Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Scrum of Scrums (was Re: Scrum and XP. Was: I Miss Ron Jeffries TDD Projects)

Expand Messages
  • beckfordp@btopenworld.com
    ... scrums-meeting ... Hi Guys, This is why I say focusing on the label is a dead end and will only lead to circular arguments. If I have multiple Agile teams
    Message 1 of 16 , Dec 31, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      > > But Scrum of Scrums doesn't mean take a delegate from
      > > each low level Scrum and send them to a higher level one. It means
      > > the reverse of that: have a high-level Scrum that is devising vision
      > > and high-level backlog items, then send people down to the next
      > > level to refine those down, sending people down until at the bottom
      > > each Scrum gets backlog items that make sense all the way back up.
      > >
      > > You don't "discover" upper-level organization, you create it and use
      > > it to spawn lower level organization.
      > >
      >
      > OK, I think this is where we have some disconnect. I remember back to a
      > conference in Banff in early 2003 in which scaling agile methods was
      > discussed. Ken Schwaber spoke of Scrum and the Scrum of Scrums at that
      > event, and I'm quite sure he talked about sending 'delegates' from each
      > team to a higher level scrum. I thought that perhaps the altitude may
      > have affected me, but a quick Google search yielded this from Mike Cohn:
      >
      > http://www.scrumalliance.org/articles/46-advice-on-conducting-the-scrum-of-
      scrums-meeting
      >
      > Mike also speaks of designated people from each team, i.e. a bottom-up
      > approach.
      >
      > I'm not suggesting you're wrong, but rather that I had a different
      > understanding. What I have seen and heard is that the Scrum of Scrums
      > approach is for information sharing (i.e. an extension of a single-team
      > Scrum) more than visioning and planning of the backlog. Is your version
      > of SoS performed daily?
      >
      > --
      Hi Guys,

      This is why I say focusing on the label is a dead end and will only lead to circular
      arguments. If I have multiple Agile teams but I don't use a scrum of scrums does that
      mean I'm not applying Scrum? If I do have scrum-of-scrums but I choose to do them the
      RJ way does that mean that I am not doing Scrum or that I'm doing Scrum-RJ?

      What ever happened to inspect and adapt? Rendering "Scrum-by-the-book" as merely a
      starting place?

      In reality the actual day-to-day process followed by any given team will not be the same
      as the book or nor should it. XP and Scrum are just templates, starting places if you will.
      Scrum chooses to only focus on a minimal set of project management activities, whilst XP
      addresses the whole software development process, so is more complete, but neither
      prescribes exactly what you need to do to deliver software. They can't.

      Where they overlap, other than in the choice of language they are more or less the same.

      The real difference between the two is the language, and the omission of technical
      practices in Scrum. The Scrum language can be a positive advantage when trying to get
      teams/management to adopt an Agile approach, who may find the XP language
      intimidating.

      But if a team ends up augmenting Scrum with TDD and common code ownership or starts
      out with XP but chooses to drop pair programming. Do we call them a Scrum team or an
      XP team? Labels, labels...

      IMO the label doesn't matter half as much as whether they are successfuly delivering
      software and whether their process is working for them. Scrum is incomplete and cannot
      deliver software (sustainably) by itself, XP can. Scrum can be an easier sell, XP can be a
      harder sell. This seems to be the substantive difference - packaging.

      Just my opinion. Spliting hairs over specifics just doesn't feel honest to me. The real
      debate IMO is whether the Scrum packaging will lead to more successful software teams
      (with sound technical practices) in the long run or just more failures.

      Paul.
    • jay_conne
      A friend just pointed me to this thread - apologies for not keeping up. I like Paul s points. Here s what I wrote to my friend: Since they are all evolving
      Message 2 of 16 , Jan 19, 2009
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        A friend just pointed me to this thread - apologies for not keeping
        up. I like Paul's points. Here's what I wrote to my friend:

        "Since they are all evolving together [XP & Scrum] - it's really of no
        import other than trying to give credit to them as sources of
        different aspects. It's now more about politics of the Agile Sects -
        like trying to keep religious peace :-)"

        Jay


        --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "beckfordp@..."
        <beckfordp@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > > > But Scrum of Scrums doesn't mean take a delegate from
        > > > each low level Scrum and send them to a higher level one. It means
        > > > the reverse of that: have a high-level Scrum that is devising vision
        > > > and high-level backlog items, then send people down to the next
        > > > level to refine those down, sending people down until at the bottom
        > > > each Scrum gets backlog items that make sense all the way back up.
        > > >
        > > > You don't "discover" upper-level organization, you create it and use
        > > > it to spawn lower level organization.
        > > >
        > >
        > > OK, I think this is where we have some disconnect. I remember
        back to a
        > > conference in Banff in early 2003 in which scaling agile methods was
        > > discussed. Ken Schwaber spoke of Scrum and the Scrum of Scrums at
        that
        > > event, and I'm quite sure he talked about sending 'delegates' from
        each
        > > team to a higher level scrum. I thought that perhaps the altitude
        may
        > > have affected me, but a quick Google search yielded this from Mike
        Cohn:
        > >
        > >
        http://www.scrumalliance.org/articles/46-advice-on-conducting-the-scrum-of-
        > scrums-meeting
        > >
        > > Mike also speaks of designated people from each team, i.e. a
        bottom-up
        > > approach.
        > >
        > > I'm not suggesting you're wrong, but rather that I had a different
        > > understanding. What I have seen and heard is that the Scrum of
        Scrums
        > > approach is for information sharing (i.e. an extension of a
        single-team
        > > Scrum) more than visioning and planning of the backlog. Is your
        version
        > > of SoS performed daily?
        > >
        > > --
        > Hi Guys,
        >
        > This is why I say focusing on the label is a dead end and will only
        lead to circular
        > arguments. If I have multiple Agile teams but I don't use a scrum of
        scrums does that
        > mean I'm not applying Scrum? If I do have scrum-of-scrums but I
        choose to do them the
        > RJ way does that mean that I am not doing Scrum or that I'm doing
        Scrum-RJ?
        >
        > What ever happened to inspect and adapt? Rendering
        "Scrum-by-the-book" as merely a
        > starting place?
        >
        > In reality the actual day-to-day process followed by any given team
        will not be the same
        > as the book or nor should it. XP and Scrum are just templates,
        starting places if you will.
        > Scrum chooses to only focus on a minimal set of project management
        activities, whilst XP
        > addresses the whole software development process, so is more
        complete, but neither
        > prescribes exactly what you need to do to deliver software. They can't.
        >
        > Where they overlap, other than in the choice of language they are
        more or less the same.
        >
        > The real difference between the two is the language, and the
        omission of technical
        > practices in Scrum. The Scrum language can be a positive advantage
        when trying to get
        > teams/management to adopt an Agile approach, who may find the XP
        language
        > intimidating.
        >
        > But if a team ends up augmenting Scrum with TDD and common code
        ownership or starts
        > out with XP but chooses to drop pair programming. Do we call them a
        Scrum team or an
        > XP team? Labels, labels...
        >
        > IMO the label doesn't matter half as much as whether they are
        successfuly delivering
        > software and whether their process is working for them. Scrum is
        incomplete and cannot
        > deliver software (sustainably) by itself, XP can. Scrum can be an
        easier sell, XP can be a
        > harder sell. This seems to be the substantive difference - packaging.
        >
        > Just my opinion. Spliting hairs over specifics just doesn't feel
        honest to me. The real
        > debate IMO is whether the Scrum packaging will lead to more
        successful software teams
        > (with sound technical practices) in the long run or just more failures.
        >
        > Paul.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.