Tobias,
Thanks for writing this. When you originally posted I wasn't quite
clear what you meant. Understanding better now, I agree with you and
would like to add some thoughts and examples.
Too many organizations adopting Scrum are doing so at a surface level:
implementing a few of the practices while ignoring much of the
principles and cultural change necessary for it to thrive and sustain.
This same phenomenon is happening in the "lean" movement, and I think
it would be wise for us to take some cues from the attempted
implementation of lean in U.S. manufacturing companies. I've written
about one reveling example:
http://danube.com/blog/victorszalvay/practices_without_principles_tps_without_th\
e_toyota_way.html
It was left out of my post, but Liker goes on to say that ultimately
many lean implementations fail shortly after installation because
organizations do not foster cultural change toward continuous
improvement of the product and the process. Those organizations say
"lean doesn't work here" and go back to mediocrity. Luckily for lean
there is overwhelming evidence that it does work (e.g., Toyota).
That's acceptable because some organizations will reap the benefits,
while others will not.
But what about Scrum? What I am concerned about is hearing "Scrum
doesn't work (period)" instead of "Scrum doesn't work here". I know
many organizations have experienced improvement and success building
software with Scrum, but we'd benefit tremendously from a Toyota level
success. But at Toyota it's taken them decades to build a culture
from the ground up that is thoroughly permeated with the "Toyota Way".
Is the change we are talking about, the depth and full saturation
required for Scrum to be fostered, possible at an established
organization with entrenched politics and culture?
-- Victor Szalvay
Danube Technologies, Inc.
http://danube.com
--- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Tobias Mayer <tobyanon@y...>
wrote:
>
> For anyone still interested in the topic:
http://agilethinking.net/catastrophic.html
> Tobias
>