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

Re: [XP] Is experimentation an XP value?

Expand Messages
  • Adam Sroka
    I agree that courage is key, and I am glad that XP made that explicit so I didn t have to work as hard to figure it out for myself. It is also key that we
    Message 1 of 25 , Nov 6, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      I agree that courage is key, and I am glad that XP made that explicit
      so I didn't have to work as hard to figure it out for myself. It is
      also key that we don't have courage blindly. We have courage because
      we are doing the things you mention to always know that it works.

      Part of the problem I see with moving to be more courageous is that it
      takes a certain courage to attempt to do these things. XP teams are
      effective because they do good things like testing, designing,
      integrating and talking to each other more often. What I have observed
      is that many teams that do Scrum but don't have any of the XP
      practices actually do good things less often than they would
      otherwise, because they feel pressured to get done in two weeks.

      I started doing XP by just doing it, because I was in an organization
      where there was no process and nobody really cared what I was doing.
      It was easy for me to have courage in that environment. The risk to me
      was very low because no one was really paying attention.

      Later I worked with a team that was already doing XP. It took very
      little courage to do good things in this environment. I wanted to be
      there doing the good things, and they brought me in precisely because
      I said I would do those good things.

      What is difficult about coaching this stuff in these existing Scrum
      environments is that, somewhat counterintuitively, there are forces in
      place that make doing good things a bit scarier. The problem I see is
      that teams are pressured to deliver every two weeks, but they don't
      have practices that make that effective. They are constantly rushing
      and cutting corners. They don't see how introducing good practices
      will make things better for them. In the short term they expect it to
      slow them down, and that might be an unacceptable risk.

      On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 4:35 AM, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > Hello, Adam. On Saturday, November 6, 2010, at 12:27:37 AM, you
      > wrote:
      >
      > > I spend most of my time, nowadays, trying to convince Scrum teams
      > > to adopt XP practices. One thing that comes up over and over again
      > > is that teams that adopt Scrum are often still very risk averse.
      >
      > > The XP teams that I have worked with, on the other hand, seemed
      > > to value experimentation and learning a lot.
      >
      > > Which makes me wonder... Is valuing experimentation a core XP
      > > value? It seems like others value safety and deliberation over
      > > experimentation, and it seems like we don't. Thoughts?
      >
      > XP teams, good ones, have their code surrounded by zillions of
      > tests. They pair, so everyone knows most everything, and there's
      > always someone to belay you if you slip. They change code by
      > refactoring, not by rewriting. They understand that every
      > refactoring has an inverse. If they have the meme, they follow the
      > C3 rule: if programmers discuss some technical issue for more than
      > ten minutes, they must settle the issue by a joint experiment.
      >
      > Courage is an XP value ... because XP teams do things that justify
      > courage.
      >
      > Scrum teams often have none of those practices, which means they
      > have no reason to have courage.
      >
      > Ron Jeffries
      > www.XProgramming.com
      > In times of stress, I like to turn to the wisdom of my Portuguese waitress,
      > who said: "Olá, meu nome é Marisol e eu serei sua garçonete."
      > -- after Mark Vaughn, Autoweek.
      >
      >
    • Adam Sroka
      ... That makes sense. To put it in the proper context the teams that are doing Scrum without XP practices are doing what they were told to do. Many of them
      Message 2 of 25 , Nov 6, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 5:09 AM, Laurent Bossavit <laurent@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > > The XP teams that I have worked with, on the other hand, seemed to
        > > value experimentation
        > >
        >
        > Something bugs me here... If you are using "XP team" as a shorthand
        > for "teams who use XP practices", ditto Scrum, then you're almost
        > stating a tautology: "the teams I've seen who are using Scrum
        > practices but not XP practices are reluctant to adopt XP practices".
        > That's more or less what made them Scrum teams in the first place,
        > right?
        >

        That makes sense. To put it in the proper context the teams that are
        doing Scrum without XP practices are doing what they were told to do.
        Many of them have no idea how to do XP practices. The reason that I am
        there is to help them figure out how/if XP practices will help them.

        > So, basically you seem to be saying that some teams adopt some
        > practices that some other teams don't.
        >

        That's not exactly what I meant to be saying, but it is true. For the
        most part these teams didn't chose Scrum, it was forced on them. I
        don't want to force XP on them. So, I am in the somewhat tenuous
        position of saying that I think some of the practices will help them
        do Scrum more effectively. The problem with that is that most of the
        time they don't want to try new things.

        In particular, if they are faced with some arbitrary deadline imposed
        by the business then I can almost guarantee they will reject any
        changes introduced prior to that deadline. I can't really say I blame
        them for that, but I want to understand it better so that I can help.

        > Can you clarify? Do you mean something else by "X team" than "a team
        > using practices from X", and if so why? Other than being more or less
        > willing to adopt XP practices, what observations characterize, for
        > you, a team as "risk averse" or "willing to experiment"?
        >

        I always try new things. If you suggested to me that wearing silly
        hats while we programmed would raise our brain temperature and make us
        more productive I would be willing to try it for a couple weeks and
        measure the results.

        Most of the fellow XPers I have worked with have been similarly
        willing to try things. I can't say that every one has, but it seems to
        be a majority.

