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

Who's your Scrum Master?

Expand Messages
  • Lucas Machado
    Hello all, I ve been subscribed to this group for a few weeks now and have thoroughly enjoyed the discussions. This group has been a great help already, and
    Message 1 of 11 , Aug 15, 2008
    • 0 Attachment

      Hello all,

      I've been subscribed to this group for a few weeks now and have thoroughly enjoyed the discussions.  This group has been a great help already, and I'm looking forward to more actively participating in the future...Starting...Now!

      I work at a video game company that works on AAA titles for Xbox 360 and PS3.  This means our project cycles are typically greater than a year, our team will grow to about 70 people, and we only release to the public once.  Since we started employing Scrum 10 or so months ago, I, being an associate producer, have been playing the role of Scrum Master. (In the game industry, producers are non-technical managers responsible for ensuring the product ships on time and on budget; while the entire team reports to a senior producer, associate producers have no direct reports.)

      Having producers be SMs seemed like an obvious choice because traditionally producers act as a buffer between the developers and outside influences, remove impediments, and help develop and enforce the rules of our process (among other things).  Ultimately, I believe both roles have the same core goal: help the team improve how we go about developing software.

      However, because producers are not developers, we feel that our SMs are too disconnected from the group to be great SMs.  The SM is supposed to be a key member of the group, but when there are no impediments, no pressure from outside influences, and no rules are being broken, the producer-as-SM doesn't have anything to do that is directly related to the goals the group is sprinting towards, and so is not really a member of the group at all.  In this situation, which has been very prevalent lately, the SM sees the group in the morning meeting and then not again until the next morning meeting.  Scrum literature says that the SM is a highly demanding role requiring constant communication, and that having one SM for multiple teams is suboptimal, but in my experience being SM only takes up a third to half of my day.  Am I just missing something?

      We've thought about making developers SMs, but then what will producers do?  The SM would probably delegate more of their SM tasks to people like producers so that they can maximize their time spent developing software, but I'm still inclined to think that there will be less work overall for producers.

      So my question is, on your teams, who takes on the role of Scrum Master?  Do you choose a developer within the group, or a producer-type, and why?  If your SMs are developers, what role do the producer-types play?


      Thanks in advance,

      --lm

    • Xavier Quesada Allue
      Hi Lucas, A team that has no impediments? No outside pressures or interruptions? That is something I would like to witness. Indeed, under such ideal (may I say
      Message 2 of 11 , Aug 15, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Lucas,

        A team that has no impediments? No outside pressures or interruptions?
        That is something I would like to witness. Indeed, under such ideal
        (may I say utopian?) circumstances, it might turn out that the
        ScrumMaster doesn't have that much work to do. Unfortunately, most
        people who implement Scrum are doing it under more realistic
        conditions than that. This is where the "one ScrumMaster per team"
        rule of thumb comes from. It is simply a recommendation based on
        people's experience.

        What you call a Producer, in the "traditional" world they call it a
        Project Manager. It's pretty normal for Project Managers to become
        ScrumMasters, at least if they manage to shift to an Agile Project
        Management mindset. In my opinion it's preferable for the SM to be a
        Project Manager than a developer (unless it's a developer who
        specifically wants to move into management) because developers hate
        doing management tasks. On the other hand it is fundamental for the SM
        to understand Agile principles and practices, so if a traditional PM
        is not fully "converted", he will probably make a very bad SM.

        But let's focus on what seems to be your most important problem: you
        say being ScrumMaster is not a full time job within your team.

        Most likely, your team does not see the impediments that are in their
        way and the improvements that can still be achieved. You really mean
        to say that nothing is suggested doing your retrospectives? Nothing is
        dysfunctional? There are always more things to do than time available.
        Perfection is unattainable. I think you and/or your team have to learn
        to see how you can improve. My advice is to start looking for all
        those things your team is not doing that would make them better. There
        are dozens of ideas that are worthwhile. That should keep you busy for
        some time, until you upstaff to 70 and get closer to your deadline
        (and all hell breaks loose).

        Regards,
        Xavier

        On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 12:42 AM, Lucas Machado <lmachado1@...> wrote:
        > Hello all,
        >
        > I've been subscribed to this group for a few weeks now and have thoroughly
        > enjoyed the discussions. This group has been a great help already, and I'm
        > looking forward to more actively participating in the
        > future...Starting...Now!
        >
        > I work at a video game company that works on AAA titles for Xbox 360 and
        > PS3. This means our project cycles are typically greater than a year, our
        > team will grow to about 70 people, and we only release to the public once.
        > Since we started employing Scrum 10 or so months ago, I, being an associate
        > producer, have been playing the role of Scrum Master. (In the game industry,
        > producers are non-technical managers responsible for ensuring the product
        > ships on time and on budget; while the entire team reports to a senior
        > producer, associate producers have no direct reports.)
        >
        > Having producers be SMs seemed like an obvious choice because traditionally
        > producers act as a buffer between the developers and outside influences,
        > remove impediments, and help develop and enforce the rules of our process
        > (among other things). Ultimately, I believe both roles have the same core
        > goal: help the team improve how we go about developing software.
        >
        > However, because producers are not developers, we feel that our SMs are too
        > disconnected from the group to be great SMs. The SM is supposed to be a key
        > member of the group, but when there are no impediments, no pressure from
        > outside influences, and no rules are being broken, the producer-as-SM
        > doesn't have anything to do that is directly related to the goals the group
        > is sprinting towards, and so is not really a member of the group at all. In
        > this situation, which has been very prevalent lately, the SM sees the group
        > in the morning meeting and then not again until the next morning meeting.
        > Scrum literature says that the SM is a highly demanding role requiring
        > constant communication, and that having one SM for multiple teams is
        > suboptimal, but in my experience being SM only takes up a third to half of
        > my day. Am I just missing something?
        >
        > We've thought about making developers SMs, but then what will producers do?
        > The SM would probably delegate more of their SM tasks to people like
        > producers so that they can maximize their time spent developing software,
        > but I'm still inclined to think that there will be less work overall for
        > producers.
        >
        > So my question is, on your teams, who takes on the role of Scrum Master? Do
        > you choose a developer within the group, or a producer-type, and why? If
        > your SMs are developers, what role do the producer-types play?
        >
        > Thanks in advance,
        >
        > --lm
        >
      • Jurgen De Smet
        I agree with Xavier and if no impediments are given by the team then try value stream mapping for example and improve by removing (unknown) waste. Striving to
        Message 3 of 11 , Aug 16, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          I agree with Xavier and if no impediments are given by the team then
          try value stream mapping for example and improve by removing (unknown)
          waste. Striving to efficiency is a never ending story and the biggest
          mistake is thinking you reached the end and you and your team is
          working perfect already ;)

          Read some more about Lean instead of Scrum maybe to get familiar with
          removing waste and its technique's, you might be surprised at the end.
          Not sure it works for you though, I would need to see how the team is
          working to be sure but as Xavier already mentioned having almost
          nothing to work on as SM seems like an utopia.
        • Alexey Krivitsky
          Hi Lucas. I think lots of people here will feel jealous (if this is the right word), as usually it is an ultimiate SM s job to become useless. In most cases
          Message 4 of 11 , Aug 16, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Lucas.

            I think lots of people here will feel jealous (if this is the right word), as usually it is an ultimiate SM's job to become useless. In most cases I've seen this is unrealistic, though we all are trying to make it real.

            A questions from top of my head: will your teams have a daily meeting if your SM doesn't not show up one morning?

            // Alexey

            On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 1:42 AM, Lucas Machado <lmachado1@...> wrote:

            Hello all,

            I've been subscribed to this group for a few weeks now and have thoroughly enjoyed the discussions.  This group has been a great help already, and I'm looking forward to more actively participating in the future...Starting...Now!

            I work at a video game company that works on AAA titles for Xbox 360 and PS3.  This means our project cycles are typically greater than a year, our team will grow to about 70 people, and we only release to the public once.  Since we started employing Scrum 10 or so months ago, I, being an associate producer, have been playing the role of Scrum Master. (In the game industry, producers are non-technical managers responsible for ensuring the product ships on time and on budget; while the entire team reports to a senior producer, associate producers have no direct reports.)

            Having producers be SMs seemed like an obvious choice because traditionally producers act as a buffer between the developers and outside influences, remove impediments, and help develop and enforce the rules of our process (among other things).  Ultimately, I believe both roles have the same core goal: help the team improve how we go about developing software.

            However, because producers are not developers, we feel that our SMs are too disconnected from the group to be great SMs.  The SM is supposed to be a key member of the group, but when there are no impediments, no pressure from outside influences, and no rules are being broken, the producer-as-SM doesn't have anything to do that is directly related to the goals the group is sprinting towards, and so is not really a member of the group at all.  In this situation, which has been very prevalent lately, the SM sees the group in the morning meeting and then not again until the next morning meeting.  Scrum literature says that the SM is a highly demanding role requiring constant communication, and that having one SM for multiple teams is suboptimal, but in my experience being SM only takes up a third to half of my day.  Am I just missing something?

            We've thought about making developers SMs, but then what will producers do?  The SM would probably delegate more of their SM tasks to people like producers so that they can maximize their time spent developing software, but I'm still inclined to think that there will be less work overall for producers.

            So my question is, on your teams, who takes on the role of Scrum Master?  Do you choose a developer within the group, or a producer-type, and why?  If your SMs are developers, what role do the producer-types play?


            Thanks in advance,

            --lm


          • Juan Gabardini
            Hi Lucas Sometime a member of the team needs coaching on tech skills. In those situations, a tech- savvy SM would be nice. But a non tech SM could always bring
            Message 5 of 11 , Aug 16, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Lucas

              Sometime a member of the team needs coaching on tech skills. In those situations, a tech- savvy SM would be nice.

              But a non tech SM could always bring a coach if needed.

               

              The SM could always help the team find ways to improve (as Xavier and Jurgen said).

               

              Additional, in a mature team, the leader should rather spend time looking the surroundings than the team (a shepherd rather than a sheep herder). See Leading self-directed work teams (Kimball Fisher)

              For instance, it is not just removing impediment (reactive), but also provide relevant information of the context, so the team could take better decisions (proactive).

              The focus of the SM/Lead change as the team mature.


              On the other hand... I understand that the game industry is particular in the sense that releases of small increments are not an option. This could easily lead to end-of-sprint result not being considered a /real/ product. And all look cool and smooth until the last sprint. Is there any chance of being here?


              Regards


              Juan Gabardini

              Organizando Ágiles 2008! Nos vemos entre el 20 y 25 de Octubre en Bs As!

               


              --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Lucas Machado" <lmachado1@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hello all,
              >
              > I've been subscribed to this group for a few weeks now and have thoroughly
              > enjoyed the discussions. This group has been a great help already, and I'm
              > looking forward to more actively participating in the
              > future...Starting...Now!
              >
              > I work at a video game company that works on AAA titles for Xbox 360 and
              > PS3. This means our project cycles are typically greater than a year, our
              > team will grow to about 70 people, and we only release to the public
              > once. Since
              > we started employing Scrum 10 or so months ago, I, being an associate
              > producer, have been playing the role of Scrum Master. (In the game industry,
              > producers are non-technical managers responsible for ensuring the product
              > ships on time and on budget; while the entire team reports to a senior
              > producer, associate producers have no direct reports.)
              >
              > Having producers be SMs seemed like an obvious choice because traditionally
              > producers act as a buffer between the developers and outside influences,
              > remove impediments, and help develop and enforce the rules of our process
              > (among other things). Ultimately, I believe both roles have the same core
              > goal: help the team improve how we go about developing software.
              >
              > However, because producers are not developers, we feel that our SMs are too
              > disconnected from the group to be great SMs. The SM is supposed to be a key
              > member of the group, but when there are no impediments, no pressure from
              > outside influences, and no rules are being broken, the producer-as-SM
              > doesn't have anything to do that is directly related to the goals the group
              > is sprinting towards, and so is not really a member of the group at all. In
              > this situation, which has been very prevalent lately, the SM sees the group
              > in the morning meeting and then not again until the next morning
              > meeting. Scrum
              > literature says that the SM is a highly demanding role requiring constant
              > communication, and that having one SM for multiple teams is suboptimal, but
              > in my experience being SM only takes up a third to half of my day. Am I
              > just missing something?
              >
              > We've thought about making developers SMs, but then what will producers do?
              > The SM would probably delegate more of their SM tasks to people like
              > producers so that they can maximize their time spent developing software,
              > but I'm still inclined to think that there will be less work overall for
              > producers.
              >
              > So my question is, on your teams, who takes on the role of Scrum Master? Do
              > you choose a developer within the group, or a producer-type, and why? If
              > your SMs are developers, what role do the producer-types play?
              >
              >
              > Thanks in advance,
              >
              > --lm
              >
            • David H.
              ... Why would the SM have that responsibility and not the team? I do not understand? ... Leader? Would you not see leadership as situational in a truly
              Message 6 of 11 , Aug 16, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Juan Gabardini <jgabardini@...> wrote:
                > Hi Lucas
                >
                > Sometime a member of the team needs coaching on tech skills. In those
                > situations, a tech- savvy SM would be nice.
                >
                Why would the SM have that responsibility and not the team? I do not understand?

                >
                > Additional, in a mature team, the leader should rather spend time looking
                > the surroundings than the team (a shepherd rather than a sheep herder). See
                > Leading self-directed work teams (Kimball Fisher)
                >
                Leader? Would you not see "leadership" as situational in a truly
                self-organised team,?

                > For instance, it is not just removing impediment (reactive), but also
                > provide relevant information of the context, so the team could take better
                > decisions (proactive).
                >
                > The focus of the SM/Lead change as the team mature.
                >
                What do you refer to as Lead in a Scrum Master?

                -d
                --
                Sent from gmail so do not trust this communication.
                Do not send me sensitive information here, ask for my none-gmail accounts.

                "Therefore the considerations of the intelligent always include both
                benefit and harm." - Sun Tzu
              • Don Gray
                Lucas, A ScrumMaster with nothing to do? As mentioned, it s a goal most work towards. Michael James posted some activities a ScrumMaster should/could be doing
                Message 7 of 11 , Aug 16, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Lucas,

                  A ScrumMaster with nothing to do? As mentioned, it's a goal most
                  work towards. Michael James posted some activities a ScrumMaster
                  should/could be doing here:

                  http://danube.com/blog/michaeljames/a_scrummasters_checklist

                  In Quality Software Management Vol 1: Systems Thinking, Jerry
                  Weinberg states:

                  The controller of a well-regulated system may not seem to be working
                  hard. (page 197)

                  I propose we can modify the statement to:

                  The ScrumMaster of a hyperproductive development team may not seem
                  to be working hard.

                  without violating the underlying logic.

                  If you read Michael's ScrumMaster checklist, you'll see many/most of
                  the things a ScrumMaster should be concerned with are NOT team
                  facing.

                  --
                  Don (336)374-7591

                  We don't need better solutions, we need better thinking about problems.
                  attributed to Russell Ackoff

                  Practice thinking about problems at the AYE Conference Nov 2 - 5, 2008
                  www.AYEconference.com
                • Alexey Krivitsky
                  Hi Lucas, Thanks for the checklist, a good stuff. *To the Russian-speaking readers: you can as well see the Russian translation
                  Message 8 of 11 , Aug 17, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Lucas,

                    Thanks for the checklist, a good stuff.

                    To the Russian-speaking readers: you can as well see the Russian translation of the checklist which I've just published.

