Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
Some members of the team are having problems programming together.
Different gender, different culture, different age. How to deal with those problems?
- Do not pair them together, or
- Pair them together and let them come to a "golden middle"
Pair programming is based on the idea that the interaction of two programmers adds value. If this is not true, change the pairs... let them choose. Programming should be fun!
How about rotating the pairs every week or every sprint so that if there are issues between a couple of pairs they don't feel like it has to be that way forever. I think if there is a specific time frame that you have to work with someone you do not get along with it makes it easier to "suck it up" and hopefully you won't lose any great people that way.
If after a few rotations you notice a specific individual that nobody is enjoying it may be appropriate to focus on adjusting the way that individual interacts with the team or if it continues perpetually removing them from the team all together.
Reassess your hiring practices and make sure that you select for team oriented employees.
Failing that, breath mints.
-Adam
What exactly are they having problems with? Do they not get along, not understand each other? Are they at different levels of programming experience?
It may help if you have a team member that can act as a "mediator" of sorts. Somebody who's successfully done pair-programming in the past and can help the two through their first few times together.
The first step to resolving conflicts is to recognize that people are different. Even the most mild mannered programmer's patience can be tried in pair programming, it can be very stressful. Some people withdraw when they are confronted by conflict, others get aggressive.
The best way of approaching pair programming, in my experience, is to have a detailed discussion of what it is you want to accomplish for the session, before you lay hands on code. This will put both of your minds on the same track. When you disagree on something, stop coding, discuss it away from the computer, try to find common ground and most importantly don't dismiss any ideas your partner may have. Take breaks; don't work for 2 hours straight, try to stand up or go for a break every 45 minutes or so.
Talk about pairing troubles as a group, and make sure the group is aware of different pairings that aren't working. That way, the group can help ensure that your pairs aren't avoiding each other. If you keep a disfunctional pair separate, they will always be disfunctional.
Get the pair to open lines of communication; try to get both sides to do new things. Assuming both people are genuinely good developers, they both have much to learn from one another. Try to alter their attitude from teacher to student.
I'd second muloh's question - what kinds of thing are they having problems with?
In my experience these problems are often (but not always) a sign of underlying problems with the team structure / skills / relationships that need to be addressed if you want to get the best out of everybody involved.
Is Mary not getting along with Fred because Fred doesn't know enough about how sane folk work with databases? Is Fred not getting along with Jo because Jo doesn't bathe quite as regularly as they ought? Is Jo not getting along with Mary because Mary is a rude SOB? If so you can almost guarantee that Fred, Jo & Mary are also annoying the rest of the team in similar ways.
Just coz one or two folk push the issue enough to avoid pairing doesn't mean the problems goes away. It may well be annoying other folk too - they may have alternate ways of coping. Like looking for alternate employment for example :-)
If the team doesn't work well together it isn't a team.
Out of curiosity - how long are your pairing sessions and how often do you switch pairs? I find that it's sometimes easier to deal with this sort of thing if folk are switching pairs on a regular basis - once or twice a day. That way everybody gets to share the relative pros and cons of everybody on the team - which can help everybody focus on solving some of the cons.
Another approach is to continually switch your pairs within the scrum. Have a timer which might be set for 1/2/3 hours. When the bell goes off, rotate your pairs. This has a few effects:
Two people don't get stuck pairing together for a long time
Your developers will get to rotate through your current stories, getting familiar with each one and different areas of the code
If one of your dev's smells, you will only have to get through a short period of stink!
Pairing is a critical practice for an agile team. To begin with, it is best to identify developers that are willing and able to work effectively in pairs. One company I am aware of does extreme interviewing. That is, they will interview candidates in pairs giving them a problem to solve. They are interested if the developers are ability to solve the problem but are interested in their collaboration skills. Only those that can work well with others are considered.
It is not a requirement that all pair like each other. What is important is that they are effective. Given that pairs rotate frequently (for each card or more frequently), personality is less of an issue. If someone is not across pairs, and after being coached is still a problem, he or she should be asked to leave the team.
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I am working in a dev team where we religiously follow agile.
However, I have not had to change how I work (unit testing etc doesn't count as I do that anyway). I mean, do I need to change how or how often I communicate? This soft skill side of things with agile is what I am interested in.
Thanks
If your team is utilizing agile well, then you probably should see some changes in how you work. It's possible that you already developed with a fairly "agile-compatible" mindset, even if your previous work experience was in a more waterfall-style methodology.
Some specific things that I think agile developers ought to be doing (and in a well-run agile team, will naturally find they need to do)
Focus on incremental, complete changes rather than massive architectures - This is a core tenant of agile from the macro planning side, but it's also important to practice even for an individual developer. With a 2 or 3 week iteration, you'll find you simply don't have the time to spend 1 1/2 weeks developing something, and half a week integrating it all together.
Check in early, check in often, and check in working code - Don't do this, and you'll soon find you're that guy famous for breaking the build with a day left before the iteration ends.
Know what's blocking you, and what is likely to block you in the upcoming week or two, and tell people about it - No one in an agile team likes hearing at the last second that a developer working on a critical piece is held up waiting for something to complete his work.
Think about the end of an iteration throughout the iteration - Every line of code you write should be done with the consideration of whether this is realistic to complete before the iteration is over.
Always Be Crunching (hey, I couldn't have a pithy list of advice without a cute, Glengarry Glen Ross ripped off acronym!) You'll learn by your second or third iteration that slacking off for a week followed by some all nighters is going to bite you in the ass.
If you're already following all these - great! They're certainly general best practices rather than being specific to Agile. I think most developers do have a bad habit or two that this list addresses, though (I know I do on occasion.)
In addition to Ryan's great points here are a couple more.
Discuss your ideas with other members of your team. Your fellow developers will quickly point out potential flaws in your thinking and suggest alternatives (be ready to listen and not get offended). I found this works best during planning/story tasking. In a 2-3 week sprint it is painfully obvious when you go down the wrong path. It might even stop you from successfully finishing all you tasks/stories. If others know your plan of attack up front it makes it easier for them to step in and help you out finishing your work if you need it.
Do not hesitate to suggest new ways of doing things. One of the great things about agile is that team processes are not set in stone but evolve from a series of retrospectives. If you have developers who never speak up, the process never changes and things do not get better.
Put your user's hat on. Every application has an end user. Sometimes (especially when you do not have a close contact with your users) you have to step back and question decisions (even if made by a product owner). If you can make a good case, not only your users but the entire team will benefit from it since the product will be better received. Developers do not do this often enough. We want to make things better, faster and leaner in the expense of other, sometimes more important things like delivering on time or adding more features.
I hope this helps.
The specifics of agile will be different for every person you ask. Yes, you probably want to communicate regularly, but you don't want to take it to extremes that keep you (or your coworkers) from being productive.
But like I said, it will be different for everybody. The only people who know how best to match your team are the people on your team. Just tell them you aren't used to agile and you were wondering how you've been handling it. They're really the only ones who will be able to say for sure.
Short answer but was very useful to all developers that asked me that question:
There is a book called Practices of an agile developer,http://www.pragprog.com/titles/pad/practices-of-an-agile-developer.
This book will specifically answer to your question. I like it very much because it's not just about the process, but behaviors and psychology.
Attitude-related things:
1) Good pair programming means making an effort to explain things really well and listening carefully. That's a skill in itself. You have to learn how other people tackle things and be patient when other people tackle things differently from you.
2) Being prepared to be flexible and change your mind. The smaller the ego, the easier and less painful it is to handle this.
3) To do agile well, you need to be communicating continuously with everybody in the wider team (i.e. not just devs - sysadmins, managers, customers, network admins, hardware people...) Part of this is feeling comfortable, safe and confident - i.e. there needs to be real trust in the team, not just phoney trust - real trust
4) Be prepared to work outside your specialism and comfort zone. I often have to pair with graphic designers, system admins and DBAs. Saying "that's not my job" isn't part of agile. We're part of a multidisciplinary team and getting the product released in a useful state is the whole team's problem - not just looking after my pet specialism.
5) Try to keep things simple and minimal - no "we'll make it totally generic" or "we'll need it later". Think "you aren't gonna need it." We're shooting for small, simple, concrete steps informed by feedback.
6) Tackle the difficult things and the things that aren't clear first - so that the you get feedback on the problems as early as possible so you if you have to revise estimates or cancel the work the customer gets informed as soon as possible.
7) Try to keep the team dynamics co-operative rather than competitive. Pitting people against each other pulls the team apart - and it gets you well-polished fragments and a broken product rather than a cohesive whole made by people that give-and-take as they find necessary to be successful.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
Does anyone have a good team building exercise to help bring together disparate teams like the QA/Development teams?
I am the companies "agile coach" (as much as I hate that term), I am the one that is tasked with making our company more agile and bring on more agile tasks/techniques.
That being said, I am trying to mend gaps between the two teams and am trying to come up with good team building exercises as the QA/Dev teams should be treated as one team and needs to communicate more.
Any ideas would be greatly appreciated of things that have worked for you
In my experience, the key to improving interoperability between teams is to break down the 'us and them' mentality. It's amazing how even in an organisation where everyone gets on, there's this natural tendency to stereotype other teams, assume they're just 'difficult', and retreat into the team's own walled garden.
To apply this to teambuilding exercises, the main thing is to split the participants into small groups (4-6 people), and crucially, ensure the groups are well-mixed. Make sure people are split up from those they normally work best with. The aim is to increase the interaction between people who don't normally communicate as much, and give them an environment where they can build experience working together.
Jim Holmes' opinion is a common one among pragmatic engineers, and I have had the same point of view in the past. Most of these things are doomed to fail because of poor management not addressing the core issues, or because the participants are completely sceptical and want the exercise to fail (because they've been so useless in the past).
It wasn't until I attended a genuinely useful week-long(!) team-building project that I understood the potential for these types of exercises. The top things that made that course stand out were:
Get buy-in from the participants. If you want people to take your exercise seriously and make a real effort, then you have to address the scepticism up front. Tell them what you expect to achieve, why you want it (how it will improve their lives) and ask for their buy-in up-front. And take responsibility - tell them you genuinely believe this is useful, and be prepared to receive hostility and negative feedback if it falls short.
Make the difficulty level sufficient. If your audience are all PhDs or experienced software architects, then don't treat them like children. Make the exercises interesting, complex, and difficult. For example, we were thrown straight in the deep end, teamed with people we'd never met, given a crisis scenario to manage, handed a huge stack of background info, and told we had 10 minutes to prepare. It was a nightmare (and we didn't do very well)! If you make the problems simpler, then reduce the available time, drastically. The exercises should be hard, and the group should fail some of them, early on, to bring home to them, hard, their dismal lack of teamworking ability.
Identify clearly what you're trying to achieve. Sticking people in a room and telling them to 'work in a team' won't work. Have clear aims and explain how people are going to be better off at the end of this. Make sure those goals are tracked. If the participants don't feel they got much out at the end of the course, then find out why - and take that feedback seriously.
Help participants introspect how they work and interact with each other. A big part of team issues is not understanding how other people work. For smart people, this is often perceived as irrelevant - "I don't care how they work, I can just do what needs to be done myself" is a common point of view. This is why the problem has to be too difficult/too much work/take too long for any single person to complete. Respecting other's strengths and mediating their weaknesses is a critical feature of successful team-members.
Have detailed feedback. After each exercise, make sure the team reflects on their performance. You should offer constructive criticism, but much better is to get the team to understand and identify their own limitations. Once they have an idea of how they can improve, jump straight into the next exercise. For example, in one team, we had the problem that everyone talked but no one really listened. Having failed several challenges due to this dysfunctional communication, we instituted a simple communication protocol - only one person was allowed to talk at a time. Although obvious, it was amazing to see how much this improved our performance on subsequent exercises!
Honestly? I'm -1 on nearly all "team building" exercises because they're contrived cr#p. Mend those gaps with daily coordination that lead to real work getting done. Tout your successes and highlight your progress -- even small wins. Don't overdo that praise because obsequious flattery fails, always.
Your problem is that QA and Dev are separated teams. If you want strong cohesion, close collaboration, team spirit, etc, put QA guys and Dev guys into a same team, include QA in the development process.
Your problem is an organizational problem (that you've likely inherited from an outdated organizational model) and that you won't solve with an exercise. The solution is to change the organization.
Do the developers use any TDD practices? If there is a big difference in the quality of tests from each, then bringing in some TDD may help some.
We've done a mini-Olympics at a bar near work as a team building exercise that has mediocre success. Trying to bring in more socialization than what there is naturally can be a recipe for disaster, which seems to be a commmon theme.
Having QA and Dev take lunch together can help in some areas as long as it isn't forced. Having to do things out of obligation rather than desire can set things up for failure.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
Recently, we've come across an issue at work where if one person is working on some code by themselves, it seems to come out with the other team members looking at it and going "Huh? That's ugly, unmanageable, I need to rewrite that"
In fact, recently, I myself have had to re-factor something that was written the week before so that I'd be able to add in my (related) feature.
I know that Pair programming is the way to go for this, but we have an uneven team (3 members). As our team is being pushed pretty hard at the moment, we really don't have time for Peer Reviews (though we can do Pair Programming, as we're allowed to estimate that into our task estimates)
I'm just curious as to how people would suggest we overcome these issues with poor code being generated.
When you work alone, and produce code which your colleagues find ugly and unmanageable and needs to be rewritten, then do you:
(a) agree with them when you look at it a second time,
(b) disagree?
If (a), then the problem is that on your own, you aren't fully clarifying your code when you write it. Since pair programming is the only thing making you write decent code, I suppose I'd recommend that the "odd one out" should work on tasks which do not involve writing long tracts of bad code: bug-hunting; maybe writing test code, since that tends to be a bit less fiendish. Meanwhile, work on improving your skills at writing better code - perhaps do reviews of your own code from a few months ago, and make notes as to what was wrong with it.
If (b), then the problem you have is incompatible ways of expressing your ideas. The code may not be bad by your standards, but it's mutually incomprehensible, which in a corporate setting means it's bad code. Pair programming means what you write is a compromise that 2 out of 3 of you understand, but that's not really a solution. You need to come to some mutual agreements about what you find most difficult about each other's code, and stop doing that. And you all urgently need to start thinking of "code quality" in terms of "my 2 colleagues will like this code", not "I like this code".
Either way, you all need to work on writing code for the purpose of being read, rather than for the purpose of getting the immediate job done as quickly as you possibly can. Personally I have done this by trying to express things in the way that I think other people might express and understand them, rather than just what makes sense to me at the time. Eventually it becomes habitual. When I write code, I write it for a public audience just like I'm writing this post for a public audience. OK, so on my personal projects it's an audience of people who think just like me, whereas at work it's an audience that thinks like my colleagues. But the principle is to write code as if someone's reading it. You're explaining yourself to them, not the compiler.
Not that my code is the best in the world, but I do think I benefited in that my first job was in a company with 30-odd programmers, so I got to see a wide range of ways of thinking about things. Also a few examples of "what not to do", where one programmer had done something that nobody else could easily understand, and therefore could definitively be said to be bad. With only 3 people, it's not clear whether a 2 v. 1 difference of opinion means that the 1 is a freak or a reasonable minority. When I did something and 4 or 5 people could glance at it and immediately say "eeew, don't do that", then I started to really believe it was just a dumb idea in the first place.
