RE: [scrumdevelopment] Re: mention of Scrum in "Software Development"
MessageMark:You probably missed it, but we have already *openly* admitted, several times, for the lack ofgood documentation of the Scrum engineering practices.Most of the information on these practices was found on web sites and some OOPSLA papers,btw.I'll give you examples of Scrum engineering practices:Partitioning by vertical and horizontal packagesDaily BuildContinuous Integration (constant checkins, integration, constant testing, etc.)Requirements Practices (Meetings, some have used Use Cases and CRC cards over the years, etc.)Regression Testing (script, or scriptless functional testing)Spot Testing (informal daily testing)etc.These were practices that have been in Scrum sites since at least 1996, both at Jeff Sutherland oldTIAC and at http:///www.controlchaos.com,I have used in practice since then,- Mike-----Original Message-----
From: woynam [mailto:woyna@...]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 1:54 PM
Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: mention of Scrum in "Software Development"
Can you please provide the references that detail the full
software development methodology behind Scrum? I've studied
and used Scrum for years, (including reading the book :-), and
I have to agree with Scott. I don't see much in the way of
engineering practices, other than letting the team do their
Having tailored and used RUP in a lightweight fashion, I don't
see Scrum addressing many of the artifacts and workflows
necessary to get from requirements to tested software, whether
formal or informal. If you have a group of experienced engineers,
this isn't necessarily that big of a deal. However, junior staff
don't automatically know how to transition through the various
stages. RUP's various templates, guidelines, etc. provide some
form of a roadmap. Of course, if used without tailoring, RUP
can certainly be labeled as anti-agile.
--- In email@example.com, "Ken Schwaber"
> I send an email to Scott that he seemed to be unaware that Scrumis
> methodology and perhaps is unaware of it entirely otherthan
> Perhaps nobody should be allowed to write aboutScrum that isn't a CSM?
> From: Mike Cohn[mailto:mike@m...]
> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 8:42PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.orgSubject: [scrumdevelopment] mention of Scrum in "Software Development"
>couple of days ago. As
> The new "Software Development" magazine came a
> always, Scott Ambler has an interesting column. Ioften agree with his
> points but I don't this time and since Scrum ismentioned in the
> want to pass along the reference.tool for the job" and its teaser
> The article is about using "the right
> says that "When it comes tomethodologies, one size doesn't fit all. By
> examining all the options,you can create a mix-and-match approach
> suits yourproject."
>that I think is subject to debate is a
> The part of the article
> shows. The figurehas a vertical axis with "full lifecycle" at the
> "partialmethodology" at the bottom. He puts Scrum near the bottom
>axis saying that "Scrum [focuses] only on one aspect of software
>development, .project management." At similar levels on this scale
> and fix, test-driven development, his own Agile Modeling and AgileData.
>from Ad Hoc on the left to Prescriptive
> The horizontal axis goes
> right. Scrum is shownslightly to the Prescriptive side of the
> similar levels onthat scale are DSDM, FDD, and Agile Data.
> Scrum is defined in a sidebar to the article as "a partial
> methodology" and says that to use it "Tailor Scrum into agileor
> development methods." What's odd is that otherprocesses that seem
> agile to me (e.g, FDD) are listed asagile while Scrum is "partial
> Similarly, XP is listed as moread hoc than Scrum. That's a hard
> ways (good ones) XP isfairly prescriptive and there was a lot of
> in XP circlesthat if you weren't doing all 12 practices you weren't
>scale between Ad Hoc and Prescriptive
> If I had to place Scrum on a
> it pretty far to the AdHoc side.
>Partial Methodology and Full Lifecycle is
> Placing it between
> it's partialbecause it doesn't define how everything happens but it
> fairlyfull lifecycle in that the path to a potentially shippable
>increment is defined. There's nothing in Scrum about how to end a
> about how to handle a project in its earliest, pre-fundingor
> phases but some of that is what Ken's been adding inthe CSM
> I'd say it seems more toward the FullLifecycle end of things than the
> Partial Methodology end ofthings.
>thoughts about Scott's article and placement of
> Anyone else have any
> Scrum?issue is out
> In any event, the article is quite good. The print
> they seem to put the articles online atwww.sdmagazine.com a few weeks
> afterwards. (As a bonus, this issue hasanother great article-Bob Martin
> showing how tracking velocity andproduct burndown help manage a
To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
- While I agree with Mike in general, it is of interest that the first Scrum
was building an OOAD tool and we decided the team should eat their own
dogfood. It was also the first round trip engineering tool.
Every developer had the model of his components on his wall.
Our senior consultant, Jeff McKenna, an ace Smalltalker, would walk into a
cube and an hour later the model was in shreds on the floor. He had shown
the developer how to refactor the model and eliminate half the code while
enhancing performance and functionality.
I've never seen another team that can operate at that level.
At 05:07 AM 11/14/2003, Mike Beedle wrote:
> > Mike has said repeatedly that he feels that
> > modeling isn't necessary in order to produce quality code. Scott
> > Ambler, myself, and some within the XP community have the opinion that
> > modeling, when necessary, and to the proper level of detail and
> > formality, provides an important element in the design and
> > implementation of software.
>This is also a fact:
> We produce hyper-productive, high-octane, high-quality,
> high-quantity software with little or no models.
>So no, models are not important to us, as they are not as
>important to most agile developers. (We minimize "documentation time"
>by documenting after the fact.)
>But like I said earlier, if you feel modeling helps your team, or
>is needed for political reasons, or you like how the models look on
>display on the walls, hey, more power to you.
>Good luck with all of your projects!!!!
>(It was nice to talk to you on the phone earlier this evening, btw.)
> > P.S. I'm looking forward to taking the CSM course some time in the
> > near future. Perhaps I'll walk away cured of my modeling sickness. :-)
>In 1994-1996 I was involved in a 100+ person, 30 million dollar
>software development project. By year 2 we had 1000+ pages of:
> Elaborated Use Cases
> Class Package Diagrams
> Class Diagrams
> Sequence Diagrams
> Test Plans
>but no working software. Within the last 4 months of the project
>I took over the project, *ignored all the previous models*,
>applied Scrum to the project and delivered the first instance
>of the application to production on 1/1/1996.
>(I have many other, almost countless experiences like that.)
>This is why I don't do models anymore -- they NEVER delivered the
>goods for me in the trenches.