Re: Origins of Scrum
- --- In email@example.com, Nicholas Cancelliere
> That said, I do think there are principles with Scrum. If you know
> the values and practices then how do you not have principles which
> drive the reasons behind them? Why is there one product owner?
> small sprints? Why is done considered acceptance? Why do youOh I definitely believe there are principles underneath Scrum. See if
> inspect and adapt? Etc. I would imagine when you start to explain
> the "why" you start to realize the principles behind it, and thus
> behind Scrum.
1) eliminate waste (don't do things you don't need to)
2) optimize the whole (derives the workcell)
3) respect people (the team decides what the work is)
4) create knowledge (build software in iterations)
5) deliver fast (deliver software in iterations)
6) defer commitment (don't decide everything you are going to build
at once, wait until just before building it so you can adapt to
7) build quality in (so you can maintain your speed)
Also, see my fast-flexible-flow was origins of scrum post.
I believe these are 7 principles that Scrum is consistent with. These
are the 7 principles the Poppendieck's mention are the principles of
Lean Software Development.
At the team level, these principles imply Scrum. At the enterprise
level they imply more.
CEO, Net Objectives
Maximizing Product Development ROI through training, coaching and
- Hi Alan,On 7/5/07, Alan Shalloway <alshall@...> wrote:I have made several posts illustrating these connections.
Ironically, there has been more discussion on my restatement of
_Jeff's_ assertion (as if _I_ had come up with it when I have
already said isn't that important anyway) than there has with
whether my comments about using Lean in the way I do is correct or
incorrect. I am certainly interested in people's opinions if they
think my posts are useful, useless, questionable, unclear, concise,
Thanks for clarifying that, Alan, it was a bit annoying that others seemed not to understand your intent. I can't comment on your use of Lean except to say it makes good sense to me (I am knowledeable, but can't claim to be an expert in Lean). I would like to emphasize another point of yours in the Agile methodology realm where I can claim expertise (or at least old dog status). That is, you first distinguished principles from practices, then said something to the effect that Scrum does not have clearly articulated principles (unlike XP or Crystal, for instance), even if the practices are quite clear.For me, this was a very useful observation. It is a big gap, IMO. Dave Barrett (above) did what I take to be a good first draft at articulating some principles, but these have clearly not been validated by the Scrum community. I believe, as Dave indicated, they the underlying set of Scrum principles are few and simple, but unarticulated nevertheles.Does that make sense to others? or do the rest of you just believe that that would be helpful? Again, the principles in an Agile methodology do not change (though they might slowly evolve), whereas the practices are adapted by a self-organizing team and a competent coach according to experience and circumstance (and using the applications of the relevant principle).
Michael K. Spayd
Cogility Consulting Solutions, LLC
"Business Mind, Social Heart"
"Leading Agile Enterprise Transformations"