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

RE: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Product Owner as Scrum Coach

Expand Messages
  • Roy Morien
    which begs the obvious questions ... Deliver what in time? Who decided the time? What realistic connection is there between on time and what must be
    Message 1 of 19 , Dec 3, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      which begs the obvious questions ... Deliver what in time? Who decided the time? What realistic connection is there between 'on time' and what must be delivered by the deadline? Did anyone really know at the time that the deadline was stated what actually was required?
       
      When will we be rid of such fools in our profession?

      Regards,
      Roy Morien



      To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
      From: pierre@...
      Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:18:32 +0100
      Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Product Owner as Scrum Coach

      I have a case where the PO want to drop all possible "tests" (because it is a waste for him), ask developers to do extra hours, etc... to meet the deadline. All classical mistakes.
       
      He has the same objective as the team: "deliver on time".
       
      However he is probably wrong on "how to deliver on time".
       
      This is two different things for me.
       
      Pierre

       
      On Dec 3, 2007 2:50 PM, Emiliano Heyns <Emiliano.Heyns@ iris-advies. nl> wrote:

      On Nov 30, 2007 3:12 PM, Pierre Mengal <pierre@mengal. be> wrote:
      Conflict of interest ? All the actors are not supposed to have the same interest ? The success of the project ?

      The sole interest cannot be "the success of the project" if the implied undercurrent is "at any cost the PO will not personally feel". The Scrum Master might have to instill a sense of reality in the PO. If the PO is driving the team to a non-sustainable pace, and the team doesn't pick up on this (and it's easy to lose track of this if you're in the middle of it all), the SM must intervene.

      So yes, it can be a conflict of interest. In the example above, the project interest conflicts with the company interest (there's little value in burnt-out employees).

      Emile







      Listen now! New music from the Rogue Traders.
    • Della-Croce, Greg
      One of the first things that struck me about SCRUM and Agile is the statement that Quality is not negotiable . Maybe your PO needs to be reminded that if you
      Message 2 of 19 , Dec 3, 2007
      • 0 Attachment

        One of the first things that struck me about SCRUM and Agile is the statement that “Quality is not negotiable”.  Maybe your PO needs to be reminded that if you don’t test (Unit, System, and Acceptance) that all they are going to get is the best and worst guesses that your developer team can make, and that only leads to more “do over”.  “Do over” are a bigger waste of time than testing!!

         

        Greg

         

        Ready   Fire   Aim

        Getting the Right  Job Done Right the Right Way in the Right Time

         

        From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Pierre Mengal
        Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 9:19 AM
        To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Product Owner as Scrum Coach

         

        I have a case where the PO want to drop all possible "tests" (because it is a waste for him), ask developers to do extra hours, etc... to meet the deadline. All classical mistakes.

         

        He has the same objective as the team: "deliver on time".

         

        However he is probably wrong on "how to deliver on time".

         

        This is two different things for me.

         

        Pierre


         

        On Dec 3, 2007 2:50 PM, Emiliano Heyns <Emiliano.Heyns@...> wrote:

        On Nov 30, 2007 3:12 PM, Pierre Mengal <pierre@...> wrote:

        Conflict of interest ? All the actors are not supposed to have the same interest ? The success of the project ?


        The sole interest cannot be "the success of the project" if the implied undercurrent is "at any cost the PO will not personally feel". The Scrum Master might have to instill a sense of reality in the PO. If the PO is driving the team to a non-sustainable pace, and the team doesn't pick up on this (and it's easy to lose track of this if you're in the middle of it all), the SM must intervene.

        So yes, it can be a conflict of interest. In the example above, the project interest conflicts with the company interest (there's little value in burnt-out employees).

        Emile

         

         

      • Wolfgang Schulze Zachau
        Gents, if Scrum is done properly, then the PO has no say into how the team deliver their stuff. The Scrum Master is responsible for ensuring that they deliver
        Message 3 of 19 , Dec 3, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Gents,
           
          if Scrum is done properly, then the PO has no say into how the team deliver their stuff. The Scrum Master is responsible for ensuring that they deliver DONE stories. He is also responsible for ensuring that the team doesn't overcommit and he needs to ensure that the PO doesn't interfere with the team.
          For any non-team member test are, as a matter of course, a waste, because they do not directly increase the functionality delivered. For developers, they should be an essential, as without them they cannot guarantee that their stories are DONE. Which is exactly why the Scrum Master must ensure that once the team have settled on a definition of DONE, they stick with it.
          In other words: in this case the PO deserves to have his knuckles rapped. Properly.
           

