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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 19 , Dec 3, 2007
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 19 , Dec 3, 2007
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 19 , Dec 3, 2007
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 19 , Dec 4, 2007
          View Source
          • 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 5 of 19 , Dec 4, 2007
            View Source
            • 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 6 of 19 , Dec 4, 2007
              View Source
              • 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 7 of 19 , Dec 4, 2007
                View Source
                • 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 8 of 19 , Dec 4, 2007
                  View Source
                  • 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 9 of 19 , Dec 5, 2007
                    View Source
                    • 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.