Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Origins of Scrum
> > <snip>I would argue they need not be aware of them. Simply because those
> > As much as I respect Mary and Tom and yourself, Alan, I find it a bit
> > odd that we keep repeating something akin to a comparison which is
> > based on three words,
> > Muda (no value-added), Mura (uneveness) and Muri (overburden).
> In the case of Lean principles, I believe most Scrum practitioners are
> not familiar with how Lean can help them - so I am not sure I am
> repeating things at all.
principles are not necessarily something that is exclusive to Lean. If
you properly apply XP, DSDM, Crystal, FDD, Scrum and so on, you will
touch on all of the areas which are described as being part of a Lean
process in the three areas of eliminating waste.
I am not disputing that it is smart to make people aware of the fact
that there are other, interesting approaches, what I am trying to say,
is that I find it odd we would tie it down to Lean.
I would argue that most modern literature on learning would reaffirm
that we learn best by doing. So practices which incorporate principles
should have a better learning effect.
Sent from gmail so do not trust this communication.
Do not send me sensitive information here, ask for my none-gmail accounts.
"Therefore the considerations of the intelligent always include both
benefit and harm." - Sun Tzu
- 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"