Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [scrumdevelopment] To SCRUM or not

Expand Messages
  • Ryan Cooper
    I have to agree that the best thing you can do to minimize risk is to begin delivering iteratively, with the most important features first. When you re on a
    Message 1 of 8 , Nov 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I have to agree that the best thing you can do to minimize risk is to
      begin delivering iteratively, with the most important features first.

      When you're on a tight schedule, pretending you can eliminate the risk
      of missing the deadline through sheer willpower can be deadly. It can
      lull you into not making sure you get the most important stuff done,
      since you "know" you'll get it all done in time. I'm not suggesting
      this is what you're doing, but I've seen a lot of teams do this
      without realizing it.

      It's better to recognize and accept the chance that the team won't the
      deadline, and then do what you can to minimize the *cost* if that
      happens. The best way I know of to do that is to deliver
      (production-ready) the most crucial features first, before starting
      work on the less important ones.

      The other suggestions are also all good ones; but if you want to
      minimize the changes you're making to your process mid-project, this
      is the one change I would go ahead with at the very least.

      Cheers,
      Ryan



      On Oct 30, 2007 11:07 AM, Banibrata Dutta <banibrata.dutta@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > My issue with Scrum is not a fight against management (thankfully), but
      > against ignorance and limited knowledge and experience with usage of "pure"
      > Scrum within the team itself :-) ! I am more of less sold on the benefits of
      > Scrum, but I've been hearing few PoV's on "all or nothing" approaches to
      > Scrum, which have led me to think that Scrum'ming with partial knowledge of
      > the same, may mess more things than it may sort.
      >
      >
      > What you wrote appears quite appealing and an interesting suggestion, -- a
      > middle path (apparently), setting the way for pure Scrum eventually. Also
      > that link about IID & mini-waterfall was very helpful.
      >
      > - bani
      >
      >
      >
      > On 10/30/07, Martin Jul - Ative <mj@...> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Banibrata,
      > >
      > >
      > > Even if you don't want to change entirely to Scrum I would at least take a
      > few of the practises:
      > >
      > > First, I would introduce iterative development driven by business value -
      > implement the most business-valuable features first, and deliver
      > production-ready, running, tested software in small increments, say
      > bi-weekly. Since you are on a tight deadline this takes a lot of the risk
      > out of the project - or rather, moves the risk to the lowest-value features
      > rather than any feature.
      > >
      > > Also, even if management does not think there will be much change my
      > experience is that they get inspired at the demos of working software and
      > see all the missing features and the features in the spec that are not
      > really needed.
      > >
      > > Inside an iteration make sure that you are not doing a mini-waterfall (see
      > my post Iterative Development Gone Wrong about the Mini-Waterfall
      > http://community.ative.dk/blogs/ative/archive/2007/03/18/Iterative-Development-Gone-Wrong-_2D00_-The-Mini_2D00_Waterfall-Anti_2D00_Pattern.aspx).
      > Rather, try to teach people to complete the application feature-by-feature.
      > >
      > > Using a daily stand-up meeting to talk project and a status indicator such
      > as a burndown chart is really useful, too. If you are used to estimating in
      > hours you can use this - you don't need to learn user stories to get
      > benefit. Just track the total estimated-time-remaining for the tasks in the
      > iteration every day and you will have good visibility into you status.
      > >
      > > Also, if you have to deliver frequently you will see all the impediments
      > in your organisation - so even if you don't call your project manager a
      > Scrum Master, listen to the team and try to help the team work around the
      > dysfunctions of the organisation - or change it for the better if possible.
      > >
      > > I realize the above has most of Scrum in it, albeit with other wording, so
      > I guess it is kind of a Trojan Horse approach to implementing Scrum - or at
      > read it as an advice to get the "frequent delivery of valuable business
      > functionality" cycle going and then take it from there.
      > >
      > >
      > > Best regards,
      > > Martin
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ________________________________________
      > > Martin Jul, partner A|T|I|V|E|
      > > www.ative.dk <http://www.ative.dk/> | mj@... <mailto:mj@...> |
      > +45 21 63 34 72|
      > >
      > > Lav bedre software hurtigere!
      > > Vær med på http://community.ative.dk/blogs/
      > <http://community.ative.dk/blogs/>
      > >
      > >
      > > ________________________________
      > >
      > > Fra: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com på vegne af Banibrata Dutta
      > > Sendt: ti 30-10-2007 11:01
      > > Til: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
      > > Emne: [scrumdevelopment] To SCRUM or not
      > >
      > >
      > > Hi,
      > >
      > > I've been following this group's posts for a while, and also have read
      > some bit of material on Scrum etc., however, in everyother way, my
      > experience with Scrum is "theoretical". Given a situation description, I'd
      > request the practitioners and experts to kindly comment, if Scrum would be
      > appropriate in the given situation or not.
      > >
      > > 1) Product in question (objective of development), as we understand it
      > currently, has 15% UI/presentation, 70% application (business) logic, 15%
      > support utilities/tools.
      > > 2) Development team is a mix of people with varying skill-sets and
      > expertise. Some actually are fairly good already, and some need some
      > (infrequent) hand-holding. Team though is a lot more comfortable with
      > waterfall model.
      > > 3) No one with real Scrum experience (no purists), however, people have
      > some exposure to Scrum-like methodologies. There is no certified Scrum
      > master, and most of all, no budget to hire an expert to tutor / hand-hold
      > this team (or Scrum master).
      > > 4) Development schedule is quite tight.
      > > 5) 75% of product requirements are known upfront (right now). Only 25% is
      > expected to evolve / change in next 3-4 months. Real-customer (external)
      > doesn't care about Agility, and doesn't need to / expect-to see snapshots
      > periodically (well they'd be happy to see monthly or every-other-monthly
      > milestone based progress). However, considering our management as an
      > internal customer, they'd like to see more frequent milestones being met.
      > >
      > > To me, it looks like something with which Scrum would be too much of a
      > risk (at the moment), and might be simpler to stick to waterfall. Comments
      > and suggestions are more than welcome.
      > >
      > > thanks & regards,
      > > Banibrata
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
    • Roy Morien
      You may be interested in an article in The Australian newspaper IT section of October 16th, 2007, entitled Changing course to dry up the waterfall model . The
      Message 2 of 8 , Nov 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        You may be interested in an article in The Australian newspaper IT section of October 16th, 2007, entitled "Changing course to dry up the waterfall model".
         
        The story is about the adoption of agile methods by "Five years as the head of IT at some of Australia's largest businesses has given Suncorp CIO Jeff Smith a reputation ..."
         
        "Mr Smith urged businesses to consider dumping the dominant waterfall system of project management which relies on heavy-duty governance structures , linear phases and gating".
         
        "You know why we do the sign-offs at the end of each phase? It adds no value and it was put in place to fail. The reason we do sign-offs is so we can b;ame someone later on, when something fails".
         
        The article is in this vein. Unfortunately it does not seem to be available to be read online.
         
        Regards,
        Roy Morien





        To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
        From: banibrata.dutta@...
        Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:37:12 +0530
        Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] To SCRUM or not

        My issue with Scrum is not a fight against management (thankfully) , but against ignorance and limited knowledge and experience with usage of "pure" Scrum within the team itself :-) ! I am more of less sold on the benefits of Scrum, but I've been hearing few PoV's on "all or nothing" approaches to Scrum, which have led me to think that Scrum'ming with partial knowledge of the same, may mess more things than it may sort.
         
        What you wrote appears quite appealing and an interesting suggestion, -- a middle path (apparently) , setting the way for pure Scrum eventually. Also that link about IID & mini-waterfall was very helpful. 
         
        - bani
         
        On 10/30/07, Martin Jul - Ative <mj@...> wrote:

        Banibrata,


        Even if you don't want to change entirely to Scrum I would at least take a few of the practises:

        First, I would introduce iterative development driven by business value - implement the most business-valuable features first, and deliver production-ready, running, tested software in small increments, say bi-weekly. Since you are on a tight deadline this takes a lot of the risk out of the project - or rather, moves the risk to the lowest-value features rather than any feature.

        Also, even if management does not think there will be much change my experience is that they get inspired at the demos of working software and see all the missing features and the features in the spec that are not really needed.

        Inside an iteration make sure that you are not doing a mini-waterfall (see my post Iterative Development Gone Wrong about the Mini-Waterfall http://community. ative.dk/ blogs/ative/ archive/2007/ 03/18/Iterative- Development- Gone-Wrong- _2D00_-The- Mini_2D00_ Waterfall- Anti_2D00_ Pattern.aspx). Rather, try to teach people to complete the application feature-by-feature.

        Using a daily stand-up meeting to talk project and a status indicator such as a burndown chart is really useful, too. If you are used to estimating in hours you can use this - you don't need to learn user stories to get benefit. Just track the total estimated-time- remaining for the tasks in the iteration every day and you will have good visibility into you status.

        Also, if you have to deliver frequently you will see all the impediments in your organisation - so even if you don't call your project manager a Scrum Master, listen to the team and try to help the team work around the dysfunctions of the organisation - or change it for the better if possible.

        I realize the above has most of Scrum in it, albeit with other wording, so I guess it is kind of a Trojan Horse approach to implementing Scrum - or at read it as an advice to get the "frequent delivery of valuable business functionality" cycle going and then take it from there.


        Best regards,
        Martin



        ____________ _________ _________ _________ _
        Martin Jul, partner A|T|I|V|E|
        www.ative.dk <http://www.ative. dk/> | mj@... <mailto:mj@...> | +45 21 63 34 72|

        Lav bedre software hurtigere!
        Vær med på http://community. ative.dk/ blogs/ <http://community. ative.dk/ blogs/>


        ____________ _________ _________ __

        Fra: scrumdevelopment@ yahoogroups. com på vegne af Banibrata Dutta
        Sendt: ti 30-10-2007 11:01
        Til: scrumdevelopment@ yahoogroups. com
        Emne: [scrumdevelopment] To SCRUM or not



        Hi,

        I've been following this group's posts for a while, and also have read some bit of material on Scrum etc., however, in everyother way, my experience with Scrum is "theoretical". Given a situation description, I'd request the practitioners and experts to kindly comment, if Scrum would be appropriate in the given situation or not.

        1) Product in question (objective of development) , as we understand it currently, has 15% UI/presentation, 70% application (business) logic, 15% support utilities/tools.
        2) Development team is a mix of people with varying skill-sets and expertise. Some actually are fairly good already, and some need some (infrequent) hand-holding. Team though is a lot more comfortable with waterfall model.
        3) No one with real Scrum experience (no purists), however, people have some exposure to Scrum-like methodologies. There is no certified Scrum master, and most of all, no budget to hire an expert to tutor / hand-hold this team (or Scrum master).
        4) Development schedule is quite tight.
        5) 75% of product requirements are known upfront (right now). Only 25% is expected to evolve / change in next 3-4 months. Real-customer (external) doesn't care about Agility, and doesn't need to / expect-to see snapshots periodically (well they'd be happy to see monthly or every-other- monthly milestone based progress). However, considering our management as an internal customer, they'd like to see more frequent milestones being met.

        To me, it looks like something with which Scrum would be too much of a risk (at the moment), and might be simpler to stick to waterfall. Comments and suggestions are more than welcome.

        thanks & regards,
        Banibrata










        Sell your car for just $30 at CarPoint.com.au. It's simple!
      • urpenguin
        The article: http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,22667903- 24170,00.html I think for organizations that are resistant to Agile methods you ll
        Message 3 of 8 , Nov 2, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          The article:

          http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,22667903-
          24170,00.html

          I think for organizations that are resistant to Agile methods you'll
          have to find a way to reframe Agile. What is the value of the method
          and how can you inject the value of Scrum into daily practice, not as
          Scrum officially but as a set of good practices (standups, continuous
          delivery, ...)? People who believe that sequential linear processes
          are what they must have refuse to believe anything else is possible.

          Dan



          --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Roy Morien <roymorien@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > You may be interested in an article in The Australian newspaper IT
          section of October 16th, 2007, entitled "Changing course to dry up
          the waterfall model".
          >
          > The story is about the adoption of agile methods by "Five years as
          the head of IT at some of Australia's largest businesses has given
          Suncorp CIO Jeff Smith a reputation ..."
          >
          > "Mr Smith urged businesses to consider dumping the dominant
          waterfall system of project management which relies on heavy-duty
          governance structures , linear phases and gating".
          >
          > "You know why we do the sign-offs at the end of each phase? It adds
          no value and it was put in place to fail. The reason we do sign-offs
          is so we can b;ame someone later on, when something fails".
          >
          > The article is in this vein. Unfortunately it does not seem to be
          available to be read online.
          >
          > Regards,
          > Roy Morien
          >
          >
          > To: scrumdevelopment@...: banibrata.dutta@...: Tue, 30 Oct 2007
          19:37:12 +0530Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] To SCRUM or not
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > My issue with Scrum is not a fight against management (thankfully),
          but against ignorance and limited knowledge and experience with usage
          of "pure" Scrum within the team itself :-) ! I am more of less sold
          on the benefits of Scrum, but I've been hearing few PoV's on "all or
          nothing" approaches to Scrum, which have led me to think that
          Scrum'ming with partial knowledge of the same, may mess more things
          than it may sort.
          >
          >
          > What you wrote appears quite appealing and an interesting
          suggestion, -- a middle path (apparently), setting the way for pure
          Scrum eventually. Also that link about IID & mini-waterfall was very
          helpful.
          >
          > - bani
          > On 10/30/07, Martin Jul - Ative <mj@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Banibrata,Even if you don't want to change entirely to Scrum I
          would at least take a few of the practises:First, I would introduce
          iterative development driven by business value - implement the most
          business-valuable features first, and deliver production-ready,
          running, tested software in small increments, say bi-weekly. Since
          you are on a tight deadline this takes a lot of the risk out of the
          project - or rather, moves the risk to the lowest-value features
          rather than any feature. Also, even if management does not think
          there will be much change my experience is that they get inspired at
          the demos of working software and see all the missing features and
          the features in the spec that are not really needed. Inside an
          iteration make sure that you are not doing a mini-waterfall (see my
          post Iterative Development Gone Wrong about the Mini-Waterfall
          http://community.ative.dk/blogs/ative/archive/2007/03/18/Iterative-
          Development-Gone-Wrong-_2D00_-The-Mini_2D00_Waterfall-
          Anti_2D00_Pattern.aspx). Rather, try to teach people to complete the
          application feature-by-feature. Using a daily stand-up meeting to
          talk project and a status indicator such as a burndown chart is
          really useful, too. If you are used to estimating in hours you can
          use this - you don't need to learn user stories to get benefit. Just
          track the total estimated-time-remaining for the tasks in the
          iteration every day and you will have good visibility into you
          status. Also, if you have to deliver frequently you will see all the
          impediments in your organisation - so even if you don't call your
          project manager a Scrum Master, listen to the team and try to help
          the team work around the dysfunctions of the organisation - or change
          it for the better if possible. I realize the above has most of Scrum
          in it, albeit with other wording, so I guess it is kind of a Trojan
          Horse approach to implementing Scrum - or at read it as an advice to
          get the "frequent delivery of valuable business functionality" cycle
          going and then take it from there. Best
          regards,Martin________________________________________Martin Jul,
          partner A|T|I|V|E|www.ative.dk <http://www.ative.dk/> | mj@...
          <mailto:mj@...> | +45 21 63 34 72|Lav bedre software hurtigere!Vær
          med på http://community.ative.dk/blogs/
          <http://community.ative.dk/blogs/> ________________________________
          Fra: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com på vegne af Banibrata
          DuttaSendt: ti 30-10-2007 11:01 Til: scrumdevelopment@...:
          [scrumdevelopment] To SCRUM or not
          > Hi,I've been following this group's posts for a while, and also
          have read some bit of material on Scrum etc., however, in everyother
          way, my experience with Scrum is "theoretical". Given a situation
          description, I'd request the practitioners and experts to kindly
          comment, if Scrum would be appropriate in the given situation or not.
          1) Product in question (objective of development), as we understand
          it currently, has 15% UI/presentation, 70% application (business)
          logic, 15% support utilities/tools.2) Development team is a mix of
          people with varying skill-sets and expertise. Some actually are
          fairly good already, and some need some (infrequent) hand-holding.
          Team though is a lot more comfortable with waterfall model. 3) No one
          with real Scrum experience (no purists), however, people have some
          exposure to Scrum-like methodologies. There is no certified Scrum
          master, and most of all, no budget to hire an expert to tutor / hand-
          hold this team (or Scrum master). 4) Development schedule is quite
          tight. 5) 75% of product requirements are known upfront (right now).
          Only 25% is expected to evolve / change in next 3-4 months. Real-
          customer (external) doesn't care about Agility, and doesn't need to /
          expect-to see snapshots periodically (well they'd be happy to see
          monthly or every-other-monthly milestone based progress). However,
          considering our management as an internal customer, they'd like to
          see more frequent milestones being met. To me, it looks like
          something with which Scrum would be too much of a risk (at the
          moment), and might be simpler to stick to waterfall. Comments and
          suggestions are more than welcome.thanks & regards, Banibrata
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > _________________________________________________________________
          > It's simple! Sell your car for just $30 at CarPoint.com.au
          > http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fsecure%2Dau%
          2Eimrworldwide%2Ecom%2Fcgi%2Dbin%2Fa%2Fci%5F450304%2Fet%5F2%2Fcg%
          5F801459%2Fpi%5F1004813%2Fai%5F859641&_t=762955845&_r=tig_OCT07&_m=EXT
          >
        • Roy Morien
          Thanks Dan. :) To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.comFrom: dsw@juno.comDate: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 11:39:41 +0000Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: To SCRUM or not The
          Message 4 of 8 , Nov 2, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Thanks Dan. :)