        The teams I am working with now seem very averse to this. If it is not
        obviously a better idea than what they are currently doing they don't
        even want to talk about it. Even if they agree that it is a better
        idea they are still averse to trying it if there is risk involved in
        failing (I personally love to fail and try again. It's the only way to
        learn anything.)

        Come to think of it, this may have little to do with Scrum and more to
        do with the corporate culture I am dealing with. So, maybe that part
        of my premise was flawed.
      • thierry henrio
        Hello Adam ... If company was sold XXX folds lead time by 2, just do XXX , then it might It might also be a great goal if planned and agreed transparently ...
        Message 3 of 25 , Nov 6, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello Adam

          On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:10 AM, Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...> wrote:

          >
          >
          > On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 5:09 AM, Laurent Bossavit <laurent@...<laurent%40bossavit.com>>
          > wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > > The XP teams that I have worked with, on the other hand, seemed to
          > > > value experimentation
          > > >
          > >
          > > Something bugs me here... If you are using "XP team" as a shorthand
          > > for "teams who use XP practices", ditto Scrum, then you're almost
          > > stating a tautology: "the teams I've seen who are using Scrum
          > > practices but not XP practices are reluctant to adopt XP practices".
          > > That's more or less what made them Scrum teams in the first place,
          > > right?
          > >
          >
          > That makes sense. To put it in the proper context the teams that are
          > doing Scrum without XP practices are doing what they were told to do.
          > Many of them have no idea how to do XP practices. The reason that I am
          > there is to help them figure out how/if XP practices will help them.
          >
          >
          > > So, basically you seem to be saying that some teams adopt some
          > > practices that some other teams don't.
          > >
          >
          > That's not exactly what I meant to be saying, but it is true. For the
          > most part these teams didn't chose Scrum, it was forced on them. I
          > don't want to force XP on them. So, I am in the somewhat tenuous
          > position of saying that I think some of the practices will help them
          > do Scrum more effectively. The problem with that is that most of the
          > time they don't want to try new things.
          >
          > In particular, if they are faced with some arbitrary deadline imposed
          > by the business then I can almost guarantee they will reject any
          > changes introduced prior to that deadline. I can't really say I blame
          > them for that, but I want to understand it better so that I can help.
          >
          > Come to think of it, this may have little to do with Scrum and more to
          > do with the corporate culture I am dealing with. So, maybe that part
          > of my premise was flawed.
          >

          If company was sold "XXX folds lead time by 2, just do XXX", then it might
          It might also be a great goal if planned and agreed transparently ...
          So what is your plan ?
          Curious, Thierry


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Adam Sroka
          ... I m a little hesitant to promise them specific results. For example, they want to know if TDD will make them faster and I am willing to say that in the
          Message 4 of 25 , Nov 6, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 5:41 PM, thierry henrio <thierry.henrio@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            > Hello Adam
            >
            > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:10 AM, Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...> wrote:
            >
            > >
            > >
            > > On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 5:09 AM, Laurent Bossavit <laurent@...<laurent%40bossavit.com>>
            >
            > > wrote:
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > > The XP teams that I have worked with, on the other hand, seemed to
            > > > > value experimentation
            > > > >
            > > >
            > > > Something bugs me here... If you are using "XP team" as a shorthand
            > > > for "teams who use XP practices", ditto Scrum, then you're almost
            > > > stating a tautology: "the teams I've seen who are using Scrum
            > > > practices but not XP practices are reluctant to adopt XP practices".
            > > > That's more or less what made them Scrum teams in the first place,
            > > > right?
            > > >
            > >
            > > That makes sense. To put it in the proper context the teams that are
            > > doing Scrum without XP practices are doing what they were told to do.
            > > Many of them have no idea how to do XP practices. The reason that I am
            > > there is to help them figure out how/if XP practices will help them.
            > >
            > >
            > > > So, basically you seem to be saying that some teams adopt some
            > > > practices that some other teams don't.
            > > >
            > >
            > > That's not exactly what I meant to be saying, but it is true. For the
            > > most part these teams didn't chose Scrum, it was forced on them. I
            > > don't want to force XP on them. So, I am in the somewhat tenuous
            > > position of saying that I think some of the practices will help them
            > > do Scrum more effectively. The problem with that is that most of the
            > > time they don't want to try new things.
            > >
            > > In particular, if they are faced with some arbitrary deadline imposed
            > > by the business then I can almost guarantee they will reject any
            > > changes introduced prior to that deadline. I can't really say I blame
            > > them for that, but I want to understand it better so that I can help.
            > >
            > > Come to think of it, this may have little to do with Scrum and more to
            > > do with the corporate culture I am dealing with. So, maybe that part
            > > of my premise was flawed.
            > >
            >
            > If company was sold "XXX folds lead time by 2, just do XXX", then it might
            > It might also be a great goal if planned and agreed transparently ...

            I'm a little hesitant to promise them specific results. For example,
            they want to know if TDD will make them faster and I am willing to say
            that in the long run I think it will. However, in the shorter term I
            have seen some teams get faster and some teams get much slower
            (Because they weren't paying much attention to the quality of their
            code prior to TDD.)

            In one case I was able to say that TDD would save them a lot of time
            on their testing, because they were automating functional tests that
            were slow and brittle. They had a suite that was taking them several
            days to run and when it found problems they had to spend several more
            days fixing them, then several to run it again... you get the picture.

            So, sometimes I can do that, but sometimes I can't.

            > So what is your plan ?

            My current thinking is that we will offer training classes across the
            organization so that anyone who wants to learn can sign up and join a
            class. Then I will let the teams come to me after one of them has been
            to a class and say, "We want to figure out how to test this GUI..."
            Let those kind of requests drive the coaching. I have had some limited
            success with using a pull approach rather than a push, and I would
            like to go 100% pull if possible. There are 1,400 people in the IT
            organization of this client, and we have other clients that are pretty
            big too. So, I'm not worried about running out of people to help.
          • Adam Sroka
            ... Yes, that s exactly what I was talking about. The XP folks who I know have a natural tendency to try new things that led them to XP in the first place. A
            Message 5 of 25 , Nov 6, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Keith Ray <keith.ray@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              > Groups we are calling "Scrum Teams" may be late adopters, who are by definition reluctant to change, (and might have had Scrum forced on them) while the "XP teams" you remember may have been early adopters voluntarily embracing change.
              >

              Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about. The XP folks who I know
              have a natural tendency to try new things that led them to XP in the
              first place. A lot of the folks I am dealing with now want me to
              promise that it is going to work before they try it and even then they
              seem to fear the change. They will do something if I tell them they
              have to, but that is contrary to both my values and the values that we
              would like to see them embrace. It's a tough nut.
            • Laurent Bossavit
              Hi Adam, ... This is getting close to off-topic, but last Thursday at one of the French stops of Agile Tour I sat in on a very interesting talk with a title
              Message 6 of 25 , Nov 7, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Adam,

                > Come to think of it, this may have little to do with Scrum and more to
                > do with the corporate culture I am dealing with


                This is getting close to off-topic, but last Thursday at one of the
                French stops of Agile Tour I sat in on a very interesting talk with a
                title I'll loosely translate: "Scrum as compliance factory", drawing
                on work such as Cialdini's ("Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion").

                The speaker argued that Scrum seems to have been engineered by someone
                who's read up on the psychology of persuasion, to produce something
                devilishly clever at getting people to willingly commit to goals; he
                didn't see that as an unalloyed benefit, reminding us of the
                historical ills engendered by engineered compliance.

                By and large I agreed, but pointed out it's something of a two-edged
                sword. There may only be subtle differences between creating alignment
                of purpose within a group, and engineering compliance. The former I
                still see as a necessary condition of project success.

                So, perhaps the hypothesis is that XP never appeals to corporate
                culture who value compliance, whereas Scrum may appeal to those
                corporate cultures. I'd take it with a grain of salt, insofar as XP
                incorporates just about every element of Scrum that engineers
                compliance. But maybe it makes sense that if what appeals to you is
                the compliance element you'd want to ditch all the technical
                practices...

                Cheers,
                Laurent Bossavit
                laurent@...
              • Ron Jeffries
                Hello, Adam. On Saturday, November 6, 2010, at 7:10:25 PM, you ... Yes. This sounds to me like a culture issue. I d be looking at what management is doing to
                Message 7 of 25 , Nov 7, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hello, Adam. On Saturday, November 6, 2010, at 7:10:25 PM, you
                  wrote:

                  > The teams I am working with now seem very averse to this. If it is not
                  > obviously a better idea than what they are currently doing they don't
                  > even want to talk about it. Even if they agree that it is a better
                  > idea they are still averse to trying it if there is risk involved in
                  > failing (I personally love to fail and try again. It's the only way to
                  > learn anything.)

                  > Come to think of it, this may have little to do with Scrum and more to
                  > do with the corporate culture I am dealing with. So, maybe that part
                  > of my premise was flawed.

                  Yes. This sounds to me like a culture issue. I'd be looking at what
                  management is doing to the teams for a first thought.

                  Ron Jeffries
                  www.XProgramming.com
                  For best results, avoid doing stupid things. -- Clifford Stoll (Acme Klein Bottle)
                • Ron Jeffries
                  Hello, Adam. On Sunday, November 7, 2010, at 12:08:42 AM, you ... Have these people had Scrum training? Have they heard about Inspect and Adapt? Are they
                  Message 8 of 25 , Nov 7, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hello, Adam. On Sunday, November 7, 2010, at 12:08:42 AM, you
                    wrote:

                    > Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about. The XP folks who I know
                    > have a natural tendency to try new things that led them to XP in the
                    > first place. A lot of the folks I am dealing with now want me to
                    > promise that it is going to work before they try it and even then they
                    > seem to fear the change. They will do something if I tell them they
                    > have to, but that is contrary to both my values and the values that we
                    > would like to see them embrace. It's a tough nut.

                    Have these people had Scrum training? Have they heard about Inspect
                    and Adapt? Are they doing retrospectives? If so, what do they do in
                    them if not figure out ways to improve? If not, why the hell not?

                    Ron Jeffries
                    www.XProgramming.com
                    Reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions. -- David Hume
                  • Philip
                    ... Yes, as Kent Beck says on p 34 of the 1st edition of XP Explained: If you don t have the first three values in place, courage by itself is just plain
                    Message 9 of 25 , Nov 7, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > Courage is an XP value ... because XP teams do things that justify
                      > courage.
                      >
                      > Scrum teams often have none of those practices, which means they
                      > have no reason to have courage.

