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

Re: [leanagilescrum] Lean Vs Scrum. 1-0. Re: What Is Scrum?

Expand Messages
  • Robin Dymond
    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 helps
    Message 1 of 134 , Jan 16, 2009
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      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 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?

      Robin.

      On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Alan Shalloway <alshall@...> wrote:

      --- In leanagilescrum@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Dymond"

      <robin.dymond@...> wrote:
      >
      > Allan,
      >
      > I think there are better examples then the one you have chosen where
      > lean adds more insight.

      Of course there are - like the 20% improvement a company got from
      using value stream mapping that I've talked about. I was trying to
      just show how lean helps understanding of simple things in Scrum.


      In this case it was simply an incorrect
      > implementation of scrum. A team of dbas? How is that
      crossfunctional?
      > Crossfunctional team is a basic scrum attribute. This example does
      not
      > show insight from lean that was not also available in basic scrum
      and
      > also every other agile method (as Ron mentioned).
      >
      > I too do not understand your emerging philosophy. Scrum and agile
      and
      > lean are all useful and they are closely related in principle,
      > philosophy, and practice. The emphasis is different, and each are
      more
      > or less useful in certain situations. I think understanding,
      > practicing, and learning about these ideas are key to being
      successful
      > in delivering complex projects. Trying to make value statements
      about
      > which is better is a fools errand IMO. They are all good.
      >
      > Cheers,
      > Robin.

      My emerging philosophy is really simple. Scrum is great, works well
      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
      the team
      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.


      Alan Shalloway
      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
      says to
      > >> 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.
      People
      > > who don't know this stuff are, in my opinion, as poorly equipped
      to
      > > adapt it as they will ever be.
      > >
      > >> There are times where layering of teams is required. What does
      one
      > >> use to figure that out? Sometimes "just following instructions"
      > >> works. Sometimes it doesn't. How does one know which case it
      is.
      > >
      > > Shu-Ha-Ri. Start "from the book". Only after that: Inspect and
      Adapt.
      > >
      > > Really smart people get help.
      > >
      > >>> Lean is just great and I think it is just dandy to be all hot
      about
      > >>> 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,
      failed
      > >>> to inspect, and/or failed to adapt. In this case they also
      failed to
      > >>> 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,
      I
      > >> admit, one of the more dangerous pieces of advice I have heard.
      No
      > >> practice (Scrum or other) works in all cases - so saying just do
      what
      > >> Scrum says is sounding more and more dogmatic to me. And
      dangerous.
      > >
      > > 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
      do
      > > 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
      reading
      > >>> and thinking. That's all good. I just think if you want to push
      lean
      > >>> 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
      concept
      > >> 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
      help.
      > >
      > > Well, ten years from now you'll feel differently. Right now you
      are
      > > in love and she looks beautiful. :)
      > >
      > >>> And I think that your
      > >>> comparisons with Scrum may help your market position but that
      they
      > >>> 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
      not
      > >> being ignored as much. Maybe Lean would have been just as much
      known
      > >> without me as with me. But I like to think I've raised
      awareness of
      > >> it. I know of dozens of companies where I have done just this -
      and
      > >> they've thanked me for it.
      > >
      > > Yes, you've done fine. I mean that. I hope they also paid you.
      It's
      > > good material. I just think that your Lean vs Scrum styling is
      > > unbecoming.
      > >
      > >> I have been barred from having open conversations about how lean
      can
      > >> help the Scrum community within the Scrum community. Done under
      the
      > >> pretense that I was marketing, but always without warning and
      without
      > >> notification.
      > >
      > > Yes, me too. That's not appropriate in my opinion but his group,
      his
      > > 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
      as
      > >> much with Scrum as you can with Scrum and Lean. I have a huge
      amount
      > >> of evidence that Lean helps and no evidence that it hurts. I
      have
      > >> 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
      on
      > > 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
      than
      > > 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
      answers:
      > > it's more like exhaustive search. Lean provides more specific
      > > answers. If there is a place where Lean won't work, Scrum will
      find
      > > 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_
      people
      > >> 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
      with
      > >> one of my favorite quotes - "in theory, theory and practice are
      the
      > >> 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,
      and I
      > > don't see why suggesting that it is is necessary to your success
      in
      > > 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.
      > www.innovel.net
      > www.scrumtraining.com
      > (804) 239-4329
      >




      --
      Robin Dymond, CST
      Managing Partner, Innovel, LLC.
      www.innovel.net
      www.scrumtraining.com
      (804) 239-4329
    • Alan Shalloway
      ... 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 quite
      Message 134 of 134 , Jan 17, 2009
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In leanagilescrum@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Dymond"
        <robin.dymond@...> wrote:
        >
        > 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.

        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.

        Alan Shalloway
        CEO, Net Objectives
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.