I see where he's coming from. In practice I've used the daily stand-up at a large company and we pretty much did the opposite of things he mentioned in the article that the stand-up is supposed to do. We ended up doing the stand-up for not just one project but multiple concurrent projects. People would try to solve problems and went way off track during the meetings. They lasted a lot longer than 15 minutes for sure.
Worst of all I felt that this meeting was a built-in context switch so I had to stop what I was doing, participate in the meeting, then get back to what I was doing which took a little bit of time.
Where I've seen it work we had competent and motivated people who wouldn't wait for a problem to fester on the side or delay the whole project. Also we ended up using tools (I know, anti-Agile) like Jira which really helped us keep track of where we were and where others were in their work.
I'm not a big fan of the daily stand-up but I'm sure there's a place and time for it. You just have to be honest if it's working for your situation or not.
Worst of all I felt that this meeting was a built-in context switch so I had to stop what I was doing, participate in the meeting, then get back to what I was doing which took a little bit of time.
Where I've seen it work we had competent and motivated people who wouldn't wait for a problem to fester on the side or delay the whole project. Also we ended up using tools (I know, anti-Agile) like Jira which really helped us keep track of where we were and where others were in their work.
I'm not a big fan of the daily stand-up but I'm sure there's a place and time for it. You just have to be honest if it's working for your situation or not.