                      Yes, as Kent Beck says on p 34 of the 1st edition of XP Explained:

                      If you don't have the first three values in place, courage by itself is just plain hacking (in the pejorative sense of that word). However, when combined with communication, simplicity, and concrete feedback, courage becomes extremely valuable.

                      --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Hello, Adam. On Saturday, November 6, 2010, at 12:27:37 AM, you
                      > wrote:
                      >
                      > > I spend most of my time, nowadays, trying to convince Scrum teams
                      > > to adopt XP practices. One thing that comes up over and over again
                      > > is that teams that adopt Scrum are often still very risk averse.
                      >
                      > > The XP teams that I have worked with, on the other hand, seemed
                      > > to value experimentation and learning a lot.
                      >
                      > > Which makes me wonder... Is valuing experimentation a core XP
                      > > value? It seems like others value safety and deliberation over
                      > > experimentation, and it seems like we don't. Thoughts?
                      >
                      > XP teams, good ones, have their code surrounded by zillions of
                      > tests. They pair, so everyone knows most everything, and there's
                      > always someone to belay you if you slip. They change code by
                      > refactoring, not by rewriting. They understand that every
                      > refactoring has an inverse. If they have the meme, they follow the
                      > C3 rule: if programmers discuss some technical issue for more than
                      > ten minutes, they must settle the issue by a joint experiment.
                      >
                      > Courage is an XP value ... because XP teams do things that justify
                      > courage.
                      >
                      > Scrum teams often have none of those practices, which means they
                      > have no reason to have courage.
                      >
                      > Ron Jeffries
                      > www.XProgramming.com
                      > In times of stress, I like to turn to the wisdom of my Portuguese waitress,
                      > who said: "Olá, meu nome é Marisol e eu serei sua garçonete."
                      > -- after Mark Vaughn, Autoweek.
                      >
                    • Steven Gordon
                      ... This view assumes that team responsibility and authority already exist, otherwise communication, simplicity, feedback and courage only go as far as the
                      Message 10 of 25 , Nov 7, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Philip <philip.johann.schwarz@...>wrote:

                        >
                        >
                        > > Courage is an XP value ... because XP teams do things that justify
                        > > courage.
                        > >
                        > > Scrum teams often have none of those practices, which means they
                        > > have no reason to have courage.
                        >
                        > Yes, as Kent Beck says on p 34 of the 1st edition of XP Explained:
                        >
                        > If you don't have the first three values in place, courage by itself is
                        > just plain hacking (in the pejorative sense of that word). However, when
                        > combined with communication, simplicity, and concrete feedback, courage
                        > becomes extremely valuable.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        This view assumes that team responsibility and authority already exist,
                        otherwise communication, simplicity, feedback and courage only go as far as
                        the person who has organizational responsibility and authority will allow
                        it.

                        This is what Scrum brings to an organization that is adopting Agile so late
                        in the game. It establishes that the team has the responsibility to make
                        commitments and the authority to decide how to meet those commitments.
                        This, along with retrospectives, creates a very good environment for teams
                        to then adopt XP without management FUD and interference. Of course, it
                        cannot guarantee that the team will choose to do retrospectives and try to
                        get better, but it gives them a fighting chance despite a risk-averse
                        management structure.

                        Steven Gordon


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Ron Jeffries
                        Hello, Steven. On Sunday, November 7, 2010, at 1:12:44 PM, you ... Yes ... what you say would be true for teams that really do Scrum. It seems that many do
                        Message 11 of 25 , Nov 7, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hello, Steven. On Sunday, November 7, 2010, at 1:12:44 PM, you
                          wrote:

                          > This is what Scrum brings to an organization that is adopting Agile so late
                          > in the game. It establishes that the team has the responsibility to make
                          > commitments and the authority to decide how to meet those commitments.
                          > This, along with retrospectives, creates a very good environment for teams
                          > to then adopt XP without management FUD and interference. Of course, it
                          > cannot guarantee that the team will choose to do retrospectives and try to
                          > get better, but it gives them a fighting chance despite a risk-averse
                          > management structure

                          Yes ... what you say would be true for teams that really do Scrum.
                          It seems that many do not despite using the word.

                          Ron Jeffries
                          www.XProgramming.com
                          When you blame others, you give up your power to change.
                          -- Robert Anthony
                        • Adam Sroka
                          ... That s a very good question. They all have had some degree of training, but most could use more. They do have retrospectives, but the retrospective
                          Message 12 of 25 , Nov 7, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 2:00 AM, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Hello, Adam. On Sunday, November 7, 2010, at 12:08:42 AM, you
                            > wrote:
                            >
                            > > Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about. The XP folks who I know
                            > > have a natural tendency to try new things that led them to XP in the
                            > > first place. A lot of the folks I am dealing with now want me to
                            > > promise that it is going to work before they try it and even then they
                            > > seem to fear the change. They will do something if I tell them they
                            > > have to, but that is contrary to both my values and the values that we
                            > > would like to see them embrace. It's a tough nut.
                            >
                            > Have these people had Scrum training? Have they heard about Inspect
                            > and Adapt? Are they doing retrospectives? If so, what do they do in
                            > them if not figure out ways to improve? If not, why the hell not?
                            >

