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

RE: [scrumdevelopment] Middle-up-down vs. bottom-up

Expand Messages
  • Mike Cohn
    I guess I would have considered Scrum to be a process that puts emphasis on the individual but does so by putting a team framework in place to support that
    Message 1 of 11 , May 3, 2002

      I guess I would have considered Scrum to be a process that puts emphasis on the individual but does so by putting a team framework in place to support that individual. I think most individuals working on Scrum projects would consider it very liberating from the perspective of personal productivity.

       

      As for knowledge being created by individuals who “operate as independent and separate actors” I’d largely agree with that. But—I’d also suggest that the bulk of most software projects are not about knowledge creation. Drucker’s “knowledge worker” term doesn’t have to mean the individual is always creating knowledge; it could mean that the worker uses his knowledge. For a typical software project there is knowledge created during the activities where truly new thought is occurring but I don’t think knowledge is created when fairly typical aspects of the system are being coded---and most systems have a big percentage of this type of work.

       

      So, while individuals create knowledge the application of that knowledge is put to practical use through a team. Scrum works (in my opinion and Mike Beedle seems like the one who’d know more about this topic) because if allows for individual creativity but always with the framework of a team around it. If I go off on a programming tangent that may or may not pay off (i.e., creating knowledge) I can do that because I know that if my detour doesn’t work the rest of the team will help pick up on tasks I got behind on.

       

      --Mike

       

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Jonas Bengtsson [mailto:jonas.b@...]
      Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 4:39 AM
      To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Middle-up-down vs. bottom-up

       

      Hi,

      While reading the book "The Knowledge-Creating Company" by Nonaka and
      Takeuchi I got quite puzzled about what they call a middle-up-down
      management style. Briefly that means that middle management is the most
      important part in the knowledge creation (they are the bridge between the
      visionary ideals of top management and the chaotic reality of front-line
      employees). They also seem to think that a bottom-up management style leads
      to a very individualistic and fragmented working environment.

      Have a misunderstood Scrum completely when I say that Scrum advocates
      bottom-up? As I see it Scrum is not individualistic but put a strong
      emphasize on teams.

      In the book they use 3M as an example of a company with bottom-up
      management. If I recall correctly, someone on this list has worked on 3M.
      How was it to work at a bottom-up company? Is it true what they say about
      such companies:
      "Knowledge is created by [front-line] employees, who operate as independent
      and separate actors, preferring to work on their own. There is little direct
      dialogue with other members of the organization, either vertically or
      horizontally. Autonomy, not interaction, is the key operating principle.
      Certain individuals, not a group of individuals interacting with each other,
      create knowledge." (p. 126)

      Regards,
      Jonas



      To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
      To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...


      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    • mpoppendieck
      Jonas, I have not read the book you reference, so I am not sure why they call 3M a bottom-up organization. But I worked there for 20 years, ending up as a
      Message 2 of 11 , May 3, 2002
        Jonas,

        I have not read the book you reference, so I am not sure why they
        call 3M a bottom-up organization. But I worked there for 20 years,
        ending up as a manager (and product champion) in the new product
        development area of the company.

        Certainly no one at 3M would think that much good can be
        accomplished by a single individual. The way that new products get
        invented is that someone with a good idea recruits team members.
        Because of institutionalized slack (anyone can spend 15% of their
        time on projects of their own choosing), it is quite easy to do
        this. The practice is officially known as `bootlegging'.

        Let me give you an example. I was trying to build a business around
        an ultra-pure plastic fiber about ½ inch in diameter, into which
        one injects light. The light comes out at the end or as a glowing
        fiber. Colors are injected via a color wheel. We called the
        product `Light Fiber' and our team introduced it in Japan in
        1998.

        The team was largely a team of volunteers, some of whom were
        officially assigned to the project at their request by their
        managers, some of whom were donating their 15% time. We were one of
        the few technical teams in the company to successfully involve
        Japanese technical people as fully involved team members. We met
        every week for 3 years, and although we had very little official
        funding, we built two process lines, prototyped a third, and
        commercialized the product.