            To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
            From: dsw@...
            Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 11:39:41 +0000
            Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: To SCRUM or not

            The article:

            http://www.australi anit.news. com.au/story/ 0,24897,22667903 -
            24170,00.html

            I think for organizations that are resistant to Agile methods you'll
            have to find a way to reframe Agile. What is the value of the method
            and how can you inject the value of Scrum into daily practice, not as
            Scrum officially but as a set of good practices (standups, continuous
            delivery, ...)? People who believe that sequential linear processes
            are what they must have refuse to believe anything else is possible.

            Dan

            --- In scrumdevelopment@ yahoogroups. com, Roy Morien <roymorien@. ..>
            wrote:
            >
            > You may be interested in an article in The Australian newspaper IT
            section of October 16th, 2007, entitled "Changing course to dry up
            the waterfall model".
            >
            > The story is about the adoption of agile methods by "Five years as
            the head of IT at some of Australia's largest businesses has given
            Suncorp CIO Jeff Smith a reputation ..."
            >
            > "Mr Smith urged businesses to consider dumping the dominant
            waterfall system of project management which relies on heavy-duty
            governance structures , linear phases and gating".
            >
            > "You know why we do the sign-offs at the end of each phase? It adds
            no value and it was put in place to fail. The reason we do sign-offs
            is so we can b;ame someone later on, when something fails".
            >
            > The article is in this vein. Unfortunately it does not seem to be
            available to be read online.
            >
            > Regards,
            > Roy Morien
            >
            >
            > To: scrumdevelopment@ ...: banibrata.dutta@ ...: Tue, 30 Oct 2007
            19:37:12 +0530Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] To SCRUM or not
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > My issue with Scrum is not a fight against management (thankfully) ,
            but against ignorance and limited knowledge and experience with usage
            of "pure" Scrum within the team itself :-) ! I am more of less sold
            on the benefits of Scrum, but I've been hearing few PoV's on "all or
            nothing" approaches to Scrum, which have led me to think that
            Scrum'ming with partial knowledge of the same, may mess more things
            than it may sort.
            >
            >
            > What you wrote appears quite appealing and an interesting
            suggestion, -- a middle path (apparently) , setting the way for pure
            Scrum eventually. Also that link about IID & mini-waterfall was very
            helpful.
            >
            > - bani
            > On 10/30/07, Martin Jul - Ative <mj@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Banibrata,Even if you don't want to change entirely to Scrum I
            would at least take a few of the practises:First, I would introduce
            iterative development driven by business value - implement the most
            business-valuable features first, and deliver production-ready,
            running, tested software in small increments, say bi-weekly. Since
            you are on a tight deadline this takes a lot of the risk out of the
            project - or rather, moves the risk to the lowest-value features
            rather than any feature. Also, even if management does not think
            there will be much change my experience is that they get inspired at
            the demos of working software and see all the missing features and
            the features in the spec that are not really needed. Inside an
            iteration make sure that you are not doing a mini-waterfall (see my
            post Iterative Development Gone Wrong about the Mini-Waterfall
            http://community. ative.dk/ blogs/ative/ archive/2007/ 03/18/Iterative-
            Development- Gone-Wrong- _2D00_-The- Mini_2D00_ Waterfall-
            Anti_2D00_Pattern. aspx). Rather, try to teach people to complete the
            application feature-by-feature. Using a daily stand-up meeting to
            talk project and a status indicator such as a burndown chart is
            really useful, too. If you are used to estimating in hours you can
            use this - you don't need to learn user stories to get benefit. Just
            track the total estimated-time- remaining for the tasks in the
            iteration every day and you will have good visibility into you
            status. Also, if you have to deliver frequently you will see all the
            impediments in your organisation - so even if you don't call your
            project manager a Scrum Master, listen to the team and try to help
            the team work around the dysfunctions of the organisation - or change
            it for the better if possible. I realize the above has most of Scrum
            in it, albeit with other wording, so I guess it is kind of a Trojan
            Horse approach to implementing Scrum - or at read it as an advice to
            get the "frequent delivery of valuable business functionality" cycle
            going and then take it from there. Best
            regards,Martin_ _________ _________ _________ _________ ___Martin Jul,
            partner A|T|I|V|E|www. ative.dk <http://www.ative. dk/> | mj@...
            <mailto:mj@. ..> | +45 21 63 34 72|Lav bedre software hurtigere!Vær
            med på http://community. ative.dk/ blogs/
            <http://community. ative.dk/ blogs/> ____________ _________ _________ __
            Fra: scrumdevelopment@ yahoogroups. com på vegne af Banibrata
            DuttaSendt: ti 30-10-2007 11:01 Til: scrumdevelopment@ ...:
            [scrumdevelopment] To SCRUM or not
            > Hi,I've been following this group's posts for a while, and also
            have read some bit of material on Scrum etc., however, in everyother
            way, my experience with Scrum is "theoretical" . Given a situation
            description, I'd request the practitioners and experts to kindly
            comment, if Scrum would be appropriate in the given situation or not.
            1) Product in question (objective of development) , as we understand
            it currently, has 15% UI/presentation, 70% application (business)
            logic, 15% support utilities/tools. 2) Development team is a mix of
            people with varying skill-sets and expertise. Some actually are
            fairly good already, and some need some (infrequent) hand-holding.
            Team though is a lot more comfortable with waterfall model. 3) No one
            with real Scrum experience (no purists), however, people have some
            exposure to Scrum-like methodologies. There is no certified Scrum
            master, and most of all, no budget to hire an expert to tutor / hand-
            hold this team (or Scrum master). 4) Development schedule is quite
            tight. 5) 75% of product requirements are known upfront (right now).
            Only 25% is expected to evolve / change in next 3-4 months. Real-
            customer (external) doesn't care about Agility, and doesn't need to /
            expect-to see snapshots periodically (well they'd be happy to see
            monthly or every-other- monthly milestone based progress). However,
            considering our management as an internal customer, they'd like to
            see more frequent milestones being met. To me, it looks like
            something with which Scrum would be too much of a risk (at the
            moment), and might be simpler to stick to waterfall. Comments and
            suggestions are more than welcome.thanks & regards, Banibrata
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
            > It's simple! Sell your car for just $30 at CarPoint.com. au
            > http://a.ninemsn. com.au/b. aspx?URL= http%3A%2F% 2Fsecure% 2Dau%
            2Eimrworldwide% 2Ecom%2Fcgi% 2Dbin%2Fa% 2Fci%5F450304% 2Fet%5F2% 2Fcg%
            5F801459%2Fpi% 5F1004813% 2Fai%5F859641& _t=762955845& _r=tig_OCT07& _m=EXT
            >




