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

39307Re: Plans are there for planning

Expand Messages
  • inanc_gumus
    Jun 21, 2009
      hello Victor,
      --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, victor oliveira <victor.oliveira@...> wrote:
      > There are several aspects of this conversation that raise red flags in my
      > head.The first is that is is obvious that the SM is failing with
      > transparency.
      > Transparency is one of the core responsibilities of the SM, and he clearly
      > has access to the CEO.
      > He is a clear stakeholder and looks like he has not attended to any Sprint
      > Reviews and knows little about the project current situation.

      Yes, I have access to CEO. PO says that: "I am frequently reporting to him. And what you need to do is just that monthly review w/him". And I think, it is PO's duty to let him know about the progress. Or maybe its SM's duty to glue the parties together. To create a communication medium, what do you think?

      > Also, when a team commits to a Sprint, they are committed! Failing to
      > fulfill the commitment cannot be blamed on the rain.
      > They have to do their very best to reach it (of course in a sustainable
      > way).
      > The unforeseen difficulties encountered and impediments also must be made
      > visible.
      > If the team is good and trying hard, what you need is to make people see
      > that. People only understand difficulties if they can see them. Otherwise
      > you become only a delay on the company's plan.

      I agree. But in reality, the difficulties usually from technical aspects, which is hard to communicate. Even, communicated well, as a rule of board, 'we should not surprise boards w/tiny technical details' PO says. So, it becomes hard to make problems visible.

      > I would suggest fighting to commit to less in the next Sprint and bringing
      > the stakeholders closer to the project.
      > What I like about the problem here is that the CEO thinks your project is
      > important. That can be used to get more stakeholders involved.

      I agree. And he thinks that the project is important, yes. But he's very busy to attend every sprint review meetings, and does not want to hear impediments, just expects us to make it done.

      He wants deliveries on exact times we have committed. When I told them this is impossible. He replies back with sales division's estimations: "They are estimated %9 error rate of their estimations for the last year, and they were only %2 behind. So, how do you guys come up w/and say to me that your error rate is uncertain?".
    • Show all 29 messages in this topic