        There is no way that a new product can be successfully developed and
        put on the market by one person. The only successful product
        champions at 3M are those who can inspire a team. For the most
        innovative products, the team must often be recruited and is to some
        extent a volunteer team. It requires a good idea and strong
        leadership to inspire a team of `volunteers', but it is in no
        sense working with a group of individualists. The new product
        development team is a unit, working together, making mutual
        commitments, helping each other, doing whatever is necessary to put
        a successful product on the market.

        From my personal experience, I must say I would rather lead a team
        of scientists who are deeply committed to each other and to the
        product, than a team of scientists who are being told what to do.
        Not only is it more fun, it is far easier to be successful.
      • Jonas Bengtsson
        Mike, It seems like we re on the same page. Perhaps one could say that there is an emphasis on both team and individual - the team commits to the work and is
        Message 3 of 11 , May 3, 2002
          Mike,

          It seems like we're on the same page. Perhaps one could say that there is an
          emphasis on both team and individual - the team commits to the work and is
          responsible to make it happen (on a Sprint level) and the individual
          commits/is responsible on a daily basis. Do that sound reasonable? What I
          meant by emphasis on team was that it's not individualistic but the team
          work/spirit/etc play a major role.

          I think I agree about that the "typical aspects" have a big perceptage of
          the work. But how do you deal with that? If most work is routine how do you
          keep the motivation high? I, for one, need challanges every now and then. I
          guess I tackle the problem by making it into a challange, e.g. by completing
          the work faster than I've done before, or perhaps (do I dare to say :-) by
          adding small features.

          Another question, how important is the ScrumMaster? (both for the
          "knowledge-creation" and for the success of the project in general) I guess
          it differs quite much from project to project. Is it possible that s/he
          becomes less important as the team gets more jelled? Are there any
          self-directing Scrum teams out there?

          Jonas

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Mike Cohn [mailto:mike@...]
          Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 10:13 PM
          To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Middle-up-down vs. bottom-up


          I guess I would have considered Scrum to be a process that puts emphasis on
          the individual but does so by putting a team framework in place to support
          that individual. I think most individuals working on Scrum projects would
          consider it very liberating from the perspective of personal productivity.

          As for knowledge being created by individuals who "operate as independent
          and separate actors" I'd largely agree with that. But-I'd also suggest that
          the bulk of most software projects are not about knowledge creation. Drucker
          's "knowledge worker" term doesn't have to mean the individual is always
          creating knowledge; it could mean that the worker uses his knowledge. For a
          typical software project there is knowledge created during the activities
          where truly new thought is occurring but I don't think knowledge is created
          when fairly typical aspects of the system are being coded---and most systems
          have a big percentage of this type of work.

          So, while individuals create knowledge the application of that knowledge is
          put to practical use through a team. Scrum works (in my opinion and Mike
          Beedle seems like the one who'd know more about this topic) because if
          allows for individual creativity but always with the framework of a team
          around it. If I go off on a programming tangent that may or may not pay off
          (i.e., creating knowledge) I can do that because I know that if my detour
          doesn't work the rest of the team will help pick up on tasks I got behind
          on.

          --Mike
        • Jonas Bengtsson
          Mary, Thanks for clearing that out! I guessed that teams play a large part even there. But as I understand it they state that the employees are quite
          Message 4 of 11 , May 3, 2002
            Mary,

            Thanks for clearing that out! I guessed that teams play a large part even
            there. But as I understand it they state that the employees are quite
            individualistic who are "preferring to work on their own". The examples they
            are focusing on is Dick Drew (inventor of Scotch tape) and Art Fry (inventor
            of Post-it), that is two examples of individuals that on their own invents
            something amazing, nothing about team efforts.

            The reason why they call 3M a bottom-up organization is that the top
            management is not "bosses" but rather mentors/supporters. Orders/commands
            from top management have little meaning since the company "encourages
            meritorious disobedience". It is the opposite to a top-down (=bureaucratic?)
            organization.