I'd also recommend that if you aren't allowed to budget for code review, lie and cheat. If you're heavily re-writing someone else's code, you're effectively taking the time to review it anyway, you just aren't providing the feedback which is the worthwhile part of code review. So sneak the review in under the radar - write a function or three, then ask a colleague to look at it and give you instant feedback on whether it makes sense to them. It helps to have a conversation as soon as you've done it, with the code on the monitor, but do try not to interrupt people when they have "flow", or to get into lengthy arguments. It's not pair programming, and it's not formal code review, but it might help you figure out what it is you're doing on your own that's so bad.
I'm surprised that you don't have time to do peer reviews but you have time to do paired programming. Is the latter not a much bigger sink of time?
We also have three developers only at our company and, surprise, surprise, we're being pushed hard at the moment. I'm pretty sure my boss would laugh at me if I suggested paired programming because that would be viewed as doubling the number of man hours for a task even though in practice that's not the result it should produce. Our peer reviews are never more than an hour and that is an extreme case. On average I would say they are probably about 10 minutes and, per developer, only happen once or twice in a day.
IMO you should give peer reviews a try. You often find that the offending people (i.e. the people writing the lower quality code) eventually realise that they need to make more of an effort and the quality improves over time.
If you have three developers and each of you think the others code is not good, you urgently need peer reviews.
So:
you are being pushed pretty hard
your code is of poor quality
Do you think the two could possibly be related? The answer is to fix the schedule.
Pair up all three at once.
Set up some coding standards.
Use a dunce cap for build breaking developers.
Perform daily stand up meetings to communicate progress.
Also try peer reviews twice a week, like Tuesday and Friday.
Pair Programming doesn't have to be all day every day to be effective. I have seen good results from even an hour or two working together each week. One way to go would be to pair A & B for a while, then A & C, then A & B... with a lot of individual time in between.
It also depends a lot on the personalities and chemistry of the team members. Two of the three might work exceptionally well together and you'd want to benefit from that.
You should still pair. Set up sessions say 1 day per week and rotate the pairs. This should keep your manager happy and increase the quality of the code, improve communication. If you keep metrics on how many faults happen in paired vs solitary coding you should start to see the benfit and display this to your manager,
eg This took x man hours but saved on average y in defect fixing. Additionally the clode is cleaner and will take less time to alter then next time we touch it.
From there you will have hard statistics and you can start to code more.
Basically your story seems to be the same as mine.
No time to do things.
Mistakes happen.
Rush to fix it (taking more time)
Go to 1
You need to stop the rot.
Code reviews
Enable Stylecop that will force you to write readable, standardised and manageable code
We use code reviews. Additionally there are some single task: changing a diagram, installing some stuff...
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm in a new contract where they seem to have gone overboard with Agile, including hiring a consultant merely for facilitating Agile processes. Something he is instituting is a notion of "core hours" where we will all actually be in the same room together. Is this really what "core hours" constitutes? I ask because it's highly inconvenient to pick up my laptop and go to this shared location for half the day; I always thought "core hours" meant you were available, not necessarily in the same room, from 9:30 to 4, for instance.
Yes and no.
Core hours are the period(s) when all team members commit to working on the project (and not doing administrative stuff or other projects). For many teams, this will imply being in the same room, but with proper planning and the necessary infrastructure, the team can work well from different locations.
I think what you have is an extension of the "core hours" where you are. The idea of being in the shared location is that ad-hoc meetings could occur as well as possibly being within earshot of various discussions so that you can jump in if it is something where you think your opinion or knowledge would be useful, e.g. why was this coded like that? or why do we have this requirement? kind of thing.
I'd like to think that I'm up to date on the Agile world. In reality I am not. With that being said, I'm not so sure this is an agile concept but rather a convenient way for the team to collaborate. It sounds more like something out of Peopleware.
