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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 11 , May 3, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      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.
      >
      >
    • 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 2 of 11 , May 3, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 11 , May 3, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 11 , May 3, 2002
          • 0 Attachment

            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 5 of 11 , May 4, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 11 , May 5, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                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.