Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Quick Poll: Take the Nokia Test
I agree with you, the Nokia test is an excellent place to start. Yes, it's a blunt instrument and it's not perfect. Personally, I would change point two from "Is software tested and working" to "Is there a definition of done which is consistently applied?" Still, as first test, it is simple and easy to apply.
If a team scores 7 or 8, they have probably thought about Scrum and made a serious effort to implement it. If they only scored 7, there is probably a reason. (I speak from experience - I have been involved in two major projects, one scored a 7, the other an 8. Why was one project a seven? Because the customer ordered HTML templates from us, not working code, so there was nothing to test. We did have a definition of done though. So in my opinion, we were doing Scrum.).
So if the team scores 6 or less, then they probably need to work on the basics and may need some remedial Scrum training. The team that scores 7 or 8 may need some coaching, but they are surely on the right track.
In public health, there is a distinction between screening tests and diagnostic tests. Screening tests are potentially given to large numbers of people. Ideally, they should be cheap and produce few false negatives, so infected persons don't slip through, but they may produce false positives.
So the Nokia test is our screening test. A basic check of the health of the team and the Scrum process. The "Stevens Cut": 6 or less and you're not doing Scrum. A 7 or 8 doesn't guarrantee that the team is doing Scrum, but that a closer look is merited to see how the team is doing.
Diagnostic tests are given to a much smaller number of people: only those who turned up positive on the screening test, in our case, those who pass the Stevens Cut. So they can be much more expensive and/or require specialized training and equipment to perform. However this test should produce few if any false negatives.
What then is the diagnostic test for Scrum teams?
I think this is where the"Little" test comes in. It should complement, not replace the Nokia test. It would ask more questions and probe deeper (which will prevent it from being used as quick poll on my blog though ;-) ). In short, the Little test should not assess whether the team is doing Scrum, but how well the team is doing Scrum.
My candidate topics for the Little test:
- Scrummaster/servant leadership
- Daily Scrum
- Impediment handling
- Interfaces outside of team, e.g. customer and organization
- Protection of Team from Management and Customer
Joseph Little schrieb:
> Thanks! I think it is good if people think about the Nokia Test
> The Nokia Test does not address every issue. It is a blunt
> instrument. It is the thinking that we want most.
> When you don't get a perfect score (and very many won't), ask
> yourself: Why did we think we could live without that? And why
> Nokia think it was essential?Test
> If it were my test, I would ask if the team has an Impediments List
> and knocks down one impediment per week. As one small example. But
> then, I think people rightly might pay more attention to a Nokia
> than a Little Test.
> Thanks, Joe
> CST --
> Blog: Agile & Business
-- Peter Stevens, CSM http://scrum-breakfast.blogspot.com http://fingerspell.sierra-charlie.com tel: +41 44 586 6450
- 2008/6/1, Tobias Mayer <tobias.mayer@...>:
>Yes, they are doing Scrum.
> Does anyone actually know if Nokia are really doing Scrum? My guess is
> that if Nokia see so little value in the empirical nature of Scrum as to
> exclude it from their survey then they are probably not.
And a +1 to Peter. According to what info has been published and
talked about in miniseminars here in Finland (the birthplace of
Nokia), the Nokia test is hardly even the tip of the iceberg regarding
Nokias agile adoption. To me at least the Nokia test is very
indicative of whether or not a team is at all agile. They might get
top scores with the test and still not do agile very well, but they
are still agile/IID. That's the other thing; if memory serves me
correct, the test is not to indicate, whether the team is doing Scrum,
but whether the team is doing agile/IID.
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
- I think Nina gets the idea.
It is NOT a test of whether a team is doing Scrum well. It is whether
one team is possibly doing something like Scrum (ie, a fair chance
that they are not doing Waterfall and calling it Scrum, and a fair
chance that they are not doing Cowboy Agile and calling it Scrum).
It is to keep away from the worst smells.
If you don't have a pitcher, if you don't call an out after 3 strikes,
you are NOT playing baseball. Those questions don't say whether you
are playing baseball. And certainly not whether you are playing at a
major league level.
Little Test: I will of course in my head use a Little Test to judge
whether the teams I am working with a doing it "well enough for now".
But I would never publicly declare a Little Test. I think it has to
come from user firms. I welcome additional tests, such as the Exxon
Mobil test or the IBM Test or the Sam's Web Design Test, etc. And one
hopes they will listen to smart folks like you all in constructing
I think that Tobias and Peter and Nina raised some good issues. No
test would be perfect (in my opinion), and certainly the Nokia Test is
not perfect. Imperfection does not void its usefulness in some
contexts. If you wait for perfection, you will wait too long.
--- In email@example.com, "Nina Niskanen"
> 2008/6/1, Tobias Mayer <tobias.mayer@...>:
> > Does anyone actually know if Nokia are really doing Scrum? My
> > that if Nokia see so little value in the empirical nature ofScrum as to
> > exclude it from their survey then they are probably not.
> Yes, they are doing Scrum.
> And a +1 to Peter. According to what info has been published and
> talked about in miniseminars here in Finland (the birthplace of
> Nokia), the Nokia test is hardly even the tip of the iceberg regarding
> Nokias agile adoption. To me at least the Nokia test is very
> indicative of whether or not a team is at all agile. They might get
> top scores with the test and still not do agile very well, but they
> are still agile/IID. That's the other thing; if memory serves me
> correct, the test is not to indicate, whether the team is doing Scrum,
> but whether the team is doing agile/IID.
> I reject your reality and substitute my own.