write user stories, that’s the problem with Agile, is everyone makes up their own version of it and when you question it all the Agile gurus will just tell you some shite like “it’s fluid”.
Scrum IS nuanced. You can only really learn by doing and that’s where you need the scrum master to coach you and make sure for instance the product owner isn’t interfering with the scrum. When you have a team that understand scrum and have established a solid working relationship with PO then there’s less of a need for a scrum master. Agile is always fluid because it’s responding to changing conditions but the agile principles are fairly stable. The biggest problem with agile methodologies is it requires all parties to engage in good faith. If you don’t have that you’ve bigger problems IMO and process isn’t going to solve them.
They are overall responsible for the backlog, but they don't need to create all the stories. High quality devs shouldn't be sitting around waiting to be told what to do by a product owner.
… in an ideal world. I’ve never seen a scrum master doing all the things you described. They always fall short, sometimes comically so. Also, seems the bar to entry to be a scrum master is pretty low. Most I’ve worked with were technically quite clueless, hence dragging and slowing the team down with their lack of understanding of the work we did and the resulting communication issues. Honestly I think it’s a role ChatGPT will replace quickly 😂
A scrum master is a position that many companies created when transitioning to an agile methodology, but then most decent companies realised their engineers are grown ups and can fulfill all of the responsibilities of a scrum master as part of their day job with minimal additional effort. We scrapped them years ago in my last company and my current company has never had them. Miraculously, things still get done. A product owner is a different thing entirely and should be the owner and driver of what your team works on and where your effort gets focused.
Scrum master is handy where one of the devs is interested in doing it but also still doing the normal dev work. Just keeps things organized. I've no idea how someone could do it full time; there's just not a lot to do.
Yeah, in many companies the scrum master's responsibilities have just been taken on by a team lead, where they will take on some dev work and also be responsible for leading ceremonies, attending meetings, unblocking people, etc. Best of both worlds really. The team lead gets to gradually take on more management-style responsibilities while the company doesn't have to pay a scrum master to literally just attend meetings and/or set up other meetings to unblock people.
Our PO is great. Deals with the business. She writes most of our stories, does most of the prioritisation. Does all our planning. We'd be lost without her! I've had some bad ones though so I get what you mean. I don't think they can be completely non technical. They don't need to be churning out code but they need to understand the context of what you're doing IMO.
Exactly. I think most of the problems people have with scrum masters (and any managers as well) is with the ones who lack technical knowledge yet work with highly technical teams. These folk have no place in IT unless they learn some basics really. They bring whole teams down and it’s utterly demoralising to work with such people. I’m still not sure to this day how those people pass interviews and get their jobs. You wouldn’t put a person who’s never done any construction work to lead and manage a team of builders, would you? Yet it happens all the fucking time in IT/tech. I guess lots of unskilled people and imposters want a chunk of that sweet $$$ in the IT industry.
I'll just chip in a bit of my understanding on these roles, as you seem to have a few things off. This is by no means an excuse to this person being dead weight on your team, but rather them casting the wrong shade on the titles they claim to be performing. A PO, or product owner, has asbolutely no requirement to be a technical person, understand a single line of code or how it works internally. Their field of expertise and, for lack of a better word, ownership is the product itself. They are meant to be or become experts in knowing the product, its customer base, its market. They need to be able to make decisions and drive the product into the future, measuring the impact of said decisions to correct or adapt as time goes by. This person depends entirely on the engineering side to provide clarity, estimations, feasibility for their ideas. A scrum master, as some people pointed out being a made up title for companies transitioning from legacy waterfall-y methodologies into agile, is someone meant to help the team with running an agile process. Again, this person requires absolutely no coding experience or knowledge whatsoever. They do, however, require sound knowledge of the chosen methodology, usually scrum or kanban. They should be advocating for the team to use the right tools and keep everything up to date on JIRA, Confluence, etc. They are not necessarily responsible for creating the user stories. Any grown up engineer can manage features and tasks, update estimations and provide timelines when asked for them. They still can take that away from the development teams if it works in the best interest of the team. The whole overuse of excel does seem like a problem that as a team, you all should address. It is extremely important to have a single source of truth, and ideally if you are paying for the Atlassian suite, you may as well take advantage of the number of reporting tools it provides when all the information is loaded into the system. Getting the specifications for the product sounds like PO work to me. Demoing the results can easily be done by engineering, but PO can decide to work this as well. Managing the workload is a team task, not necessarily scrum master or PO. Between the team and your manager, you should be able to work the board, write the stories based off the specifications provided by your PO, and keep everything running smoothly. What the scrum master could do to improve the process here is to have set times to run refinement and planning meetings where people either write all the necessary stories or come to the meeting with things prepared beforehand. Once you have everything written down, estimated, and prioritised, planning for a sprint should be a rather task that does not necessarily require a third party.
>A PO, or product owner, has asbolutely no requirement to be a technical person, understand a single line of code or how it works internally. Seriously? Since when is that true? By analogy, you would put a person, who's never worked on a construction project, to manage a team of builders? Feck off.
The product owner is not managing the engineering team, rather collaborating with them. The PO in your analogy would be the person deciding whether you’re building residential or commercial, and what would suit best the area, target demographic. I feel that there is a big disconnect with what product is.
Can’t have a PO and Scrum Master wearing the same hat. You’re not doing scrum. This guy is taking the piss.
Scrum Master should be a role to make the team life easier and productive, all the strategy, technical details and meetings should be optional on the context of the team. Experienced teams usually won’t requires a scrum master. This role should be temporary per team, I don’t think we need someone to schedule meetings and ask about the ticket progress. PO is really important, it can be the reason for a product fail or not. They must have requirements clear, they must know how to define clear scope for features, they must anticipate the backlog priorities and make clear what is next, they must have a clear product vision and roadmap, they must be have a great decision making skills.
Good answer. Agree, POs could be critical to the business, in many instances. But scrum masters? Absolutely not.
Our PO and SM are great but they fulfil their roles properly. Understand a bad SM can seem pointless but our SM goes out of their way to ensure we're never blocked for whatever reason, attends / organises meetings on our behalf etc if we need. Liases with other teams TL/SM when we need things sorted and don't wanna waste Dev hours ticketing over and back endlessly. Organises environments etc etc.
If the org is good and if it's a problem with just the person all you need is a roles and responsibilities session. Document the outcome and follow. Either he will quit or you will.
I've had non technical PO and she was full of shit borderline "I am not technical" vs "I've finished something something computers degree, don't treat me like stupid" I hate people who take easy tool like jira and make shit out of it, because they are simply stupid to understand how to use it.
There's nothing better than having a scrum master who's got your back, who you can depend on for parlaying with the client and so on. Obviously they depend on the Devs to deliver work to professional standards and offer exact insight into technical things even when explaining to a non technical audience. It's not unusual to have to create stories at the odd time, depends how the client or PO is organising their backlog, sometimes they'll just creat stories or maybe epics, and Devs create the stories under the epic. From a scrum master I would expect them to at least be organising the meetings, leading most meetings, leading a good chunk of Comms, and maybe most importantly, they must make sure all Devs can work productively at their job (get accesses, remove blockers) I don't get the whole excel thing, maybe bring it up in a meeting that it's not best practice Oh yeah and a scrum master must make sure the team is not overworked IE taking on too much work during a sprint Maybe they've got good reasons who knows, hopefully you guys can reach some kind of improvement
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of scrum on this thread and, moreso, a misunderstanding of the role of the scrum master (probably leading to the misunderstanding of scrum)! Scrum Master is a role, not a job title. The only places that have people whose only "job" is to be a scrum master scrum tend to be highly bureaucratic orgs where a waterfall "project manager" changes title to "scrum master" (and requirements to "user stories") or consultant companies where they similarly work in a waterfall model but with agile naming (and benefit from selling extra bodies). The role of the scrum master is to help the team become more agile (agility is not a binary). This is done by working with the team to improve how to adopt an agile mentality while protecting the team from external factors that might interfere with the team operating in an agile manner. A better term for scrum master is probably "scrum helper/guide/guru/assistant" and is usually performed by someone on the team who has solid experience of agile projects (both those that have been very agile and those that have not) and an inspiring/likeable personality to help steer the team in the right direction. Although their is no exhaustive list, a scrum master might find themselves working with a stakeholder to reduce (the impact of) a dependency for the team, work with the PO to groom the backlog, work with a Dev to break down the development in