                            That's a very good question. They all have had some degree of
                            training, but most could use more. They do have retrospectives, but
                            the retrospective practice could be improved. Specifically, in some
                            cases retrospectives devolve to pity parties and the team isn't
                            holding itself accountable for actually following through on
                            improvements. This seems to be a common pattern -- it is easier to
                            identify problems than to commit to solving them.
                          • Adam Sroka
                            ... In these large organizations teams aren t always choosing Scrum for themselves. It is a bit of a Catch 22 when you tell folks, We have decided that you
                            Message 13 of 25 , Nov 7, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Steven Gordon <sgordonphd@...> wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Philip <philip.johann.schwarz@...>wrote:
                              >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > > Courage is an XP value ... because XP teams do things that justify
                              > > > courage.
                              > > >
                              > > > Scrum teams often have none of those practices, which means they
                              > > > have no reason to have courage.
                              > >
                              > > Yes, as Kent Beck says on p 34 of the 1st edition of XP Explained:
                              > >
                              > > If you don't have the first three values in place, courage by itself is
                              > > just plain hacking (in the pejorative sense of that word). However, when
                              > > combined with communication, simplicity, and concrete feedback, courage
                              > > becomes extremely valuable.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > This view assumes that team responsibility and authority already exist,
                              > otherwise communication, simplicity, feedback and courage only go as far as
                              > the person who has organizational responsibility and authority will allow
                              > it.
                              >
                              > This is what Scrum brings to an organization that is adopting Agile so late
                              > in the game. It establishes that the team has the responsibility to make
                              > commitments and the authority to decide how to meet those commitments.
                              > This, along with retrospectives, creates a very good environment for teams
                              > to then adopt XP without management FUD and interference. Of course, it
                              > cannot guarantee that the team will choose to do retrospectives and try to
                              > get better, but it gives them a fighting chance despite a risk-averse
                              > management structure.
                              >

                              In these large organizations teams aren't always choosing Scrum for
                              themselves. It is a bit of a Catch 22 when you tell folks, "We have
                              decided that you will manage yourselves." People are put in the
                              tenuous position of attempting to satisfy management's desire for them
                              to be empowered, when all they really want is to be left to do the
                              work in the way that they have always done it.

                              Add to that the fact that this isn't the first "enterprise
                              transformation" these folks have had to endure. It's a wonder they
                              stick around through this stuff.

                              It's not all bad, though. In any group there are folks who are eager
                              to learn something new, and it is rather easy to get through to those
                              folks. The problem is reaching a critical mass where whole teams begin
                              to behave differently.
                            • Adam Sroka
                              ... Scrum, by design I believe, is rather easy to do mechanically. Living up to the intent and truly inspecting and adapting is more challenging. IMO, even
                              Message 14 of 25 , Nov 7, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Hello, Steven. On Sunday, November 7, 2010, at 1:12:44 PM, you
                                > wrote:
                                >
                                > > This is what Scrum brings to an organization that is adopting Agile so late
                                > > in the game. It establishes that the team has the responsibility to make
                                > > commitments and the authority to decide how to meet those commitments.
                                > > This, along with retrospectives, creates a very good environment for teams
                                > > to then adopt XP without management FUD and interference. Of course, it
                                > > cannot guarantee that the team will choose to do retrospectives and try to
                                > > get better, but it gives them a fighting chance despite a risk-averse
                                > > management structure
                                >
                                > Yes ... what you say would be true for teams that really do Scrum.
                                > It seems that many do not despite using the word.
                                >

                                Scrum, by design I believe, is rather easy to do mechanically. Living
                                up to the intent and truly inspecting and adapting is more
                                challenging. IMO, even some of the Scrum leaders don't always practice
                                this as well as I would hope.
                              • Steven Gordon
                                ... Ron, It does seem that the percentage of XP teams really doing XP is significantly greater than the percentage of Scrum teams really doing Scrum. Would
                                Message 15 of 25 , Nov 8, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:

                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Hello, Steven. On Sunday, November 7, 2010, at 1:12:44 PM, you
                                  > wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > > This is what Scrum brings to an organization that is adopting Agile so
                                  > late
                                  > > in the game. It establishes that the team has the responsibility to make
                                  > > commitments and the authority to decide how to meet those commitments.
                                  > > This, along with retrospectives, creates a very good environment for
                                  > teams
                                  > > to then adopt XP without management FUD and interference. Of course, it
                                  > > cannot guarantee that the team will choose to do retrospectives and try
                                  > to
                                  > > get better, but it gives them a fighting chance despite a risk-averse
                                  > > management structure
                                  >
                                  > Yes ... what you say would be true for teams that really do Scrum.
                                  > It seems that many do not despite using the word.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  Ron,

                                  It does seem that the percentage of XP teams really doing XP is
                                  significantly greater than the percentage of Scrum teams really doing Scrum.

                                  Would this be because XP is more specific/rigorous, more likely to be
                                  rejected out-of-hand by risk-averse managements, or just less
                                  popular/marketed?

                                  SteveG



                                  >
                                  > Ron Jeffries
                                  > www.XProgramming.com
                                  > When you blame others, you give up your power to change.
                                  > -- Robert Anthony
                                  >
                                  >


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Charlie Poole
                                  ... And the percentage of teams calling them selves agile that are really agile is even lower that for Scrum. ... It seems to me that the more popular a
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Nov 8, 2010
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Steven Gordon <sgordonphd@...> wrote:
                                    > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    >>
                                    >>
                                    >> Hello, Steven. On Sunday, November 7, 2010, at 1:12:44 PM, you
                                    >> wrote:
                                    >>
                                    >>
                                    >> > This is what Scrum brings to an organization that is adopting Agile so
                                    >> late
                                    >> > in the game. It establishes that the team has the responsibility to make
                                    >> > commitments and the authority to decide how to meet those commitments.
                                    >> > This, along with retrospectives, creates a very good environment for
                                    >> teams
                                    >> > to then adopt XP without management FUD and interference. Of course, it
                                    >> > cannot guarantee that the team will choose to do retrospectives and try
                                    >> to
                                    >> > get better, but it gives them a fighting chance despite a risk-averse
                                    >> > management structure
                                    >>
                                    >> Yes ... what you say would be true for teams that really do Scrum.
                                    >> It seems that many do not despite using the word.
                                    >>
                                    >>
                                    > Ron,
                                    >
                                    > It does seem that the percentage of XP teams really doing XP is
                                    > significantly greater than the percentage of Scrum teams really doing Scrum.

                                    And the percentage of teams calling them selves "agile" that are really
                                    "agile" is even lower that for Scrum.

                                    > Would this be because XP is more specific/rigorous, more likely to be
                                    > rejected out-of-hand by risk-averse managements, or just less
                                    > popular/marketed?

                                    It seems to me that the more popular a label becomes, the more likely
                                    it is to be misused.

                                    Charlie

                                    > SteveG
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >>
                                    >> Ron Jeffries
                                    >> www.XProgramming.com
                                    >> When you blame others, you give up your power to change.
                                    >> -- Robert Anthony
                                    >>
                                    >>
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > ------------------------------------
                                    >
                                    > To Post a message, send it to:   extremeprogramming@...
                                    >
                                    > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...
                                    >
                                    > ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.comYahoo! Groups Links
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                  • Adam Sroka
                                    I seem to recall quite a few teams claiming to be doing XP and doing it either partially or naively. I think that was true in the early days (1999-2004 or so)
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Nov 8, 2010
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I seem to recall quite a few teams claiming to be doing XP and doing it
                                      either partially or naively. I think that was true in the early days
                                      (1999-2004 or so) and less so since Scrum has emerged as the big player.

                                      I still encounter teams that think they are doing some of the practices but
                                      have not really understood them. They think they are doing TDD but it is
                                      really integration test first. They think they are doing CI because
                                      CruiseControl is compiling their project nightly, etc.
                                      On Nov 8, 2010 7:40 AM, "Charlie Poole" <charlie@...> wrote:
                                      > On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Steven Gordon <sgordonphd@...>
                                      wrote:
                                      >> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
                                      >>
                                      >>>
                                      >>>
                                      >>> Hello, Steven. On Sunday, November 7, 2010, at 1:12:44 PM, you
                                      >>> wrote:
                                      >>>
                                      >>>
                                      >>> > This is what Scrum brings to an organization that is adopting Agile so
                                      >>> late
                                      >>> > in the game. It establishes that the team has the responsibility to
                                      make
                                      >>> > commitments and the authority to decide how to meet those commitments.
                                      >>> > This, along with retrospectives, creates a very good environment for
                                      >>> teams
                                      >>> > to then adopt XP without management FUD and interference. Of course,
                                      it
                                      >>> > cannot guarantee that the team will choose to do retrospectives and
                                      try
                                      >>> to
                                      >>> > get better, but it gives them a fighting chance despite a risk-averse
                                      >>> > management structure
                                      >>>
                                      >>> Yes ... what you say would be true for teams that really do Scrum.
                                      >>> It seems that many do not despite using the word.
                                      >>>
                                      >>>
                                      >> Ron,
                                      >>
                                      >> It does seem that the percentage of XP teams really doing XP is
                                      >> significantly greater than the percentage of Scrum teams really doing
                                      Scrum.
                                      >
                                      > And the percentage of teams calling them selves "agile" that are really
                                      > "agile" is even lower that for Scrum.
                                      >
                                      >> Would this be because XP is more specific/rigorous, more likely to be
                                      >> rejected out-of-hand by risk-averse managements, or just less
                                      >> popular/marketed?
                                      >
                                      > It seems to me that the more popular a label becomes, the more likely
                                      > it is to be misused.
                                      >
                                      > Charlie
                                      >
                                      >> SteveG
                                      >>
                                      >>
                                      >>
                                      >>>
                                      >>> Ron Jeffries
                                      >>> www.XProgramming.com
                                      >>> When you blame others, you give up your power to change.
                                      >>> -- Robert Anthony
                                      >>>
                                      >>>
                                      >>
                                      >>
                                      >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      >>
                                      >>
                                      >>
                                      >> ------------------------------------
                                      >>
                                      >> To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...
                                      >>
                                      >> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                                      extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...
                                      >>
                                      >> ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.comYahoo! Groups Links
                                      >>
                                      >>
                                      >>
                                      >>


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • ronjeffriesacm@gmail.com
                                      I don t have any data, even subjective, to support this. Intuitively, it would seem that since xp is more specific, it might be harder to assert it without
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Nov 8, 2010
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        I don't have any data, even subjective, to support this. Intuitively, it would seem that since xp is more specific, it might be harder to assert it without basis. That said, historically, i've seen a lot of so-called xp teams not doing it at all well.

