Based on your statements below then your subject heading: Lean vs Scrum 1-0 is misleading, and the example given not supportive of 1-0. I agree that Lean helpsMessage 1 of 134 , Jan 16, 2009View SourceBased on your statements below then your subject heading: Lean vs Scrum 1-0 is misleading, and the example given not supportive of 1-0.
I agree that Lean helps us think about the larger process of customer value that often is outside the team.
I would also argue that Lean itself is insufficient in many respects. Many companies have failed to adopt Lean. GM finally got Lean in some but not all of its manufacturing, but failed to adopt it as a way of doing new product development. Hence we have the Prius vs the Chevy volt. A startup www.aptera.com is leagues ahead of GM by investing a tiny silver of GM's R&D budget.
Scrum is good for teams, Lean is good for processes. Neither are enough to ensure the organization will successfully adopt this way of working.
So what is the real problem?
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Alan Shalloway <alshall@...> wrote:
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Robin Dymond"<robin.dymond@...> wrote:Of course there are - like the 20% improvement a company got from
> I think there are better examples then the one you have chosen where
> lean adds more insight.
using value stream mapping that I've talked about. I was trying to
just show how lean helps understanding of simple things in Scrum.My emerging philosophy is really simple. Scrum is great, works well
In this case it was simply an incorrect
> implementation of scrum. A team of dbas? How is that
> Crossfunctional team is a basic scrum attribute. This example does
> show insight from lean that was not also available in basic scrum
> also every other agile method (as Ron mentioned).
> I too do not understand your emerging philosophy. Scrum and agile
> lean are all useful and they are closely related in principle,
> philosophy, and practice. The emphasis is different, and each are
> or less useful in certain situations. I think understanding,
> practicing, and learning about these ideas are key to being
> in delivering complex projects. Trying to make value statements
> which is better is a fools errand IMO. They are all good.
at the team level, does not consider (in its practices) the entire
organization. Lean can be used to extend a great team process to an
enterprise in a better way that Scrum can by itself. Furthermore,
Scrum is often mis-interpreted, misunderstood by teams using it (even
after several months) and that Lean's fast-flexible-flow / optimize
the whole principles provides for quicker pickup of the concepts.
Unless one wants to state Scrum does and is all, I do not see this as
bashing anything. I love my car (not a coincidence a Toyota Solara)
it is a horrible off-road vehicle. I am not offended by this.
In my opinion, Scrum was started to improve productivity at the team
level. Everything I read up to a few years ago, said that is what
Scrum was for. Scrum had an amazingly good impact on the industry
and I will be forever greatful to Jeff Sutherland, Ken Schwaber, Mike
Cohn and Esther Derby for getting it started. But I do not think
trying to extend Scrum (from the team) to the Enterprise as a
solution that works on its own is a great concept for the industry.
I think Lean-Scrum or better Lean-Agile is a better way to go.
I use Lean to extend Scrum in three ways:
1) when people get stuck (even though they shouldn't they do)
2) when the needs go beyond the team and or the problem is not with
3) when people need to understand how things are working and why
I was told that if I took this path that people would get upset. I
see that as happening. I keep this course becaue Scrum community -
intending to or not - presents a view of Scrum that has people not
look at other things as much as they should. I feel I am that voice
saying - look at other things.
CEO, Net Objectives
Achieving Enterprise and Team Agility
>> On 1/16/09, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
> > Hello, Alan. On Thursday, January 15, 2009, at 9:36:07 PM, you
> > wrote:
> >>> While reading about Lean helped, just following the
> >>> instructions would have been a good start also.
> >> Just follow instructions? You mean if someone in Scrum land
> >> do it then you should do it whether you agree with it or not? I
> >> don't think you believe that.
> > I said "start". And yes, I think that when an organization starts
> > out to do some method, they should probably do it as written.
> > who don't know this stuff are, in my opinion, as poorly equipped
> > adapt it as they will ever be.
> >> There are times where layering of teams is required. What does
> >> use to figure that out? Sometimes "just following instructions"
> >> works. Sometimes it doesn't. How does one know which case it
> > Shu-Ha-Ri. Start "from the book". Only after that: Inspect and
> > Really smart people get help.
> >>> Lean is just great and I think it is just dandy to be all hot
> >>> it. But lack of Lean is not a Scrum problem, it is a Scrum
> >>> /property/. The team in your case, and in many other cases,
> >>> to inspect, and/or failed to adapt. In this case they also
> >>> even do what Scrum said.
> >> Not true. They inspected. They knew they had a problem. They
> >> didn't know how to fix it. Just doing what Scrum says to do is,
> >> admit, one of the more dangerous pieces of advice I have heard.
> >> practice (Scrum or other) works in all cases - so saying just do
> >> Scrum says is sounding more and more dogmatic to me. And
> > In the case in hand, Scrum says "cross-functional teams". They did
> > not have that, and had trouble. The fix, which came from Lean, was
> > "cross-functional teams". They didn't really need Lean to know to
> > that. Scrum said to do it and they ignored the advice.