            Jonas

            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: mpoppendieck [mailto:mary@...]
            > Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 10:13 PM
            > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Middle-up-down vs. bottom-up
            >
            >
            > Jonas,
            >
            > I have not read the book you reference, so I am not sure why they
            > call 3M a bottom-up organization. But I worked there for 20 years,
            > ending up as a manager (and product champion) in the new product
            > development area of the company.
            >
            > Certainly no one at 3M would think that much good can be
            > accomplished by a single individual. The way that new products get
            > invented is that someone with a good idea recruits team members.
            > Because of institutionalized slack (anyone can spend 15% of their
            > time on projects of their own choosing), it is quite easy to do
            > this. The practice is officially known as `bootlegging'.
            >
            > Let me give you an example. I was trying to build a business around
            > an ultra-pure plastic fiber about ½ inch in diameter, into which
            > one injects light. The light comes out at the end or as a glowing
            > fiber. Colors are injected via a color wheel. We called the
            > product `Light Fiber' and our team introduced it in Japan in
            > 1998.
            >
            > The team was largely a team of volunteers, some of whom were
            > officially assigned to the project at their request by their
            > managers, some of whom were donating their 15% time. We were one of
            > the few technical teams in the company to successfully involve
            > Japanese technical people as fully involved team members. We met
            > every week for 3 years, and although we had very little official
            > funding, we built two process lines, prototyped a third, and
            > commercialized the product.
            >
            > There is no way that a new product can be successfully developed and
            > put on the market by one person. The only successful product
            > champions at 3M are those who can inspire a team. For the most
            > innovative products, the team must often be recruited and is to some
            > extent a volunteer team. It requires a good idea and strong
            > leadership to inspire a team of `volunteers', but it is in no
            > sense working with a group of individualists. The new product
            > development team is a unit, working together, making mutual
            > commitments, helping each other, doing whatever is necessary to put
            > a successful product on the market.
            >
            > From my personal experience, I must say I would rather lead a team
            > of scientists who are deeply committed to each other and to the
            > product, than a team of scientists who are being told what to do.
            > Not only is it more fun, it is far easier to be successful.
            >
            >
          • Ken Schwaber
            The ScrumMaster is also known as the IT project manager, and is responsible for the productivity of the team, ensuring that it has the best possible and most
            Message 5 of 11 , May 3, 2002
              The ScrumMaster is also known as the IT project manager, and is responsible
              for the productivity of the team, ensuring that it has the best possible and
              most appropriate staffing, works together well, gets decisions made
              promptly, has impediments removed quickly, and understands the project and
              the product backlog. A new type of management position that isn't
              administrative, but a very real coach to the team. The best background is
              border collie or sheepdog.
              Ken

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Jonas Bengtsson [mailto:jonas.b@...]
              Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 5:34 PM
              To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Middle-up-down vs. bottom-up


              Mike,

              It seems like we're on the same page. Perhaps one could say that there is an
              emphasis on both team and individual - the team commits to the work and is
              responsible to make it happen (on a Sprint level) and the individual
              commits/is responsible on a daily basis. Do that sound reasonable? What I
              meant by emphasis on team was that it's not individualistic but the team
              work/spirit/etc play a major role.

              I think I agree about that the "typical aspects" have a big perceptage of
              the work. But how do you deal with that? If most work is routine how do you
              keep the motivation high? I, for one, need challanges every now and then. I
              guess I tackle the problem by making it into a challange, e.g. by completing
              the work faster than I've done before, or perhaps (do I dare to say :-) by
              adding small features.

              Another question, how important is the ScrumMaster? (both for the
              "knowledge-creation" and for the success of the project in general) I guess
              it differs quite much from project to project. Is it possible that s/he
              becomes less important as the team gets more jelled? Are there any
              self-directing Scrum teams out there?

              Jonas

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Mike Cohn [mailto:mike@...]
              Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 10:13 PM
              To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Middle-up-down vs. bottom-up


              I guess I would have considered Scrum to be a process that puts emphasis on
              the individual but does so by putting a team framework in place to support
              that individual. I think most individuals working on Scrum projects would
              consider it very liberating from the perspective of personal productivity.

              As for knowledge being created by individuals who "operate as independent
              and separate actors" I'd largely agree with that. But-I'd also suggest that
              the bulk of most software projects are not about knowledge creation. Drucker
              's "knowledge worker" term doesn't have to mean the individual is always
              creating knowledge; it could mean that the worker uses his knowledge. For a
              typical software project there is knowledge created during the activities
              where truly new thought is occurring but I don't think knowledge is created
              when fairly typical aspects of the system are being coded---and most systems
              have a big percentage of this type of work.

              So, while individuals create knowledge the application of that knowledge is
              put to practical use through a team. Scrum works (in my opinion and Mike
              Beedle seems like the one who'd know more about this topic) because if
              allows for individual creativity but always with the framework of a team
              around it. If I go off on a programming tangent that may or may not pay off
              (i.e., creating knowledge) I can do that because I know that if my detour
              doesn't work the rest of the team will help pick up on tasks I got behind
              on.

              --Mike



              To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
              To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
              scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...

              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            • Jonas Bengtsson
              Ken, The reason why I asked about self-directing teams was the following sentences by Mike Beedle: SCRUMs can also be held by self-directed teams, in that
              Message 6 of 11 , May 3, 2002
                Ken,

                The reason why I asked about self-directing teams was the following
                sentences by Mike Beedle:
                "SCRUMs can also be held by self-directed teams, in that case someone is
                designated as the scribe and also logs the completed and planned activities
                of the Backlog and the existing Blocks. All activities from the Backlog and
                the Blocks are then distributed among the team members for resolution."
                <http://jeffsutherland.org/scrum/scrum_pattern.html>

                Has this been "proven" to be unrealistic?

                > The ScrumMaster is also known as the IT project manager, and is
                > responsible
                > for the productivity of the team, ensuring that it has the best
                > possible and
                > most appropriate staffing, works together well, gets decisions made
                > promptly, has impediments removed quickly, and understands the project and
                > the product backlog.

                I agree with most of the above. But what do you mean by "responsible for the
                productivity of the team"? I can see that s/he can be responsible to remove
                impediments and to do everything possible to enhance the productivity. But
                can s/he be responsible for the actual productivity? If s/he does everything
                s/he can but the team still performs poorly is s/he the one to "blame"? As I
                see it the ScrumMaster is responsible to create the right environment for
                productivity but not directly for the productivity.
                Do we mean the same thing or do we have different opinions? (Perhaps I
                should work in a Scrum project before I have opinions about it :-)

                > A new type of management position that isn't
                > administrative, but a very real coach to the team. The best background is
                > border collie or sheepdog.

                I like that! :-)

                Jonas

                ps. forgive me if I was unable to express what I mean above, but I'm really
                tired :-) ds.
              • Ken Schwaber
                Not in my experience. However, I ve either been on critical projects or projects where the organization was changing its culture. Both required dedicated
                Message 7 of 11 , May 3, 2002
                  Not in my experience. However, I've either been on critical projects or
                  projects where the organization was changing its culture. Both required
                  dedicated ScrumMasters. In a well implemented Scrum organization, the teams
                  could be self-directing.
                  Ken

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Jonas Bengtsson [mailto:jonas.b@...]
                  Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 6:22 PM
                  To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Middle-up-down vs. bottom-up


                  Ken,

                  The reason why I asked about self-directing teams was the following
                  sentences by Mike Beedle:
                  "SCRUMs can also be held by self-directed teams, in that case someone is
                  designated as the scribe and also logs the completed and planned activities
                  of the Backlog and the existing Blocks. All activities from the Backlog and
                  the Blocks are then distributed among the team members for resolution."
                  <http://jeffsutherland.org/scrum/scrum_pattern.html>

                  Has this been "proven" to be unrealistic?

                  > The ScrumMaster is also known as the IT project manager, and is
                  > responsible
                  > for the productivity of the team, ensuring that it has the best
                  > possible and
                  > most appropriate staffing, works together well, gets decisions made
                  > promptly, has impediments removed quickly, and understands the project and
                  > the product backlog.

                  I agree with most of the above. But what do you mean by "responsible for the
                  productivity of the team"? I can see that s/he can be responsible to remove
                  impediments and to do everything possible to enhance the productivity. But
                  can s/he be responsible for the actual productivity? If s/he does everything
                  s/he can but the team still performs poorly is s/he the one to "blame"? As I
                  see it the ScrumMaster is responsible to create the right environment for
                  productivity but not directly for the productivity.
                  Do we mean the same thing or do we have different opinions? (Perhaps I
                  should work in a Scrum project before I have opinions about it :-)

                  > A new type of management position that isn't
                  > administrative, but a very real coach to the team. The best background is
                  > border collie or sheepdog.

                  I like that! :-)

                  Jonas

                  ps. forgive me if I was unable to express what I mean above, but I'm really
                  tired :-) ds.