          Regards,

          Wolfgang

           


          From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Pierre Mengal
          Sent: 03 December 2007 14:19
          To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Product Owner as Scrum Coach

          I have a case where the PO want to drop all possible "tests" (because it is a waste for him), ask developers to do extra hours, etc... to meet the deadline. All classical mistakes.
           
          He has the same objective as the team: "deliver on time".
           
          However he is probably wrong on "how to deliver on time".
           
          This is two different things for me.
           
          Pierre

           
          On Dec 3, 2007 2:50 PM, Emiliano Heyns <Emiliano.Heyns@ iris-advies. nl> wrote:

          On Nov 30, 2007 3:12 PM, Pierre Mengal <pierre@mengal. be> wrote:
          Conflict of interest ? All the actors are not supposed to have the same interest ? The success of the project ?

          The sole interest cannot be "the success of the project" if the implied undercurrent is "at any cost the PO will not personally feel". The Scrum Master might have to instill a sense of reality in the PO. If the PO is driving the team to a non-sustainable pace, and the team doesn't pick up on this (and it's easy to lose track of this if you're in the middle of it all), the SM must intervene.

          So yes, it can be a conflict of interest. In the example above, the project interest conflicts with the company interest (there's little value in burnt-out employees).

          Emile


        • Matt
          ... deliver ... You mean no say other than nixing the project because it is no longer feasible given the estimates that the team delivered? Or (if the PO is
          Message 4 of 19 , Dec 3, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Wolfgang Schulze Zachau"
            <wolfgang@...> wrote:
            > if Scrum is done properly, then the PO has no say into how the team
            deliver
            > their stuff.

            You mean "no say" other than nixing the project because it is no longer
            feasible given the estimates that the team delivered? Or (if the PO is
            also the business owner) nixing the team and starting over with a new
            team? (admittedly one that will be set up for failure from day 1)

            >In other words: in this case the PO deserves to have his knuckles
            rapped. Properly.

            While a rapping of the knuckles is sure to be communicative, it might be
            better to have a sit down and explain *why* the team is defining DONE as
            including tests etc. It shouldn't be too difficult to explain in a way
            that makes good business sense... particularly since it *does* make
            good business sense to test properly right?

            Matt
          • Pierre Mengal
            What is the most sad is that hey really have to go live the 1st of January. This is a very important project and they may loose a lot more than the cost of the
            Message 5 of 19 , Dec 4, 2007
            • 0 Attachment

              What is the most sad is that hey really have to go live the 1st of January. This is a very important project and they may loose a lot more than the cost of the overall development process.

              This is what make me mad...

              On Dec 3, 2007 4:10 PM, Roy Morien <roymorien@...> wrote:

              which begs the obvious questions ... Deliver what in time? Who decided the time? What realistic connection is there between 'on time' and what must be delivered by the deadline? Did anyone really know at the time that the deadline was stated what actually was required?
               
              When will we be rid of such fools in our profession?

              Regards,
              Roy Morien



              To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
              From: pierre@...
              Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:18:32 +0100
              Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Product Owner as Scrum Coach

              I have a case where the PO want to drop all possible "tests" (because it is a waste for him), ask developers to do extra hours, etc... to meet the deadline. All classical mistakes.
               
              He has the same objective as the team: "deliver on time".
               
              However he is probably wrong on "how to deliver on time".
               
              This is two different things for me.
               
              Pierre

               
              On Dec 3, 2007 2:50 PM, Emiliano Heyns <Emiliano.Heyns@...> wrote:

              On Nov 30, 2007 3:12 PM, Pierre Mengal <pierre@...> wrote:
              Conflict of interest ? All the actors are not supposed to have the same interest ? The success of the project ?

              The sole interest cannot be "the success of the project" if the implied undercurrent is "at any cost the PO will not personally feel". The Scrum Master might have to instill a sense of reality in the PO. If the PO is driving the team to a non-sustainable pace, and the team doesn't pick up on this (and it's easy to lose track of this if you're in the middle of it all), the SM must intervene.

              So yes, it can be a conflict of interest. In the example above, the project interest conflicts with the company interest (there's little value in burnt-out employees).

              Emile







              Listen now! New music from the Rogue Traders.


            • Pierre Mengal
              What make me stuck in Agile in general is that some look at waterfall geeks and say to themselves: guys you don t know it yet,... you are so wrong... . Not a
              Message 6 of 19 , Dec 4, 2007
              • 0 Attachment

                What make me stuck in Agile in general is that some look at waterfall geeks and say to themselves: "guys you don't know it yet,... you are so wrong...".

                Not a very nice attitude.

                On Dec 3, 2007 4:13 PM, Della-Croce, Greg <greg_della-croce@...> wrote:

                One of the first things that struck me about SCRUM and Agile is the statement that "Quality is not negotiable".  Maybe your PO needs to be reminded that if you don't test (Unit, System, and Acceptance) that all they are going to get is the best and worst guesses that your developer team can make, and that only leads to more "do over".  "Do over" are a bigger waste of time than testing!!

                 

                Greg

                 

                Ready   Fire   Aim

                Getting the Right  Job Done Right the Right Way in the Right Time

                 

                From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com [mailto: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Pierre Mengal
                Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 9:19 AM
                To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Product Owner as Scrum Coach

                 

                I have a case where the PO want to drop all possible "tests" (because it is a waste for him), ask developers to do extra hours, etc... to meet the deadline. All classical mistakes.

                 

                He has the same objective as the team: "deliver on time".

                 

                However he is probably wrong on "how to deliver on time".

                 

                This is two different things for me.

                 

                Pierre


                 

                On Dec 3, 2007 2:50 PM, Emiliano Heyns <Emiliano.Heyns@...> wrote:

                On Nov 30, 2007 3:12 PM, Pierre Mengal <pierre@...> wrote:

                Conflict of interest ? All the actors are not supposed to have the same interest ? The success of the project ?


                The sole interest cannot be "the success of the project" if the implied undercurrent is "at any cost the PO will not personally feel". The Scrum Master might have to instill a sense of reality in the PO. If the PO is driving the team to a non-sustainable pace, and the team doesn't pick up on this (and it's easy to lose track of this if you're in the middle of it all), the SM must intervene.

                So yes, it can be a conflict of interest. In the example above, the project interest conflicts with the company interest (there's little value in burnt-out employees).

                Emile

                 

                 


              • Roy Morien
                There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying guys, you are so wrong provided you are able to demonstrate how, where and why they are so wrong, and provide
                Message 7 of 19 , Dec 4, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying 'guys, you are so wrong' provided you are able to demonstrate how, where and why they are so wrong, and provide an alternative that is demonstrably correct.
                   
                  If we always tippy toed around trying not to hurt everybodies' feelings by saying nothing, then progress in thinking will never happen.

                  Or you have the situation as I was in when a 'nice person' was telling me how, really, I was not wrong, just different, and everybody was entitled to their own opinion. So nice. But when I said, ok, if I am just different, why don't we do it my way for a change, after 10 years of doing it your way? Well, that was just a little too radical, and my suggestion was rejected.

                  Regards,
                  Roy Morien


                  To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                  From: pierre@...
                  Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 09:22:56 +0100
                  Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Product Owner as Scrum Coach

                  What make me stuck in Agile in general is that some look at waterfall geeks and say to themselves: "guys you don't know it yet,... you are so wrong...".
                  Not a very nice attitude.

                  On Dec 3, 2007 4:13 PM, Della-Croce, Greg <greg_della-croce@ wycliffe. org> wrote:

                  One of the first things that struck me about SCRUM and Agile is the statement that "Quality is not negotiable".  Maybe your PO needs to be reminded that if you don't test (Unit, System, and Acceptance) that all they are going to get is the best and worst guesses that your developer team can make, and that only leads to more "do over".  "Do over" are a bigger waste of time than testing!!
                   