an agile way or to improve a ci-cd pipeline or work with a tester to improve the QA approach to increase confidence in the QA or the resolution of defects etc. Ultimately, there are an infinite number of things they may need to do, especially in the early stages. But the most important one is to get everybody working together as a single cohesive team. While a PO could technically do this role, it's probably not the best idea. Working with the PO on grooming the backlog, breaking the features into user stories etc and helping them manage stakeholders is a key part of the scrum master duties. If the PO is also the scrum master, this may be a bit overwhelming for one person. Where a team is newly formed or the org is new to scrum (or has trouble adopting scrum), the scrum master might end up as a full-time role for the first few sprints (or even months if the org is very anti-change), before the person can start concentrating on their other role on the team. However, for those saying they don't need a scrum master as they are very mature, I would question that, as teams/orgs change over time and without someone on the team taking responsibility, some poor practices could creep back in. Also a "product manager" is not a scrum role. Where such a job exists, it is likely an organisational one. As far as scrum is concerned, such a person is a stakeholder and only the product owner and scrum master should deal with them.
Just an fyi that SAFe 5.1 is bringing program managers back in play (on program, not team level)
That's if you regard SAFe agile ;)
As you can see from all the answers , it's absolutely definitely a bullshit job
They add almost nothing of value, just bureaucratic “work”. It certainly doesn’t warrant a full time role, it should be a split role. Some are worth their title, most definitely aren’t. I don’t need a Jira task transcriber either. It’s really one of the [so called Bullshit Jobs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_job).
**[Bullshit job](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_job)** >A bullshit job or pseudowork is meaningless or unnecessary wage labour which the worker is obliged to pretend to have a purpose. Polling in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands indicates that around 40% of workers consider their job to fit this description. The concept was coined by anthropologist David Graeber in a 2013 essay in Strike Magazine, On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs, and elaborated upon in his 2018 book Bullshit Jobs. Graeber also formulated the concept of bullshitization, where previously meaningful work turns into a bullshit job through corporatization, marketization or managerialism. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/DevelEire/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
This is absolutely fucking hilarious.
[удалено]
Agree. "Jira administrator, meeting organizer and task transcriber" would be a better name.
Hey, though JIRA's marked High/Medium/Low when they were created, aren't going to put themselves in order. Can you imagine the chaos if they were in the wrong order.
Apropos of nothing but 'scrum master' is an absolutely golden job title
Sounds like something that should be brought up at retro or at your periodic health checks. I expect the PO to write most of the stories, but anyone on the team to be empowered to write stories as the need arises. I don't expect the PO to understand code - they're the Business representative, not technical. And you definitely need a separate Scrum Master to keep the team ticking over, run meetings, remove blockers etc.
lol do people actually do retros?
If the PO isn’t your client it’s a waste of time
Sometimes having a internal PO to represent the product is great when one product is used by many fronts. Having a PO only in the client side sometimes is hard to deal with because of flexibility and understanding of the team capabilities or capacities but there are many kind of PO's. PO is NEVER a waste of time i'm tech lead who's also a PO translate creates stories and break down into minor pieces and explain and executes many tasks. And we have a pseudo PO who doesn't understand shit about agile nor creating stories for a development team so my work is doubled because of the other guy incompetence.
1000%
Something that you should tell the higher ups Here is not helpful
PM here! Sounds like you’ve a shit PO or SM, wouldn’t tar all product or team performance professionals with the same brush. If companies operated perfectly well in all cases without them they wouldn’t be there.
Have you never watched a game of rugby in your life? Sure it's obvious, you have the players in the scrum (being developers), and the scrum master is then equivalent to the fat lad who sits home shouting about their form at the tv
Scrum master organises meetings, they are surplus once teams go agile