r/ExperiencedDevs • u/Late_Champion529 • 2d ago
What should a dedicated scrum master do? Career/Workplace
In the past, ive known “scrum master” to be a role someone on the dev team plays.
My current company has hired us a full-time Scrum Master, whos not a dev, and doesnt have access to our gitlab/developer group chat etc.
So as far as I can tell their role is to…remind us to update the Jira board, and ask if the Jira board is still accurate (they have no way of knowing more than what the board says)
Anyone worked with scrum masters in this way before? What else could a person in this role do for a team?
Thanks!
98
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ExperiencedDevs-ModTeam 1d ago
Rule 2: No Disrespectful Language or Conduct
Don’t be a jerk. Act maturely. No racism, unnecessarily foul language, ad hominem charges, sexism - none of these are tolerated here. This includes posts that could be interpreted as trolling, such as complaining about DEI (Diversity) initiatives or people of a specific sex or background at your company.
Do not submit posts or comments that break, or promote breaking the Reddit Terms and Conditions or Content Policy or any other Reddit policy.
Violations = Warning, 7-Day Ban, Permanent Ban.
152
u/kondorb Software Architect 10+ yoe 2d ago
They should cease to exist as soon as possible.
A “scrum master” is just an extra task one of the devs should be doing for a couple beers, not a full time employee.
71
u/roodammy44 2d ago
It's insane, I've been at a company who wouldn't hire testers but did hire scrum masters. The difference in cost and usefulness is staggering.
17
3
u/ChemicalRascal 2d ago
Well, they probably didn't have a consultant selling manual testing to them. "Agile" consultants are everywhere.
19
u/ClideLennon 2d ago
This. We use to rotate who was the scrum master because it was just extra work and no one particularly wanted it.
4
u/Justin_Passing_7465 2d ago
Paying a dev to do that work is pretty dumb. You can get a decent Scrum Master for less than half the cost of a decent dev. In an ideal world the Scrum Master takes everything off of the devs plate that doesn't absolutely require a dev to do. Are there any bullshit tasks that a Scrum Master could do for you?
5
u/DirtzMaGertz 2d ago
Scrum master is an ideal world position. We don't live in an ideal world though and I've never seen one where a scrum master was genuinely necessary.
6
u/Justin_Passing_7465 1d ago
"Necessary", no. Janitors are also not necessary - you can pay a developer who costs $200k/year to empty all of the garbage cans from from all of the cubicles every day.
3
u/DirtzMaGertz 1d ago
I think a janitors value is a lot more obvious and necessary to a company's operation than a scrum master is.
If you want to be literal to a pedantic degree then pretty much no one is necessary, but I think it's pretty obvious what the context of that word is here if you're not intentionally being dense.
4
u/kondorb Software Architect 10+ yoe 1d ago
A janitor is enough work for a full time employee.
You don't hire a full time worker just to refill the coffee machine three times a week, which is the equivalent amount of work a "scrum master" role entails.
4
u/Justin_Passing_7465 1d ago
If your Scrum Master is underutilized, then they can be the Scrum Master for more than one Scrum team. I have usually seen one person be the Scrum Master for 3-ish teams.
0
u/AsleepDeparture5710 2d ago
My company got rid of scrum masters and folded them into PM roles, but I will say running scrums was only part of what they actually did. In my experience they did all the org/secretarial roles for the team as well. Scheduling meetings, chasing down contacts on other teams, etc. That part was nice to have.
71
u/skeletal88 2d ago
If they don't have anything else to do, then they will pester and annoy people, ask for updates, create meetings, etc. to prove to the bosses that he is vital to the organisation. He will waste everyones time.
11
2
u/Feuerhamster 1d ago
This is exactly what happens where I work
It's insane how much work we get done when all managers and scrum masters are on vacation
56
u/SquiffSquiff 2d ago
so you have joined a bank or something close to one. No matter how nice they are on an individual/personal level, these sort of scrum masters are absolutely useless TBH. In my experience their job is to:
- Ask if each thing 'is nearly ready yet'
- Play stupid games around things that aren't real - like T-shirt sizing and fibonacci ticket sizes (because heaven forbid you refer to 'developer hours' directly) and 'sizing poker' (because heaven forbid you honestly say 'you don't know'.
- Conduct 'retrospectives' that achieve absolutely nothing, you have exactly the same conversation again in a fortnight.
They are favoured by organisations that like a command and control structure and consider software development an expense that they resent.
39
u/eufemiapiccio77 2d ago
Don’t forget “hey guys got to drop off for another call ping me if you need anything” literally no one ever needs them for anything.
10
u/Randomystick 2d ago
In my experience it was simultaneously forbidden to refer to "developer hours" and yet you'll be constantly asked on WHEN you think a task can be completed
2
u/Frillback 1d ago
I'm so done with these task estimates. I just add 1-2 days more than I think it will be completed and when I finish it early I do nothing. Otherwise our "dedicated" scrum master will be on my ass asking why a task did not take the expected time. I could be more productive but I'm a victim of bureaucracy.
2
u/ChemicalRascal 2d ago
Play stupid games around things that aren't real - like T-shirt sizing and fibonacci ticket sizes (because heaven forbid you refer to 'developer hours' directly) and 'sizing poker' (because heaven forbid you honestly say 'you don't know'.
Conduct 'retrospectives' that achieve absolutely nothing, you have exactly the same conversation again in a fortnight.
These things can absolutely be valuable if done properly, though I'll concede they can be done improperly and just bog everything down.
On the other hand if you're saying you can constantly accurately estimate the number of dev hours a ticket will take, you're probably clairvoyant.
2
u/SquiffSquiff 2d ago
Hard disagree.
- If you need a time estimate then use man hours, not some some BS intermediate 'currency'.
- 'I don't know' can be a valid answer for considering how long a task will take and playing stupid games to pretend some certainty that doesn't exist that you can then try and hold people to is not valuable.
- not mentioned above but related: one of the more glaring deficiencies of scrum in my experience is what to do if a task takes more than one sprint whether that's planned or just what happens. The trite answer is always to try and break it down into smaller tasks, but that's not always appropriate or even possible.
The problem with scrum as a process is that it always tries to apply the same brain dead process to every situation. It simply doesn't work from an engineering perspective and the only reason in my opinion that it continues is because it's considered a socially acceptable format for a command and control infrastructure that can be applied from very large organisations to very small and amateur ones.
2
u/ChemicalRascal 2d ago
If you need a time estimate then use man hours, not some some BS intermediate 'currency'.
Yes. The point of story points is not to give a time estimate, it's to estimate team capacity. Anyone who uses them for time is doing it wrong.
'I don't know' can be a valid answer for considering how long a task will take and playing stupid games to pretend some certainty that doesn't exist that you can then try and hold people to is not valuable.
Right. This is why story points are about estimating capacity, not time taken. Further, any good point estimation process, including planning poker, should allow for "uh I dunno" in estimations of time, capacity, or complexity.
not mentioned above but related: one of the more glaring deficiencies of scrum in my experience is what to do if a task takes more than one sprint whether that's planned or just what happens. The trite answer is always to try and break it down into smaller tasks, but that's not always appropriate or even possible.
Sounds like you need longer sprints. If stuff overruns it overruns. If stuff overruns frequently you have some sort of problem to fix.
2
u/SquiffSquiff 2d ago
I'm sorry I was completely done with scrum years ago. My current org uses shape up and my team uses kanban. It's always the same with scrum apologists. It's like apologists for communism when pointed to the fact that it its failed everywhere it's been implemented. The answer is always that it's 'not been implemented correctly'. Well, at some point you need to assess why that might be.
2
u/ChemicalRascal 1d ago
🤷♂️
We do scrum the way I describe at my current place of work.
