The original objective of the scrum stand-up meeting is to assure that all team members make a commitment towards their peers. That means is that you will do as you say.
The idea that by saying what you will do in front of your peers is that you will feel more social pressure to actually do it.
The idea of standing up is that the meeting stays within 15 minutes. The assumption is that we don't like to stand for much longer.
The scrum stand-up meeting is not a status update meeting.
This will create more transparency with what's happening in the team, right? This is not necessarily true.
Add the following question after everyone has had their turn and find out if your stand-up meeting was a waste of time. Aks several team members.
What were the answers of team member X or Y to the three questions?
When several people can't answer this question your stand-up meeting was a waste of time.
Who needs to work or talk to who? Make sure they both agree to do so.
When using a scrum or kanban board make sure that team members actually discuss stuff that is on the board. Stay sharp that people don't wonder off doing other stuff. Is your board representing current reality? If not, inspect and adapt.
Adapt the meeting structure (and length) to support what the team needs.
Allow asking different questions or having some discussion.
Allow for a different timing when needed to support alignment, collaboration and information sharing.
Focus on agreements and decisions.
Make sure the team aligns on goals and priorities and make agreements.
Make sure the team calls on missed agreements.
Make sure existing agreements can be re-negotiated.
When a team is strong on collaboration, you may even make this meeting optional.
Facilitate the meeting every day anyway.
Make it everyone's personal responsibility to decide to join or skip.
All decisions made during the meeting are binding unless re-negotiated and agreed upon with those present.
If you want to stick to the original scrum questions find out why people can't answer the suggested additional question. You may have a team culture issue here.
Did they not pay attention (this time)?
Is the information provided to them not interesting enough? If so, why?
Is there too much or too little information to make it useful?