            Check our comprehensive Salary Centre Overpaid or Underpaid?
          • Roy Morien
            I supervised nearly 60 student industrial experience projects during 2003 - 2004. I insisted on the student project groups doing these projects in an iterative
            Message 5 of 8 , Nov 2, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              I supervised nearly 60 student industrial experience projects during 2003 - 2004. I insisted on the student project groups doing these projects in an iterative fashion, at least. Whether they could really be said to be doing it in an agile manner is another matter, given that they had no clue whatever about what agile development meant.  My thoughts on the outcome of these projects were variously published, but perhaps the most complete is in the paper that was published in the IS Education Journal in 2005 (which I have attached for those who may be interested in reading it).

              I started with a cohort of students who had no information whatever about agile development, iterative development, Scrum. In fact, they had been inculcated in the waterfall approach, with heavy emphasis on documentation as the measure of project success (and academic success). I met even overt hostility at the start, and significant disbelief that the iterative approach, without full up-front analysis activity, was even viable, practical, allowable etc.
               
              However, even just requiring the students to get started and actually deliver small components of their system, able to be demonstrated to their client, very quickly caught their attention. They quickly realised that there were many beneficial outcomes. A happy client who could see progress almost immediately, greater confidence in themselves as being abe to deliver useable software quickly, greater satisfaction at seeing the client's delighted response etc etc.

              And this came about from very humble beginnings of using an iterative approach. There were no daily stand up meetings. The students had no idea about user stories. It was all very informal and not in accordance with any known agile approach; except iterative development, with real, useable results very early in the project activity. The niceties of Scrum or DSDM etc. would hopefully follow.

              Perhaps, Banibrata, you could follow this approach to get started. Softly, softly. Small successes building into bigger successes.
               
              Regards,
              Roy Morien

              To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
              From: mj@...
              Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:59:21 +0000
              Subject: SV: [scrumdevelopment] To SCRUM or not

              Banibrata,
               
               
              Even if you don't want to change entirely to Scrum I would at least take a few of the practises:
               
              First, I would introduce iterative development driven by business value - implement the most business-valuable features first, and deliver production-ready, running, tested software in small increments, say bi-weekly. Since you are on a tight deadline this takes a lot of the risk out of the project - or rather, moves the risk to the lowest-value features rather than any feature.
               
              Also, even if management does not think there will be much change my experience is that they get inspired at the demos of working software and see all the missing features and the features in the spec that are not really needed.
               
              Inside an iteration make sure that you are not doing a mini-waterfall (see my post Iterative Development Gone Wrong about the Mini-Waterfall http://community.ative.dk/blogs/ative/archive/2007/03/18/Iterative-Development-Gone-Wrong-_2D00_-The-Mini_2D00_Waterfall-Anti_2D00_Pattern.aspx). Rather, try to teach people to complete the application feature-by-feature.
               
              Using a daily stand-up meeting to talk project and a status indicator such as a burndown chart is really useful, too. If you are used to estimating in hours you can use this - you don't need to learn user stories to get benefit. Just track the total estimated-time-remaining for the tasks in the iteration every day and you will have good visibility into you status.
               
              Also, if you have to deliver frequently you will see all the impediments in your organisation - so even if you don't call your project manager a Scrum Master, listen to the team and try to help the team work around the dysfunctions of the organisation - or change it for the better if possible.
               
              I realize the above has most of Scrum in it, albeit with other wording, so I guess it is kind of a Trojan Horse approach to implementing Scrum - or at read it as an advice to get the "frequent delivery of valuable business functionality" cycle going and then take it from there.
               
               
              Best regards,
              Martin
               
               
               
              ________________________________________
              Martin Jul, partner                        A|T|I|V|E|
              www.ative.dk | mj@... | +45 21 63 34 72|
               
              Lav bedre software hurtigere!
               


              Fra: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com på vegne af Banibrata Dutta
              Sendt: ti 30-10-2007 11:01
              Til: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
              Emne: [scrumdevelopment] To SCRUM or not

              Hi,
               
              I've been following this group's posts for a while, and also have read some bit of material on Scrum etc., however, in everyother way, my experience with Scrum is "theoretical". Given a situation description, I'd request the practitioners and experts to kindly comment, if Scrum would be appropriate in the given situation or not.
               