                  Greg
                   
                  Ready   Fire   Aim
                  Getting the Right  Job Done Right the Right Way in the Right Time
                   
                  From: scrumdevelopment@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: scrumdevelopment@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Pierre Mengal
                  Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 9:19 AM
                  To: scrumdevelopment@ yahoogroups. com
                  Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Product Owner as Scrum Coach

                   
                  I have a case where the PO want to drop all possible "tests" (because it is a waste for him), ask developers to do extra hours, etc... to meet the deadline. All classical mistakes.
                   
                  He has the same objective as the team: "deliver on time".
                   
                  However he is probably wrong on "how to deliver on time".
                   
                  This is two different things for me.
                   
                  Pierre

                   
                  On Dec 3, 2007 2:50 PM, Emiliano Heyns <Emiliano.Heyns@ iris-advies. nl> wrote:

                  On Nov 30, 2007 3:12 PM, Pierre Mengal <pierre@mengal. be> wrote:

                  Conflict of interest ? All the actors are not supposed to have the same interest ? The success of the project ?


                  The sole interest cannot be "the success of the project" if the implied undercurrent is "at any cost the PO will not personally feel". The Scrum Master might have to instill a sense of reality in the PO. If the PO is driving the team to a non-sustainable pace, and the team doesn't pick up on this (and it's easy to lose track of this if you're in the middle of it all), the SM must intervene.

                  So yes, it can be a conflict of interest. In the example above, the project interest conflicts with the company interest (there's little value in burnt-out employees).

                  Emile

                   

                   







                  Sell your car for just $30 at CarPoint.com.au. It's simple!
                • Pierre Mengal
                  Roy, While I really think you honestly believe in what you say, but it seems obvious to me that Agile is not for anyone in the world. At Scrum Gathering, I
                  Message 8 of 19 , Dec 4, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Roy,
                     
                    While I really think you honestly believe in what you say, but it seems obvious to me that Agile is not for anyone in the world.
                     
                    At Scrum Gathering, I heard some really great discussions with guys from a big companies explaining me why Agile did not work in some countries. Because of cultural differences.
                     
                    They are not ALL "so wrong", I think, like you, that most of them are. This is the difference.
                     
                    Pierre
                    On Dec 4, 2007 9:45 AM, Roy Morien <roymorien@...> wrote:

                    There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying 'guys, you are so wrong' provided you are able to demonstrate how, where and why they are so wrong, and provide an alternative that is demonstrably correct.
                     
                    If we always tippy toed around trying not to hurt everybodies' feelings by saying nothing, then progress in thinking will never happen.

                    Or you have the situation as I was in when a 'nice person' was telling me how, really, I was not wrong, just different, and everybody was entitled to their own opinion. So nice. But when I said, ok, if I am just different, why don't we do it my way for a change, after 10 years of doing it your way? Well, that was just a little too radical, and my suggestion was rejected.

                    Regards,
                    Roy Morien

                    Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 09:22:56 +0100

                    Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Product Owner as Scrum Coach

                    What make me stuck in Agile in general is that some look at waterfall geeks and say to themselves: "guys you don't know it yet,... you are so wrong...".
                    Not a very nice attitude.

                    On Dec 3, 2007 4:13 PM, Della-Croce, Greg <greg_della-croce@...> wrote:

                    One of the first things that struck me about SCRUM and Agile is the statement that "Quality is not negotiable".  Maybe your PO needs to be reminded that if you don't test (Unit, System, and Acceptance) that all they are going to get is the best and worst guesses that your developer team can make, and that only leads to more "do over".  "Do over" are a bigger waste of time than testing!!
                     

                    Greg
                     
                    Ready   Fire   Aim
                    Getting the Right  Job Done Right the Right Way in the Right Time
                     
                    From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com [mailto: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Pierre Mengal
                    Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 9:19 AM
                    To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Product Owner as Scrum Coach

                     
                    I have a case where the PO want to drop all possible "tests" (because it is a waste for him), ask developers to do extra hours, etc... to meet the deadline. All classical mistakes.
                     
                    He has the same objective as the team: "deliver on time".
                     
                    However he is probably wrong on "how to deliver on time".
                     
                    This is two different things for me.
                     
                    Pierre

                     
                    On Dec 3, 2007 2:50 PM, Emiliano Heyns <Emiliano.Heyns@...> wrote:

                    On Nov 30, 2007 3:12 PM, Pierre Mengal <pierre@...> wrote:

                    Conflict of interest ? All the actors are not supposed to have the same interest ? The success of the project ?