                                        R

                                        On Nov 8, 2010, at 10:28 AM, Steven Gordon <sgordonphd@...> wrote:

                                        > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >> Hello, Steven. On Sunday, November 7, 2010, at 1:12:44 PM, you
                                        >> wrote:
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >>> This is what Scrum brings to an organization that is adopting Agile so
                                        >> late
                                        >>> in the game. It establishes that the team has the responsibility to make
                                        >>> commitments and the authority to decide how to meet those commitments.
                                        >>> This, along with retrospectives, creates a very good environment for
                                        >> teams
                                        >>> to then adopt XP without management FUD and interference. Of course, it
                                        >>> cannot guarantee that the team will choose to do retrospectives and try
                                        >> to
                                        >>> get better, but it gives them a fighting chance despite a risk-averse
                                        >>> management structure
                                        >>
                                        >> Yes ... what you say would be true for teams that really do Scrum.
                                        >> It seems that many do not despite using the word.
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        > Ron,
                                        >
                                        > It does seem that the percentage of XP teams really doing XP is
                                        > significantly greater than the percentage of Scrum teams really doing Scrum.
                                        >
                                        > Would this be because XP is more specific/rigorous, more likely to be
                                        > rejected out-of-hand by risk-averse managements, or just less
                                        > popular/marketed?
                                        >
                                        > SteveG
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >>
                                        >> Ron Jeffries
                                        >> www.XProgramming.com
                                        >> When you blame others, you give up your power to change.
                                        >> -- Robert Anthony
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > ------------------------------------
                                        >
                                        > To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...
                                        >
                                        > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...
                                        >
                                        > ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.comYahoo! Groups Links
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                      • Wouter Lagerweij
                                        ... Indeed! The team I met last week had been doing scrum for about five sprints. The results of their last retrospective were still shown on a white board,
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Nov 8, 2010
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...> wrote:

                                          >
                                          >
                                          > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 2:00 AM, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...<ronjeffries%40acm.org>>
                                          > wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > > Hello, Adam. On Sunday, November 7, 2010, at 12:08:42 AM, you
                                          > > wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > > > Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about. The XP folks who I know
                                          > > > have a natural tendency to try new things that led them to XP in the
                                          > > > first place. A lot of the folks I am dealing with now want me to
                                          > > > promise that it is going to work before they try it and even then they
                                          > > > seem to fear the change. They will do something if I tell them they
                                          > > > have to, but that is contrary to both my values and the values that we
                                          > > > would like to see them embrace. It's a tough nut.
                                          > >
                                          > > Have these people had Scrum training? Have they heard about Inspect
                                          > > and Adapt? Are they doing retrospectives? If so, what do they do in
                                          > > them if not figure out ways to improve? If not, why the hell not?
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > That's a very good question. They all have had some degree of
                                          > training, but most could use more. They do have retrospectives, but
                                          > the retrospective practice could be improved. Specifically, in some
                                          > cases retrospectives devolve to pity parties and the team isn't
                                          > holding itself accountable for actually following through on
                                          > improvements. This seems to be a common pattern -- it is easier to
                                          > identify problems than to commit to solving them.
                                          >

                                          Indeed! The team I met last week had been doing scrum for about five
                                          sprints. The results of their last retrospective were still shown on a white
                                          board, and listed items such as 'improve unit testing'. This was
                                          encouraging, in that they were unit testing, were doing retrospectives, and
                                          wanted to improve their technical practices.
                                          When I asked them *how* they were working on improving unit testing, though,
                                          I got a very long pause...

                                          Note that this wasn't in any way reluctance on the teams part to follow
                                          through, they just hadn't gotten the message that they could and *should*
                                          take concrete steps to change. For people not used to taking that
                                          responsibility, that seems to be the hardest part of scrum to really
                                          perform.

                                          Wouter


                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Adam Sroka
                                          My data is only anecdotal, based on the teams that I have had direct contact with. However, I think there is a terminology problem. In the early days people
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Nov 8, 2010
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            My data is only anecdotal, based on the teams that I have had direct contact
                                            with.

                                            However, I think there is a terminology problem. In the early days people
                                            had difficulty adopting XP wholesale. So, they said they were doing XP, but
                                            they hadn't implemented all the practices yet.

                                            Nowadays I find teams in very similar circumstances, but they claim to be
                                            doing Scrum with or without some number of "engineering practices." AFAIK,
                                            there is no meaningful difference here except that the words we are using
                                            are different.