              1) Product in question (objective of development) , as we understand it currently, has 15% UI/presentation, 70% application (business) logic, 15% support utilities/tools.
              2) Development team is a mix of people with varying skill-sets and expertise. Some actually are fairly good already, and some need some (infrequent) hand-holding. Team though is a lot more comfortable with waterfall model.
              3) No one with real Scrum experience (no purists), however, people have some exposure to Scrum-like methodologies. There is no certified Scrum master, and most of all, no budget to hire an expert to tutor / hand-hold this team (or Scrum master).
              4) Development schedule is quite tight.
              5) 75% of product requirements are known upfront (right now). Only 25% is expected to evolve / change in next 3-4 months. Real-customer (external) doesn't care about Agility, and doesn't need to / expect-to see snapshots periodically (well they'd be happy to see monthly or every-other- monthly milestone based progress). However, considering our management as an internal customer, they'd like to see more frequent milestones being met.
               
              To me, it looks like something with which Scrum would be too much of a risk (at the moment), and might be simpler to stick to waterfall. Comments and suggestions are more than welcome.
               
              thanks & regards,
              Banibrata
               
               




              Join Lavalife for free. What are you waiting for?
            • Peter Hundermark
              ... value - implement the most business-valuable features first, and deliver production-ready, running, tested software in small increments, say bi-weekly.
              Message 6 of 8 , Nov 4, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Jul - Ative" <mj@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > Banibrata,
                >
                >
                > Even if you don't want to change entirely to Scrum I would at least
                take a few of the practises:
                >
                > First, I would introduce iterative development driven by business
                value - implement the most business-valuable features first, and deliver
                production-ready, running, tested software in small increments, say
                bi-weekly. Since you are on a tight deadline this takes a lot of the
                risk out of the project - or rather, moves the risk to the lowest-value
                features rather than any feature.
                >
                > Also, even if management does not think there will be much change my
                experience is that they get inspired at the demos of working software
                and see all the missing features and the features in the spec that are
                not really needed.
                >
                > Inside an iteration make sure that you are not doing a mini-waterfall
                (see my post Iterative Development Gone Wrong about the Mini-Waterfall
                http://community.ative.dk/blogs/ative/archive/2007/03/18/Iterative-Devel\
                opment-Gone-Wrong-_2D00_-The-Mini_2D00_Waterfall-Anti_2D00_Pattern.aspx)\
                . Rather, try to teach people to complete the application
                feature-by-feature.
                >
                > Using a daily stand-up meeting to talk project and a status indicator
                such as a burndown chart is really useful, too. If you are used to
                estimating in hours you can use this - you don't need to learn user
                stories to get benefit. Just track the total estimated-time-remaining
                for the tasks in the iteration every day and you will have good
                visibility into you status.
                >
                > Also, if you have to deliver frequently you will see all the
                impediments in your organisation - so even if you don't call your
                project manager a Scrum Master, listen to the team and try to help the
                team work around the dysfunctions of the organisation - or change it for
                the better if possible.
                >
                > I realize the above has most of Scrum in it, albeit with other
                wording, so I guess it is kind of a Trojan Horse approach to
                implementing Scrum - or at read it as an advice to get the "frequent
                delivery of valuable business functionality" cycle going and then take
                it from there.
                >


                Martin,

                I find your description appealing, yet for me there are some gaps that
                need filling:

                1. You refer to prioritising feature development by business value. In
                the absence of a formal sprint planning session, how does the team get
                to know what to do?

                2. You refer to delivering production-ready software bi-weekly
                [fortnightly?]. In the absence of a formal review, to whom are these
                shown or delivered and how does the team know that they are, indeed,
                shippable?

                3. You mention the team seeing the impediments in the organisation. In
                the absence of a formal retrospective, when and how does the team expose
                these or examine and improve its process?

                4. You mention listening to the team and trying to help them. Who does
                this? What (Scrum) skills does she need to do this?

                I'm always curious to learn more about managing people's fear of change.

                -ph
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.