RE: [scrumdevelopment] Scrum Ownership
- Common sense is your button, "Ideal is mine."
Can I assume that we agree that 'ideal refers to a single truth model"?
I am now at the point where I am having a hard time with "ideal" is a vision
because the people I am helping see ideal as what works better today than
yesterday and as long as it works tomorrow, don't change it.
I am not going to try to win their hearts and minds on this one either.
Why? Because like truth, ideal has a shelf life when you are dealing in an
Maybe that is why various parts of my anatomy are not in a wringer over all
this. Jeff's use of scrum did not evolve into an advanced form, I see what
he did is find Scrum and his organization changing to make best use of what
they had, that is to say create an ideal that fits the truth of their
Try this analogy out, Scrum is like learning to waltz, three beats, three
steps, act civily to your partner, communicate where you are going next,
don't fight over the lead and apologize when you step on a teammates toes.
There you are dancing.
Jeff is doing the waltz to, the difference is the 3 beats are coming faster,
the people he is dancing with like to move at the speed of light and also
want to do more things, like, dip and glide, and stuff within those three
Big deal, they still dance.
I am doing the waltz too, but not on the same floor or the same band, nor
even to the same music. It still has three beats and we are inventing moves
that fit the place the dancers are. They stay inside the rules and they are
ideal - for them at this time.
Michael F. Dwyer
"Planning constantly peers into the future for indications as to where a
solution may emerge."
"A Plan is a complex situation, adapting to an emerging solution."
[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Alex Pukinskis
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 12:54 AM
Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Scrum Ownership
On 03 30 2006 9:09 PM, "Ron Jeffries" <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
> Every team I have visited in the last ten years has been doing too
> much. Some of them have also been omitting key practices that they
> sorely need, but every single one of them has been doing quaint and
> curious Rococo things that are neither necessary nor productive.
> Every single one. That makes me willing to bet that if you are
> reading this right now, your team is doing more than is ideal.
This is fascinating to me. While it's absolutely true that most
organizations do this, I definitely have worked with some who don't have
enough process. There are startups out there that are doing ad-hoc,
code-and-fix, crisis mode development all the time, with no formal process
Where most companies see waste because they have too much process, these
groups constantly churn because they lack the focus and structure Scrum
provides. For them, adding a prioritized backlog, iterations, and daily
standup meetings constitute a net increase in the amount of process.
I guess I'm just surprised you haven't hit one or two of these.
Alex Pukinskis - Agile Coach
Rally Software Development - http://rallydev.com/
To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
Yahoo! Groups Links
- Dave:WOW What a huge difference from your posts a year ago. You really need to tell us more about how you got to the point the customer capacity to absorb DONE was saturated.Congratulations.--
Perseverance is not a long race; it is many short races one after another. ~Walter Elliott, The Spiritual Life
The greatest oak was once a little nut who held its ground. ~Author Unknown
-------------- Original message --------------
From: David A Barrett <dave.barrett@...>
> >I think someone else said that Scrum is a path, not a destination. I
> >agree with that.
> I agree too. With regards to "cookie-cutter" solutions, I highly doubt
> that there are going to be any to be found for anyone.
> Personally, I think that one of the key strengths of Scrum is that it is so
> simple it is easy to make the adaptations that will make if a good fit for
> a particular situation. I think that above all we need to hold on to that
> simplicity, and continue to regard our adaptations as simply that;
> adaptations and not improvements or evolements.
> I've noticed that some of the people on the list have concentrated on
> squeezing every last ounce of productivity out of a development team.
> They've made adaptations that seek to reduce the downtime between Sprints,
> and to strip out all extraneous distractions from the developers and to
> deliver as much new functionality as quickly as possible. I'm sure this
> makes sense within their situations, and I'm sure it seems natural to them
> to assume that these same goals would be universal. From there, I have no
> doubt it becomes easy for them to view their adaptations as the natural
> "evolution" of Scrum.
> Personally, I wonder what such a pace does to the developers over the long
> haul. Where's the line between an exhilarating, rewarding and successful
> environment and a sweat shop?
> As a contrast, I noticed that Scrum is really good at choking off
> development when required. A lot of customers aren't able to cope with a
> virtual firehose of new functionality aimed a them. Around here, we're at
> one of those points with one of our projects. We've almost completed an
> early stage of development, and the customer is going to need some time to
> experiment with the software, find out what works and what doesn't, plan
> training for their staff, train their staff, implement the new software and
> evaluate how it's going to change their world. I should add that this new
> software represents a potentially enormous change to them, and the way that
> they do their jobs.
> In the meantime, they might want a couple of tweaks to what we've done, but
> they can't tell us what the next step should be. We, the developers, can't
> tell either and any work that we might do before we find out stands a very
> good chance of being useless, unwanted or just plain wrong. Scrum handles
> this. Nothing on the PB for this project bubbles up to a high enough
> priority to make a Sprint Backlog. While we wait, we point the
> functionality firehose at another customer.
> My point on that is that we're all looking for something different.
> Vanilla, out of the box Scrum provides a good starting place to achieve a
> large range of different goals. Maybe Scrum needs someone like Ken to
> remind us when we're getting caught up in our own situations and losing
> track of larger world of software development.
> Dave Barrett,
> Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company
> To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: