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
  • 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 1 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.