                                            On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 10:56 AM, <ronjeffriesacm@...> wrote:

                                            >
                                            >
                                            > I don't have any data, even subjective, to support this. Intuitively, it
                                            > would seem that since xp is more specific, it might be harder to assert it
                                            > without basis. That said, historically, i've seen a lot of so-called xp
                                            > teams not doing it at all well.
                                            >
                                            > R
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > On Nov 8, 2010, at 10:28 AM, Steven Gordon <sgordonphd@...<sgordonphd%40gmail.com>>
                                            > wrote:
                                            >
                                            > > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...<ronjeffries%40acm.org>>
                                            > wrote:
                                            > >
                                            > >>
                                            > >>
                                            > >> Hello, Steven. On Sunday, November 7, 2010, at 1:12:44 PM, you
                                            > >> wrote:
                                            > >>
                                            > >>
                                            > >>> This is what Scrum brings to an organization that is adopting Agile so
                                            > >> late
                                            > >>> in the game. It establishes that the team has the responsibility to
                                            > make
                                            > >>> commitments and the authority to decide how to meet those commitments.
                                            > >>> This, along with retrospectives, creates a very good environment for
                                            > >> teams
                                            > >>> to then adopt XP without management FUD and interference. Of course, it
                                            > >>> cannot guarantee that the team will choose to do retrospectives and try
                                            > >> to
                                            > >>> get better, but it gives them a fighting chance despite a risk-averse
                                            > >>> management structure
                                            > >>
                                            > >> Yes ... what you say would be true for teams that really do Scrum.
                                            > >> It seems that many do not despite using the word.
                                            > >>
                                            > >>
                                            > > Ron,
                                            > >
                                            > > It does seem that the percentage of XP teams really doing XP is
                                            > > significantly greater than the percentage of Scrum teams really doing
                                            > Scrum.
                                            > >
                                            > > Would this be because XP is more specific/rigorous, more likely to be
                                            > > rejected out-of-hand by risk-averse managements, or just less
                                            > > popular/marketed?
                                            > >
                                            > > SteveG
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >>
                                            > >> Ron Jeffries
                                            > >> www.XProgramming.com
                                            > >> When you blame others, you give up your power to change.
                                            > >> -- Robert Anthony
                                            > >>
                                            > >>
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > > ------------------------------------
                                            >
                                            > >
                                            > > To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...<extremeprogramming%40eGroups.com>
                                            > >
                                            > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                                            > extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...<extremeprogramming-unsubscribe%40eGroups.com>
                                            > >
                                            > > ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.comYahoo! Groups Links
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            >
                                            >


                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • Adam Sroka
                                            ... This is a good time to plug Esther Derby and Diana Larsen s /Agile Retrospectives/. Some of the techniques are a bit touchy-feely for us software geeks,
                                            Message 21 of 25 , Nov 8, 2010
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Wouter Lagerweij <wouter@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 2:00 AM, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...<ronjeffries%40acm.org>>
                                              >
                                              > > wrote:
                                              > > >
                                              > > >
                                              > > >
                                              > > > Hello, Adam. On Sunday, November 7, 2010, at 12:08:42 AM, you
                                              > > > wrote:
                                              > > >
                                              > > > > Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about. The XP folks who I know
                                              > > > > have a natural tendency to try new things that led them to XP in the
                                              > > > > first place. A lot of the folks I am dealing with now want me to
                                              > > > > promise that it is going to work before they try it and even then they
                                              > > > > seem to fear the change. They will do something if I tell them they
                                              > > > > have to, but that is contrary to both my values and the values that we
                                              > > > > would like to see them embrace. It's a tough nut.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > Have these people had Scrum training? Have they heard about Inspect
                                              > > > and Adapt? Are they doing retrospectives? If so, what do they do in
                                              > > > them if not figure out ways to improve? If not, why the hell not?
                                              > > >
                                              > >
                                              > > That's a very good question. They all have had some degree of
                                              > > training, but most could use more. They do have retrospectives, but
                                              > > the retrospective practice could be improved. Specifically, in some
                                              > > cases retrospectives devolve to pity parties and the team isn't
                                              > > holding itself accountable for actually following through on
                                              > > improvements. This seems to be a common pattern -- it is easier to
                                              > > identify problems than to commit to solving them.
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > Indeed! The team I met last week had been doing scrum for about five
                                              > sprints. The results of their last retrospective were still shown on a white
                                              > board, and listed items such as 'improve unit testing'. This was
                                              > encouraging, in that they were unit testing, were doing retrospectives, and
                                              > wanted to improve their technical practices.
                                              > When I asked them *how* they were working on improving unit testing, though,
                                              > I got a very long pause...
                                              >
                                              > Note that this wasn't in any way reluctance on the teams part to follow
                                              > through, they just hadn't gotten the message that they could and *should*
                                              > take concrete steps to change. For people not used to taking that
                                              > responsibility, that seems to be the hardest part of scrum to really
                                              > perform.
                                              >

                                              This is a good time to plug Esther Derby and Diana Larsen's /Agile
                                              Retrospectives/. Some of the techniques are a bit touchy-feely for us
                                              software geeks, but it effectively makes the point about finding
                                              measurable improvements, committing to doing them, and then measuring
                                              them.

                                              A lot of the Kanban literature is also good in this regard. We need to
                                              actually look for areas to improve, measure them, attempt to improve
                                              them, and measure them again. It should be a bit more scientific and
                                              less about what the team likes and dislikes.
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.