As goes with any team and trying something new, one, there will be resistance to change and two, the team should really have buy in to the new process and working methodology. The Agile consultant shouldn't just be barking orders of what you need to do. He should also be explaining and convincing you why this is a good thing. If you already think the company has gone "overboard" then I think something is wrong. Agile is a great way to work for a many (but not all) teams and shouldn't evoke a reaction like that
Having core hours makes sense so that there is an overlap for collaboration. Having people work in a more open space, maybe 4 people per large cube instead of 1 per small cube, also helps foster collaboration. At work I can just spin my chair around and there are 2 people right there who can help me out or answer questions. However, trying to force something that is uncomfortable and inconvenient defeats the purpose.
I think it would be better to tear down the cubicle walls and rearrange the cubes to make the evirnonment more collaborative.
Slightly off topic but won't fit in a comment:
Agile is extremely disruptive of a programmers "Normal Practices". The word Agile means you are going to have to adapt to changes, I recommend you try to accept them and not fight, because one of adaptations is to cut out team members that cause disruptions in the team.
A consultant is virtually required for a smooth, quick transition.
If your consultant is doing it right, you should be much more unhappy than you seem. During those core hours, none of you should have your own computer--you should be sharing a group. If things are done right, you should be coding in a "Bullpen" without cube walls (facilitates pairing and general communication).
But there are various levels to Agile, and it's intended to be adaptable. Many programmers have a problem with pairing, so often it isn't forced, or is just recommended.
At any rate, it sounds like your consultant is taking it pretty easy on you guys. Try to drink the cool-aid and relax, it'll all be over soon.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm the second dev and a recent hire here at a PHP/MySQL shop. I was hired mostly due to my experience in wrangling some sort of process out of a chaotic mess. At least, that's what I did at my last company. ;)
Since I've been here (a few months now), I've brought on board my boss, my product manager and several other key figures (But mostly chickens, if you pardon the Scrum-based stereotyping). I've also helped bring in some visibility to the development cycle of a major product that has been lagging for over a year. People are loving it!
However, my coworker (the only other dev here for now) is not into it. She prefers to close her door and focus on her work and be left alone. Me? I'm into the whole Agile approach of collaboration, cooperation and openness. Without her input, I started the Scrum practices (daily scrums, burndown charts and other things I've found that worked for me and my previous teams (ala H. Kniberg's cool wall chart). During our daily stand up she slinks by and ignores us as if we actually weren't standing right outside her door (we are actually). It's pretty amazing. I've never seen such resistance.
Question... how do I get her onboard? Peer pressure is not working.
Thanks from fellow Scrum-borg,
beaudetious
While Scrum other agile methodologies like it embody a lot of good practices, sometimes giving it a name and making it (as many bloggers have commented on) a "religion" that must be adopted in the workplace is rather offputting to a lot of people, including myself.
It depends on what your options and commitments are, but I know I'd be a lot more keen on accepting ideas because they are good ideas, not because they are a bandwagon. Try implementing/drawing her in to the practices one at a time, by showing her how they can improve her life and workflow as well.
Programmers love cool things that help them get stuff done. They hate being preached at or being asked to board what they see as a bandwagon. Present it as the former rather than the latter. (It goes without saying, make sure it actually IS the former)
Edit: another question
I've never actually worked for a place that used a specific agile methodology, though I'm pretty happy where I'm at now in that we incorporate a lot of agile practices without the hype and the dogma (best of both worlds, IMHO).
But I was just reading about Scrum and, is a system like that even beneficial for a 2 person team? Scrum does add a certain amount of overhead to a project, it seems, and that might outweigh the benefits when you have a very small team where communication and planning is already easy.
Without her input, I started the Scrum practices (daily scrums, burndown charts and other things I've found that worked for me and my previous teams (ala H. Kniberg's cool wall chart). During out daily stand up she slinks by and ignores us as if we actually weren't standing right outside her door (we are actually). It's pretty amazing. I've never seen such resistance.
Question... how do I get her onboard? Peer pressure is not working.
Yikes! Who would ever want to work in such an oppressive environment? If you're lucky, she's sending around her resume and you'll be able to hire someone who is on board with your development process.
Assuming you want to hang on to her, I'd turn down (or off) the rhetoric and work on being a friend and co-worker first. If the project is a year late, she can't be feeling good about herself and it sounds like you aren't afraid to trumpet your success. That can be intimidating.
I know nothing about Scrum, however. I'm just imagining what it would be like to walk around in your co-worker's shoes.
beaudetious, buddy,
I would really suggest you read Steve Yegge's blog called "Good Agile, Bad Agile". It's an oldy but a goody, and I think it's a must read for anyone - like myself about 2 months ago - who gets a little let's say "over-eager" to agile-up their workplace. Agile offers a lot of good practices, but you have to take them all with a grain of salt and adopt what you're lacking and skip out on all the other crud that might be unuseful for a particular situation - e.g. the daily scrum. If your co-worker would just like to code in quiet (read Peopleware for why this is a good thing) and she's being a productive team member quit bugging her with your scrumming a let her work in whatever way she likes most.
People are usually less "hostile" about these practices if you just approach them and simply say "Do you have a sec? Listen, communication is really a problem right now, I feel like I don't know what you're doing and I really don't want to step on your toes again and spend two days writing something you already did like last week, so let's work on this. I'd like to try X, what do you think?". Be compassionate and don't tolerate "bad apples", that's literally how I agiled up my workplace, and many problems have started evaporating. We're by no means an 100% XP or 100% Scrum compliant place, because we just use whatever works and was needed.
Simple. Don't talk about scrum. Don't use scrum on her. Instead take the underlying principles of scrum (e.g. the purpose as opposed to the application) and create different approaches that accommodate her way of working but have subtle tints of scrum.
All humans are different and a lot of programmers dislike scrum. I wouldn't force it upon them as that would just be counter-productive. I'd suggest identifying the problems in the development process (in a non-scrum fashion), see if you can get her to agree that the issues exist, then ask her what she thinks would be a good solution. Her co-operation and input into the process is essential to her co-operation, if she doesn't have buy-in she wont become a citizen.
From there on in you can hopefully create some sort of quasi-hybrid scrum + her approach to the process where you can both agree on the way forward.
I think the key would be to help her understand why you are doing Scrum in the first place. I guess you have your reasons, so why not tell her? You are likely to get resistance towards any change if the people involved don't understand why there is change or what they will benefit from it. If you can explain your reasons for using Scrum, and the following benefits, to her in a way that relates to her everyday work, I think she is more likely to adapt a more positive attitude towards it.
If she sees no value in the Scrum process, or doesn't understand how it relates to her, she probably won't care about it.
I think one of the most important concepts for someone to understand regarding Scrum is the fact that you are working as a group and commit to your project as a group, not as individuals. For many people, this is the hardest thing to grasp, since they are so used to living in "their own World".
I'm not sure Scrum is the central issue here; I'm guessing she feels threatened by the new guy bringing in a lot of new ideas and stirring things up. I've been in that situation before as the new person bringing in a new perspective on things, and sometimes it's just difficult to immediately bring those existing people around to a new way of thinking. It often requires a culture shift which doesn't happen overnight.
Try to get her input and opinion on things as much as possible, and try to show that you respect that she has been on the team longer than you. If after a while she still doesn't participate, then all you can do is mention it to your Manager and let them take it from there.
Continue your efforts to involve the other developer. Remember you are the one who wants to make this change. Ask for help with problems you have. Invite them to the daily stand up meeting. I currently do the planning for the daily stand up and I make sure all the pigs and chickens are invited. If you are the lead on the project it is up to you to address the situation and take a risk. Put yourself out there.