                  To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                  To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                  scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...

                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                • Mike Cohn
                  Yes, I think we re on the same page on this. I guess I didn t consider the work to be routine, just not knowledge-creating. I m thinking of a project I m
                  Message 8 of 11 , May 3, 2002

                    Yes, I think we’re on the same page on this.

                     

                    I guess I didn’t consider the work to be routine, just not knowledge-creating. I’m thinking of a project I’m working with right now where one of the programmers is writing a simple user administration program to accompany the main program (to allow creation of new users, delete existing users, etc.). Everyone has written something similar so it’s not creating new knowledge but it isn’t exactly routine because he hasn’t done it dozens of previous times. Every programmer (person in general) finds his challenges different ways so I generally don’t give a programmer a challenge of “do this routine task faster than you’ve done it before” because not all programmers like that type of challenge (another may prefer to do it is less memory, etc.). In true Scrum manner that type of decision is best left to each individual.

                     

                    The Scrum Master is vital. I’m not sure if the role becomes less important with jelled teams but the role can become much less distinct. As the team comes together there is less need for the orchestrating activities of a Scrum Master and so I’ve found it easier for one of the programmers to do the job after having watched it happen for awhile. I’m thinking about one team I’m working with—there are 6 people on the team and I’ve worked with 3 of them in various capacities for much of the last 8 years so we obviously have a history together. We started with a Scrum-like process way back then and have evolved it as we learned or as Ken, Mike and others published on the topic. So the 3 on this team are pretty familiar with what they need to do and my duties as a scrum master to them are very simple relative to what other teams need.

                     

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Jonas Bengtsson [mailto:jonas.b@...]
                    Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 3:34 PM
                    To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Middle-up-down vs. bottom-up

                     

                    Mike,

                    It seems like we're on the same page. Perhaps one could say that there is an
                    emphasis on both team and individual - the team commits to the work and is
                    responsible to make it happen (on a Sprint level) and the individual
                    commits/is responsible on a daily basis. Do that sound reasonable? What I
                    meant by emphasis on team was that it's not individualistic but the team
                    work/spirit/etc play a major role.

                    I think I agree about that the "typical aspects" have a big perceptage of
                    the work. But how do you deal with that? If most work is routine how do you
                    keep the motivation high? I, for one, need challanges every now and then. I
                    guess I tackle the problem by making it into a challange, e.g. by completing
                    the work faster than I've done before, or perhaps (do I dare to say :-) by
                    adding small features.

                    Another question, how important is the ScrumMaster? (both for the
                    "knowledge-creation" and for the success of the project in general)  I guess
                    it differs quite much from project to project. Is it possible that s/he
                    becomes less important as the team gets more jelled? Are there any
                    self-directing Scrum teams out there?

                    Jonas

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Mike Cohn [mailto:mike@...]
                    Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 10:13 PM
                    To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Middle-up-down vs. bottom-up


                    I guess I would have considered Scrum to be a process that puts emphasis on
                    the individual but does so by putting a team framework in place to support
                    that individual. I think most individuals working on Scrum projects would
                    consider it very liberating from the perspective of personal productivity.

                    As for knowledge being created by individuals who "operate as independent
                    and separate actors" I'd largely agree with that. But-I'd also suggest that
                    the bulk of most software projects are not about knowledge creation. Drucker
                    's "knowledge worker" term doesn't have to mean the individual is always
                    creating knowledge; it could mean that the worker uses his knowledge. For a
                    typical software project there is knowledge created during the activities
                    where truly new thought is occurring but I don't think knowledge is created
                    when fairly typical aspects of the system are being coded---and most systems
                    have a big percentage of this type of work.

                    So, while individuals create knowledge the application of that knowledge is
                    put to practical use through a team. Scrum works (in my opinion and Mike
                    Beedle seems like the one who'd know more about this topic) because if
                    allows for individual creativity but always with the framework of a team
                    around it. If I go off on a programming tangent that may or may not pay off
                    (i.e., creating knowledge) I can do that because I know that if my detour
                    doesn't work the rest of the team will help pick up on tasks I got behind
                    on.

                    --Mike



                    To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
                    To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...