                    The sole interest cannot be "the success of the project" if the implied undercurrent is "at any cost the PO will not personally feel". The Scrum Master might have to instill a sense of reality in the PO. If the PO is driving the team to a non-sustainable pace, and the team doesn't pick up on this (and it's easy to lose track of this if you're in the middle of it all), the SM must intervene.

                    So yes, it can be a conflict of interest. In the example above, the project interest conflicts with the company interest (there's little value in burnt-out employees).

                    Emile

                     

                     







                    Sell your car for just $30 at CarPoint.com.au. It's simple!


                  • nummer_81
                    ... was not wrong, just different, ... just different, why don t we ... too radical, and my ... Interesting. I totally fail to see the success of your strategy
                    Message 9 of 19 , Dec 4, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Mar Dec 4 9:45 , Roy Morien <roymorien@...> sent:


                      > If we always tippy toed around trying not to hurt everybodies' feelings by saying
                      > nothing, then progress in thinking will never happen.
                      >
                      > Or you have the situation as I was in when a 'nice person' was telling me how, really, I
                      was not wrong, just different,
                      > and everybody was entitled to their own opinion. So nice. But when I said, ok, if I am
                      just different, why don't we
                      > do it my way for a change, after 10 years of doing it your way? Well, that was just a little
                      too radical, and my
                      > suggestion was rejected.

                      Interesting. I totally fail to see the success of your strategy in that situation...

                      The "nice person" didn't "make progress in thinking" and you didn't get your suggestions
                      accepted. Seems to be a loss for everybody...

                      What you wrote first makes perfect sense to me:

                      [out of order]
                      > There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying 'guys, you are so wrong' provided you are
                      > able to demonstrate how, where and why they are so wrong, and provide an alternative
                      > that is demonstrably correct.

                      But somehow, in practice, this rarely seems to work. As (IMO) your example demonstrates.

                      Cheers

                      Jerome
                    • Wolfgang Schulze Zachau
                      OK, let me clarify this a little. Yes, the PO can stop the project if it is no longer feasible. Yes, the PO can disassemble the team, if it cannot deliver the
                      Message 10 of 19 , Dec 5, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        OK, let me clarify this a little.
                        Yes, the PO can stop the project if it is no longer feasible. Yes, the PO can disassemble the team, if it cannot deliver the results he needs. But then, maybe he should have looked a bit harder (and without the pink shades) at the realities that exist.
                        I insist that the PO cannot tell the team HOW they deliver what he is asking them to deliver.
                        The knuckle rapping was meant to be verbal, not literal. And surely any good Scrum Master will try and negotiate first and cajole, persuade, whatever he can conjure up. The underlying motto here should be: a dead Scrum Master is of no use to anyone.
                        Having said that: if the PO cannot be made to see the light of the day, then you have a lose/lose situation anyway. And that might just be the right time to cut your losses.
                         
                        Regarding Pierre's comment that they really have to deliver on the 1st of January: Scrum always delivers on time. The questions simply is: what will be delivered? And it is the PO's job to figure out what are the most important bits to deliver.
                        Here you have a situation where Scrum simply blows the covers off completely.
                         

                        Regards,

                        Wolfgang

                         


                        From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Matt
                        Sent: 03 December 2007 20:32
                        To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Product Owner as Scrum Coach


                        --- In scrumdevelopment@ yahoogroups. com, "Wolfgang Schulze Zachau"
                        <wolfgang@.. .> wrote:
                        > if Scrum is done properly, then the PO has no say into how the team
                        deliver
                        > their stuff.

                        You mean "no say" other than nixing the project because it is no longer
                        feasible given the estimates that the team delivered? Or (if the PO is
                        also the business owner) nixing the team and starting over with a new
                        team? (admittedly one that will be set up for failure from day 1)

                        >In other words: in this case the PO deserves to have his knuckles
                        rapped. Properly.

                        While a rapping of the knuckles is sure to be communicative, it might be
                        better to have a sit down and explain *why* the team is defining DONE as
                        including tests etc. It shouldn't be too difficult to explain in a way
                        that makes good business sense... particularly since it *does* make
                        good business sense to test properly right?

                        Matt

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