> > Lean gave them good advice and Lean is great. It was advice,
> > however, that they already had, had they only heeded it.
> > It would be about 10x more interesting if Lean pointed in a
> > direction different from the various Agile methods. Basically,
> > though, it doesn't, as far as I can tell.
> >>> It's an interesting case that underlines the importance of
> >>> and thinking. That's all good. I just think if you want to push
> >>> you should do so: it'll be very helpful.
> >> It is interesting. It's also one of dozens or so that I've seen.
> >> Also, when I teach courses and have difficulties getting a
> >> across, it seems that explaining some lean principle pretty much
> >> always does the trick. Of course, I don't think Lean is the only
> >> thing that helps. But it's the only thing that seems to always
> > Well, ten years from now you'll feel differently. Right now you
> > in love and she looks beautiful. :)
> >>> And I think that your
> >>> comparisons with Scrum may help your market position but that
> >>> don't really help the market.
> >> Well, they help our customers and to me, that is the market.
> >> I think you forget that I tried discussing all of this Lean stuff
> >> within the Scrum community. Had lots of one-on-ones with Scrum
> >> leaders. Was ignored. Maybe I'm irritating some people, but I'm
> >> being ignored as much. Maybe Lean would have been just as much
> >> without me as with me. But I like to think I've raised
> >> it. I know of dozens of companies where I have done just this -
> >> they've thanked me for it.
> > Yes, you've done fine. I mean that. I hope they also paid you.
> > good material. I just think that your Lean vs Scrum styling is
> > unbecoming.
> >> I have been barred from having open conversations about how lean
> >> help the Scrum community within the Scrum community. Done under
> >> pretense that I was marketing, but always without warning and
> >> notification.
> > Yes, me too. That's not appropriate in my opinion but his group,
> > rules.
> >> I am _not_ trying to offend anyone. But I admit to the "Alan in
> >> Wonderland" feeling that I get pushback when I say you can't do
> >> much with Scrum as you can with Scrum and Lean. I have a huge
> >> of evidence that Lean helps and no evidence that it hurts. I
> >> seen many many teams stuck - for whatever reason - in Scrum
> >> implementation become unstuck using Lean.
> > But Alan, unless logic works very differently in Wonderland than
> > my planet (and come to think of it it did) the fact that Lean is
> > helpful does not imply that you can do more with Lean and Scrum
> > with Scrum alone. Lean does help answer the question "I see
> > (inspect) this, how should I adapt?" But Scrum encompasses //all
> > possible solutions// to issues. It doesn't provide specific
> > it's more like exhaustive search. Lean provides more specific
> > answers. If there is a place where Lean won't work, Scrum will
> > what does work and Lean will not. (Scrum may take forever:
> > exhaustive search can run a long time. But you aren't allowed to
> > stop.)
> >> It occurs to me that what I am saying is simple, in _practice_
> >> get stuck in Scrum and Lean unsticks them. I hear people pushing
> >> Scrum say - "yeah, but if they had been doing Scrum right, they
> >> wouldn't have been stuck in the first place." Well, I'll end
> >> one of my favorite quotes - "in theory, theory and practice are
> >> same, but in practice they are different." (in theory, you don't
> >> need lean, but in practice, you do)
> > I agree that Lean is helpful. I suppose people "need" helpful
> > things. I don't see that Lean is necessary to success in life,
> > don't see why suggesting that it is is necessary to your success
> > life.
> > Either way, I wish you much success, with the greatest respect.
> > Ron Jeffries
> > www.XProgramming.com
> > www.xprogramming.com/blog
> > You don't want to sell me waterfall.
> > You want to go home and rethink your life.
> Robin Dymond, CST
> Managing Partner, Innovel, LLC.
> (804) 239-4329
Robin Dymond, CST
Managing Partner, Innovel, LLC.
... respects. Many ... but not all ... product ... GM s R&D ... I would argue that GM did not implement Lean. It implemented Just In Time which is quiteMessage 134 of 134 , Jan 17, 2009View Source--- In email@example.com, "Robin Dymond"
> I would also argue that Lean itself is insufficient in many
> companies have failed to adopt Lean. GM finally got Lean in somebut not all
> of its manufacturing, but failed to adopt it as a way of doing newproduct
> development. Hence we have the Prius vs the Chevy volt. A startupGM's R&D
> www.aptera.com is leagues ahead of GM by investing a tiny silver of
> budget.I would argue that GM did not implement Lean. It implemented Just In
Time which is quite different. One of the pillars of Lean is
respecting people and focusing on adding value to the customer. I do
not see a lot of evidence that GM has done these things. Toyota
looked ahead to see that good gas mileage was value to customers.
You might find "The Toyota Way" illuminating. It gives many
anectdotes about how companies have done somewhat partial Lean - and
how they fell short. Great book.
Lean is not easy to implement. In fact, most companies have no
intention of becoming Lean. However, GM did implement many lean
practices and have greatly improved their car quality by doing so.
CEO, Net Objectives