                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                  • Mike Beedle
                    ... Jonas, Ken: It is possible to have self-directed teams with no Scrum Master. But I have only done that twice in 6 years. Basically, Ken hits the nail on
                    Message 9 of 11 , May 4, 2002
                      Jonas wrote:
                      >Ken,
                      > The reason why I asked about self-directing teams was
                      > the following sentences by Mike Beedle:
                      > "SCRUMs can also be held by self-directed teams, in
                      > that case someone is designated as the scribe and
                      > also logs the completed and planned activities
                      > of the Backlog and the existing Blocks. All
                      > activities from the Backlog and the Blocks are then
                      > distributed among the team members for resolution."
                      > <http://jeffsutherland.org/scrum/scrum_pattern.html>
                      >
                      > Has this been "proven" to be unrealistic?

                      Ken wrote:
                      > Not in my experience. However, I've either been on
                      > critical projects or projects where the organization
                      > was changing its culture. Both required dedicated
                      > ScrumMasters. In a well implemented Scrum organization,
                      > the teams could be self-directing.

                      Jonas, Ken:

                      It is possible to have self-directed teams with no Scrum Master.

                      But I have only done that twice in 6 years. Basically,
                      Ken hits the nail on the head, it requires a very
                      special environment:

                      - high Scrum experience for all, if not all members
                      of the team

                      - team members with established relationships with
                      other members of the organization and with the
                      respect of managers (because some of their chosen
                      assignments are "issues"; therefore, they must
                      be able to represent themselves to resolve them).

                      - team members ability to keep and manage backlog
                      (again, not an easy thing to do, but it is
                      possible, specially in smaller teams.)

                      - team members with the ability to coordinate with
                      the customer and the sponsor of the team about
                      needs, demos (Spring Review Meeting), planning
                      (Sprint Planning Meeting),

                      etc.

                      Unfortunately these requirements mean that self-directed
                      teams are hard to put in place and hard to keep in
                      balance. Simply put, it is safer to have a good
                      Scrum Master,

                      - Mike
                    • Linda Rising
                      Hi Guys, All the teams at AG were self-directed but that just means that the team adopted the various management roles. The ScrumMaster was just another role
                      Message 10 of 11 , May 5, 2002
                        Hi Guys,

                        All the teams at AG were self-directed but that just means that the team adopted the
                        various management roles. The ScrumMaster was just another role and someone
                        took that on and tracked the backlog.





                        Linda



                        Mike Beedle wrote:
                        Jonas wrote:
                        Ken,
                        The reason why I asked about self-directing teams was
                        the following sentences by Mike Beedle:
                        "SCRUMs can also be held by self-directed teams, in
                        that case someone is designated as the scribe and
                        also logs the completed and planned activities
                        of the Backlog and the existing Blocks. All
                        activities from the Backlog and the Blocks are then
                        distributed among the team members for resolution."
                        <http://jeffsutherland.org/scrum/scrum_pattern.html>

                        Has this been "proven" to be unrealistic?

                        Ken wrote:
                        Not in my experience. However, I've either been on 
                        critical projects or projects where the organization
                        was changing its culture. Both required dedicated
                        ScrumMasters. In a well implemented Scrum organization,
                        the teams could be self-directing.

                        Jonas, Ken:

                        It is possible to have self-directed teams with no Scrum Master.

                        But I have only done that twice in 6 years. Basically,
                        Ken hits the nail on the head, it requires a very
                        special environment:

                        - high Scrum experience for all, if not all members
                        of the team

                        - team members with established relationships with
                        other members of the organization and with the
                        respect of managers (because some of their chosen
                        assignments are "issues"; therefore, they must
                        be able to represent themselves to resolve them).

                        - team members ability to keep and manage backlog
                        (again, not an easy thing to do, but it is
                        possible, specially in smaller teams.)

                        - team members with the ability to coordinate with
                        the customer and the sponsor of the team about
                        needs, demos (Spring Review Meeting), planning
                        (Sprint Planning Meeting),

                        etc.

                        Unfortunately these requir ements mean that self-directed
                        teams are hard to put in place and hard to keep in
                        balance. Simply put, it is safer to have a good
                        Scrum Master,

                        - Mike



                        ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
                        Buy Stock for $4
                        and no minimums.
                        FREE Money 2002.
                        http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/9EfwlB/TM
                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

                        To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                        To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...

                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




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