Scrum Waltzing -> was RE: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Scrum Ownership
- I used the waltz analogy a while ago, partially because I was looking and
Tim Lister on the cover of Waltzing with Bears and partially because it is
such a simple set of rule to dance by and mostly because of the last chick
flick I was noble enough not to grab the switcher on that was all about ball
No wouldn't you know that the two remaining grey cells in my head bumped
into a synapse - BAM Headache!
All three are examples of the Waltz you know 1,2,3 1,2,3 right foot, bring
left foot to right foot, one step to right. Bring left foot to right.
All are called waltzing, except. One is what you do at dance class, one is
what you do to read about risk and one is a form of competition that
combines Olympic caliber training with the clothes racks from Vegas.
What makes them all the waltz. 1,2,3 1,2,3 right foot, bring left foot to
right foot, one step to right. Bring left foot to right.
What makes Jeff's or Glen's or my use of the same principles of classic
scrum not Scrum we all have a product backlog, we all have a product owner
driven way to select work for a timebox, and we all communicate daily the
critical information to each other and those that are concerned. Most of
all we all measure by a simple DONE or NOT based on Product Owner
Break anyone of these simple rules and you are not just failing at Scrum you
are failing period. Goes for waltzing as well as Scrum.
Oh yes there is one more thing that waltzing and Scrum have and that is a
rhythm capable of maintaining the dance at different tempos for different
levels of skill. This way everyone enjoys what they are doing, does the job
to the expectations of the Product Owner, and has the opportunity to
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 Ron Jeffries
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Scrum Ownership
On Sunday, April 2, 2006, at 8:52:32 PM, mike.dwyer1@... wrote:
> Is that the issue Ron - bigger, smaller, right, different, wrong?
Not "the". Might be "an".
> I come back to the fact that once we implement scrum it ends up being the
team's and then the
> organization. Like you said you've never seen an xP or a scrum that was
the whole encheliada.
> Maybe that is the answer for you it isn't for them it is. OK so what,
well that means that the
> ideal doesn't exist and no matter how we try to 'save' Agile from the
Aliens it ends up the
> people's ability to use it, accept it and most of all approve it.
If whatever people do is OK, why was Scrum ever written about?
If Scrum and Agile and what has already been said about them is
perfect, why isn't everyone doing things that way already, with
If people and Agile ideas can be improved, why would interested
folks not come together to do so?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Picasso
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: