Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Scrum Ownership
- On Sunday, April 2, 2006, at 8:08:04 PM, Deb wrote:
> What's good for our clients ought to be good for us... I agree, Mike.That would be a scrum gathering worth attending. but i wonder ...
... could the difficult topics be addressed productively;
... how could the large group be accommodated;
... is it time yet to move beyond these brand names to the bigger
The work teaches us. -- Richard Gabriel
- 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: