- Steven. That s an interesting point you made about a scrum team put to waterfall: a real scrum team will turn any of existing processes they are faced withMessage 1 of 14 , Feb 2, 2007View SourceSteven.
That's an interesting point you made about a scrum team put to waterfall:
a real scrum team will turn any of existing processes they are faced with into scrum
after several adaptations.
This means that if a company doesn't know how to make their processes agile,
they need to invite an expert scrum team that will show the approach in real time.
That's interesting.On 1/31/07, Steven Gordon < sgordonphd@...> wrote:
For teams that just do not get it, a short waterfall is not a bad
starting point. What happens when a new scrum teams tries to do a
short waterfall is quite predictable.
When they cannot deliver anything completely done, then inspect and
adapt should slowly lead to more thinly sliced stories, analysis and
design via just defining the tests before the implementation, and most
of the XP engineering practices (as long as somebody prevents the team
from extending the length of their sprints).
The shorter the sprint length, the quicker the learning (I highly
recommend 2 weeks at the max). Of course, a good coach can
excellerate this improvement process, but having the team's experience
motivate the improvements helps people really get it.
On 1/31/07, Mike Sutton <mike.sutton@...> wrote:
> Hi All,
> having recently been on a scrum master workshop and experienced the
> revelation that is scrum, I could help but notice just how many people
> who attended this workshop didn't 'get' it. After years of being told
> what to do, how to do it and when to do it by, many of the attendees
> were with an agile doctor looking for a waterfall prescription.
> By this I mean, they hadn't made the mental leap that Scrum requires
> for it to be done properly. Infact my observation was that in the
> activities we did, many proposed solutions that inserted waterfall
> into sprints (analyses firsts, then design and so on). Applying a
> scrum approach to a waterfall implementation is asking for trouble
> because you perhaps will tend to imply that each waterfall phase might
> be considered a sprint and therefore would last a month!
> Does anyone have anything to add to this and perhaps experiences of
> scrums which have been chucked over the waterfall?