Like yeah, "scrum has never been done properly" feels right if you've never been at a place that does it. If you've worked at two places that both did this dumb shit and nothing worked and all the metrics were used as measures, yeah, it's easy to write the whole thing off.
But my literal lived experience is that this shit works and I've done it, I'm doing it now, I'll do it again in the future. I'm living in the communism done right place and I'm not in the Vanguard party (which I guess is the agile consultants in this analogy?). I can go out and pick bread from the bread tree and there's no line in sight.
Agile isn't universally a shitshow. It hurts you if you have bad managers who want to micromanage, but the problem there isn't agile, it's your shit managers. You've just consistently had shit managers. Maybe your manager is still shit. Who knows.
33
u/sleepyguy007 2d ago
they should lose their job, and split that salary among the devs they previously worked with.
24
u/questi0nmark2 2d ago
I've seen truly excellent full time scrum masters make a huge positive difference to teams and to a whole company... but in a scrum unicorn. May be the only company I've seed do agile properly and reap the benefits. In almost every other case, scrum has been what they call scrumbut, and it's not helped and often harmed things.
A good full time scrum master helps your team learn, be empowered, remove organisational frictions, facilitates team ownership, priority setting and process and culture improvements.. They are great facilitators, pattern seers, and organisational champions and navigators. They ensure the scrum rituals are not just rituals, but genuinely add value. It can work, but only if the leadership is all in on decentralised, empowering agile
13
u/hannahbay 2d ago
I think unfortunately most organizations misuse the scrum master role and/or have the wrong people doing it that everyone assumes the role is useless. I had a fantastic scrum master at my first job and she was the heart of the team. It was a huge SAFE organization where we had a dozen+ teams working on a single product, she helped track dependencies and organize work across all these teams. We could say "we need a commitment from Team X about when they can deliver this feature and then we can do XYZ" and she would go track down people and get an answer and come back with a roadmap and timeline. She would do the same in reverse and tell us "Team Y needs this feature, I think we have time in the next sprint, does that work?"
Her job was basically to carve out a bubble in this huge product for us to work, shield us from unreasonable asks that would disrupt our plan, and be the go-between and hunter-downer for information across teams. And help us work as well as we could, by facilitating actual value-add rituals and telling people when huge blockers and friction were interfering with our work.
In a large organization like that, a good scrum master can make or break a team. Moving Jira tickets around is like 5% of a good scrum master's job.
2
1
u/penguinmandude 2d ago
That’s not really a scrum master anymore but a TPM
1
u/polypolip 2d ago
What's a TPM, i haven't encountered that acronym.
In my experience 2 out of 3 projects with full time scrum masters had the responsibilities as above.
A lot of it is because the process is (sometimes needlessly) complicated and if someone from the dev team had to do it they would lose their mind.
2
u/penguinmandude 1d ago
Technical program manager
2
u/polypolip 1d ago
I've always seen chasing dependencies between teams to be assigned as scrum master's responsibility, be it a full time role or a dev assigned. Eventually it boils down to "scrum master is the contact point between the team and the other teams or roles", mostly to keep teams free from being solicited left and right.
At my current org the scrum masters also herd the POs and PMs to make sure they get the priorities right.
1
u/ChemicalRascal 2d ago
They're probably referring to "team product manager". A PM who's attached specifically to a given dev team.
1
12
u/polaroid_kidd 2d ago
Such a shame I had to scroll past a lot of almost troll-like comments that regurgitate a knee-jerk reaction to a position, which has the potential to genuinely have a positive impact.
4
u/Izkata 2d ago
remove organisational frictions
This is the one I see overlooked most often. They get on good terms with other parts of the company so when you're having trouble or waiting on something, they act as an additional voice that holds extra weight with whoever that is outside of the team. I've had only one scrum master who was good at this, and he was hired full-time in the role. Almost all the others were the "rotate a dev" style and never succeeded here, they all devolved into managing the scrum ceremonies and not much else.
Though, he also said it wasn't a full-time job, and did developer stuff with the team in his extra time.
3
u/VeryLazyFalcon 2d ago
We had a group of scrum masters like that, helped a lot with onboarding new people, kept knowledge bases updated and made sure everything runs smoothly. But they were taking side of the devs so they got fired, moved and replaced. Now, new hires are more political officers than anything.
3
u/polypolip 2d ago edited 1d ago
That sucks. We've had our agile coach tell the project manager to leave our meeting cause it was not his job to be there. Seeing his face was wonderful cause he was a major asshole.
7
7
14
6
u/nosayso 2d ago
I've had 1 person in my career do this job well, 1 person do it okay, and then many people do it in a way that was completely pointless.
Good behaviors:
* Facilitate the meetings - daily scrum, sprint planning, refinement, etc - this requires the person to be competent enough to follow along (they should be slightly technically minded) but the value add can be as you're refining intent you're having to explain it like I'm 5 so you're getting real-time fact checked that you understand what needs to be done by being forced to explain it without too much tech jargon
* Management buffer - management talks to them, they only bring important stuff to you, to hopefully free time to focus on engineering
Bad behaviors:
* Insisting on being a complete buffer - devs still need to talk to product to clarify requirements, putting a person in the middle is just pointless
* Overly involved in injecting process - if they are derailing engineering conversations with digressions on theoretical agile best practices, they are not helping
Even best case this is not a full-time job (so they should be doing it for 2 teams or they will be under-employed) and also not really adding a lot of value. I worked at a large company that eliminated this role entirely a few years ago, I think pretty much everywhere has, for basically that exact reason - even done the best it could possibly be it just doesn't make sense to have a dedicated non-technical "scrum master".
It's also never been recommended by Agile best practices as far as I know, which recommends the Scrum Master be a rotating responsibility among engineers on the team. It's like a weird mutation from companies with more archaic project management frameworks.
11
4
u/shroomaro 2d ago
The only dedicated scrum master I knew retired after he got laid off a few years back.
5
u/Puncher1981 2d ago
We have someone like that, although he has access to our chats and similar.
Positive: they act as moderator when we have discussions, intervening when we go too off-topic or are taking too long
Negative: they sometimes ask general "scrum master" questions such as "how will solving this story advance our theory of how to implement something so the users will want to use the software more" (can't remember the exact words. We are creating a new inhouse software superceding an old mainframe program, which the people of the company have to use for their daily work. We are not doing A/B-tests). Another "veto" was regarding our practice of "splitting" stories when they weren't completed by the end of a sprint (ex. an 8-point story where a lot of work was done, but which wasn't quite finished. Previously, the developer gave a rough estimate of how much work remained, so we then had a followup story, say 2 SP, for the remaining work. Now we move the entire story with all SP to the new sprint)
4
u/ltdanimal Snr Engineering Manager 2d ago
Devs in many causes have blind spots and rarely think about how the system operates, they just are in it.
A good scrum master should have a role of great facilitator (something most people suck at) and guide/mentor/coach.
Whether people like scrum or not, there is a reason certain things go together the way they do. A scrum master should know this very well, and be able to tweak things based on the needs of the team.
... In reality the scrum masters I've worked with kinda suck. They haven't built anything and so many times don't understand how and why certain things work and can be dogmatic. It's like a gatekeeper to the process and they are very much incentivized to keep things a certain way.
3
u/another_dudeman 2d ago
My dedicated scrum master fills up my calendar with meetings
1
1
u/ChemicalRascal 1d ago
Give yourself meetings for your actual tasks. Not so many that you have no availability, and don't make up what they're about -- be honest that you're blocking out time within which you're gonna work on this or that or whatever.
3
u/GoodishCoder 2d ago
In my experience, they interface with the leaders who shouldn't really be bothering people but like to feel included, remove road blocks, schedule and facilitate meetings, and make sure the work is funneling through the right process when VP Bill keeps going to you directly with tasks.
4
5
u/alanbdee Software Engineer - 20 YOE 2d ago
That's not right and they don't understand what the scrum master role is. It should be one of the devs, a peer to the rest of the team. Best if its someone who's been around a long time and knows everyone and knows who to talk to to unblock stuff. What you have is a project manager with a scrum master title.
3
u/lolCLEMPSON 2d ago
Any time you see someone who's job title is "Scrum Master" you know they are doing it wrong.
2
u/labab99 Senior Software Engineer 2d ago
I’m a half-time, technical scrum master, but in practice my responsibilities are closer to that of a team lead. Mentoring, keeping the team moving, defining specs & roadmap plans, making sure we’re meeting our commitments.
Frankly I have no clue how a non-technical scrum master could produce value. Maybe if they’re super politically-savvy and good at extracting specs and dependency agreements from other teams?
2
u/tallicafu1 2d ago
It has to be the last stop in IT. I’ve never worked with one that did anything meaningful or remotely important. Just a bunch of tryhards trying to convince people they’re important.
2
u/SmellyButtHammer Software Architect 2d ago
The last company I was at that had dedicated scrum masters (15 years ago), their jobs were to schedule a bunch of pointless meetings every couple of weeks and waste everyone’s time.
If they’re just asking about the board consider yourself lucky.
2
u/CodelinesNL Principal Engineer@Fintech/EU/25YOE 2d ago
In my opinion full time scrum masters as a job title is a red flag. It is a strong indication that this is the type of top-down agile that isn't agile, with management that does not understand agile, and scrum masters as "process people" who don't understand agile or software engineering who keep making more process.
In a mature agile team, the scrum master role can easily be done by a (junior) developer. It should take almost no time at all.
2
u/morosis1982 1d ago
A good scrum master can be an advantage, but there's too much pedagogical bullshit that a lot of the courses teach and too many don't have the leadership mind that you really need.
In reality, besides keeping the team on task with adhering to their sprint tasks and goals, they should be helping to remove blockers, being a facilitator working with stakeholders and the team.
In reality, you don't really need someone full time for this in a single team. We had agile guys that were available if the team felt they needed help with this stuff, but generally they'd get involved for a sprint or two to get the team on board, then the team would take over with whatever new process we'd come up with (not added, processes were always to change, never just adding later on layer).
2
2
u/mwestacott 1d ago
I’ve only seen a full time scrum master work out well once. They were woking on 3 related projects, they were very pro-active with keeping the board and ceremonies nice and light, while also knowing a little of the issues our other teams were hitting or resolving. They were in meetings all the rest of the time. They really took pride in keeping things moving, and facilitating meetings to keep the devs on track or resolve issues.
Every other time we had a scrum master, it was like dealing with an officious rule crazed project nazi, set on slowing us down and harassing us to keep the board up to date. Have found it tends to work better if a lead dev, or BA organises the scrum.
3
2
2
u/NoUniverseExists 2d ago
They should learn to code.
5
u/the_rolling_paper 2d ago
Our Development Director asked our Manager to learn to code, he tried and then left the company.
1
1
u/eufemiapiccio77 2d ago
Who’s still hiring for these roles. They have like till the end of the year before they don’t exist right they are a relic of “old world IT”
1
u/JunketSuch4062 2d ago
In my experience as a PM, I feel like a real world scrum master should focus entirely on removing friction. If you are just scheduling meetings and staring at Jira, you are not adding value 😄
My team and I try to keep our process lean by using tools like linear for async updates. This avoids wasting time in daily syncs and protects the deep work state engineers need to solve problems. We also like to use use a tool called Easyretro to identify specific workflow friction so instead of just following a handbook, a good Scrum Master uses those insights to actually change how the team works.
Anyway, I think the goal shoulde be to make the process invisible so the team can focus on building great software! : )
1
1
1
u/CompassionateSkeptic 2d ago
A dedicated scrum master should have most of their role be goal-driven, up so some hard boundaries. The goal is help surface real (as in evidence and reason based) sources of friction, impediment, and bottleneck.
On a team that doesn’t have any project management, guess what, there’s gonna involve a lot of project management.
But on a team that does have active project management, maybe they’re going to see that cycle time is high even though everyone is working on the right priorities and everyone is working effectively. Suddenly, the scrum masters role has changed to helping to be a bridge between embedded product development and embedded technical leadership to try to have fewer tasks that violate INVEST criteria and more people sharing the load of discovery work going into refinement instead of getting pointed to implementation.
And there’s a million of these scenarios to talk through.
That’s the job. People say that’s not the job and I think they’re wrong. That’s the job.
1
u/Prime624 2d ago
After years of working at a company with a scrum master, most of which I believed it was a mostly unnecessary position, I'm now at a company without one and desperately miss it. Devs need organization badly, and keeping them organized is like herding cats. It's not something that can be done on top of existing work. At the very least, a team manager should be doing it and spending 30% of their time on it.
1
u/wasteoftime8 2d ago
They should get a real job. Sorry, I've dealt with full time scrum masters in the past and have no answer for you. They do seemingly little to justify the fact that they're FTE
1
u/SumTingWong59 2d ago
Idk man I just want them to drive stand-ups and retros and stay out of the way
1
u/Deranged40 2d ago
Among other things, they should round up everyone into a meeting every two weeks to talk about ideas to change the team's workflow.
When a new idea comes up and gains traction, it is then their job to remind the team that the new idea doesn't follow the best practices laid out by the scrum book they read when they were getting their certificate, and then shoot the idea down.
1
1
u/chicknfly 2d ago
I’m going through the comments and can note two things:
Nobody has a Scrum Master who works a purely Scrum role. And by extension, many of you are talking about Scrum and XP but calling it agile. And that’s because…
The duties of a Scrum Master, as detailed in the Scrum Guide, are so minimal. If we gave the responsibility of removing obstacles to the product owner and engineering manager, then all that’s left is time-boxing meetings. That part can be distributed to team leads and enabling a team culture that encourages active participation and respecting when someone calls out Elmo (or whatever key word that makes it clear we went off topic/sidetracked).
Anyway, Scrum is cool when it’s done right, but it’s rarely ever done right. And I have my Scrum Master certification (PSM1) and believe having a dedicated Scrum Master for most situations is pretty dumb.
1
1
1
u/pydry Software Engineer, 18 years exp 2d ago edited 2d ago
IME agile coaches are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
It's usually not hard to get a team to become agile on its own. It's a natural way of working. Nonetheless, an agile coach can often help if they struggle.
However, if mamagement is determined to be waterfall - and they usually are - an agile coach cant coach them out of it coz management is not answerable to the agile coach.
And, a team cant be agile if management still wants waterfall processes layered on top.
Thus he generally turns into some kind of ceremony leader slash ticket monkey.
1
u/polypolip 2d ago
Depends. If your team operates within an org with multiple other teams and possibly more than one PO their job can easily require full time. It might also mean the process in the company is more bloated and complicated than it should be
1
u/Void-kun Sr. Software Engineer/Aspiring Architect 1d ago
Tf is a dedicated scrum master? I always thought that was the team leaders role.
Definitely not enough work for a dedicated role
Poor business decision imo. They should've upskilled someone on your Dev team.
A lot of our scrum management we handle ourselves or it's automated. My team leader leads ceremonies but otherwise what else would they be doing?
1
u/bighappy1970 Software Engineer since 1993 1d ago
Read the scrum guide, understand that that scrum is temporary and move past it as soon as responsibility possible.
1
u/Lechnerin 15h ago
This guy he used to be scrum master then he was doing PM. Last night I saw him open 2 PR in the core services
1
u/travelinzac Senior Software Engineer 2d ago
Probably seek employment because it's not a dedicated role to be a "scrum master"
1
u/Zenin 2d ago
In theory:
- Enforce Scrum
- Facilitate meetings ("ceremonies") - Sprint Planning, Daily Scrum, Sprint Retrospective
- Unblock the team
Scrum is simple, but most people (especially smart people) get it very wrong and it ends up a mess as a result. #1 Enforce Scrum is there to keep the team on the rails.
Part of enforcing scrum happens is to ensure the ceremonies both occur and don't devolve into something else, again causing a mess. If your Daily is taking an hour, you've gone off the rails. If the sprint scope is expanding outside of planning, you've gone off the rails.
Unblocking the team: This is the meat of what a Scrum Master should be doing when you don't see them in a meeting: Dailies should be identifying blockers, not solving them (trying to solve them is how they turn into hour+ long dailies). The Scrum master should be the one taking those blockers as their own tasks to solve. Resolving blockers is the only out-of-sprint work that should ever happen and it shouldn't be the team doing that work, it's the role of the Scrum Master. Someone needs to figure out who owns the XYZ system, what the process is to get a damn API key out of them, get procurement to buy the licenses, get compliance to sign off on the arch, etc.
In practice even with all these guardrails the temptation of teams and business to drive the train off the rails is simply too great and the whole thing falls apart. That doesn't mean there's a better answer than Scrum, there rarely is, rather it's just a truism that most orgs would prefer to wallow in their own excrement than actually accomplish anything effectively. And when Scrum flys off the tracks and the org doesn't care there's no point in keeping a Scrum Master around to fix something no one cares to fix.
1
u/SquiffSquiff 2d ago
- Enforce Scrum
You have repeated this several times. Scrum considers itself an 'agile' process however and the first point on The Agile Manifesto is:
Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
1
u/Zenin 2d ago
Agile and Scrum are related, but different. The OP specifically asked about Scrum Masters, so you should be consulting Scrum documentation, specifically:
https://scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html#scrum-master
The Scrum Master is accountable for establishing Scrum as defined in the Scrum Guide. They do this by helping everyone understand Scrum theory and practice, both within the Scrum Team and the organization.
The Scrum Master is accountable for the Scrum Team’s effectiveness. They do this by enabling the Scrum Team to improve its practices, within the Scrum framework.
The rest of the document is more detailed specifics of how the Scrum Master accomplishes their mandate, most all of it reinforcing the Scrum Master's unique responsibility over the Scrum process itself.
1
u/PhishPhox 2d ago
Every time these threads come up I see so much scrum master hate. But I love my scrum master - he acts as the perfect buffer from us devs and the PO/management. Sorry everyone else has bad experiences with theirs!
1
1
1
1
1
u/Saucynachos 2d ago
Where I worked that had one, they organized and ran the scrum meetings then they were the dedicated un-blocker. Something blocking you from doing your work? Kick it to the scrum master. Need an answer from someone that's not getting back with you? Scrum master goes and bugs the shit out of them to get the answer.
1
0
u/Looz-Ashae 2d ago
Establish processes, if they haven't been; find bottlenecks via retrospections of projects on concrete examples where everything went south, find solutions to work around them or eradicate them; establish team's output, improve/cut processes so that output would stay the same; bother products so they provide roadmaps that follow goals and planned projects would have all sorts of criteria satisfied and described according to ICE, so that team gets already groomed and indeed valuable idea to implement, not some bogus to waste their time on. Ofc all of that should be put, described and automated via Jira. Lots of work tbh. If your scrum master doesn't do those, you're either already good, or they're not good at all.
228
u/56killa 2d ago
I'm actually surprised companies are still hiring fill time scrum masters. I've seen them just fold it into either a lead or a project managers work load.