                    // Alexey
                    // Coordinator of AgileUkraine

                    On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Don Gray <don@...> wrote:

                    Lucas,

                    A ScrumMaster with nothing to do? As mentioned, it's a goal most
                    work towards. Michael James posted some activities a ScrumMaster
                    should/could be doing here:

                    http://danube.com/blog/michaeljames/a_scrummasters_checklist

                    In Quality Software Management Vol 1: Systems Thinking, Jerry
                    Weinberg states:

                    The controller of a well-regulated system may not seem to be working
                    hard. (page 197)

                    I propose we can modify the statement to:

                    The ScrumMaster of a hyperproductive development team may not seem
                    to be working hard.

                    without violating the underlying logic.

                    If you read Michael's ScrumMaster checklist, you'll see many/most of
                    the things a ScrumMaster should be concerned with are NOT team
                    facing.

                    --
                    Don (336)374-7591

                    We don't need better solutions, we need better thinking about problems.
                    attributed to Russell Ackoff

                    Practice thinking about problems at the AYE Conference Nov 2 - 5, 2008
                    www.AYEconference.com





                  • Juan Gabardini
                    Hi Dave ... those ... understand? Did I imply this? Let me try again: In those situations, a tech- savvy SM (or any other team member) would be nice. ...
                    Message 9 of 11 , Aug 17, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Dave
                      --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "David H." <dmalloc@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Juan Gabardini jgabardini@... wrote:
                      > > Hi Lucas
                      > >ou
                      > > Sometime a member of the team needs coaching on tech skills. In those
                      > > situations, a tech- savvy SM would be nice.
                      > >
                      > Why would the SM have that responsibility and not the team? I do not understand?
                      Did I imply this?

                      Let me try again:

                      In those situations, a tech- savvy SM (or any other team member) would be nice.


                      >
                      > >
                      > > Additional, in a mature team, the leader should rather spend time looking
                      > > the surroundings than the team (a shepherd rather than a sheep herder). See
                      > > Leading self-directed work teams (Kimball Fisher)
                      > >
                      > Leader? Would you not see "leadership" as situational in a truly
                      > self-organised team,?

                      I'm not sure... it seems to me that there is a overshooting reaction against leaders. I think that a servant leader could be helpful. I do change my mind on this every couple of month, but I found the book of Fisher thought provoking, and I recommend it.


                      Being on this, I will like to read more on this subject, any recommendation?


                      >
                      > > For instance, it is not just removing impediment (reactive), but also
                      > > provide relevant information of the context, so the team could take better
                      > > decisions (proactive).
                      > >
                      > > The focus of the SM/Lead change as the team mature.
                      > >
                      > What do you refer to as Lead in a Scrum Master?

                      See my comment above. The four letter word L*** is disgusting to you? Don't get me started with Master! :)


                      We sometime miss some learning opportunities coming from other line of thought because of difference on the wording. You might find interesting a short description and a picture of that at http://juangabardini.blogspot.com/2008/04/self-directed-work-teams-picture.html

                      Regards

                      Juan

                    • Juan Gabardini
                      Sorry, David ... http://juangabardini.blogspot.com/2008/04/self-directed-work-teams-pictu ...
                      Message 10 of 11 , Aug 17, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Sorry, David
                        --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Juan Gabardini"
                        <jgabardini@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Hi Dave
                        > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "David H." <dmalloc@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Juan Gabardini jgabardini@ wrote:
                        > > > Hi Lucas
                        > > >ou
                        > > > Sometime a member of the team needs coaching on tech skills. In
                        > those
                        > > > situations, a tech- savvy SM would be nice.
                        > > >
                        > > Why would the SM have that responsibility and not the team? I do not
                        > understand?
                        > Did I imply this?
                        >
                        > Let me try again:
                        >
                        > In those situations, a tech- savvy SM (or any other team member) would
                        > be nice.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > >
                        > > >
                        > > > Additional, in a mature team, the leader should rather spend time
                        > looking
                        > > > the surroundings than the team (a shepherd rather than a sheep
                        > herder). See
                        > > > Leading self-directed work teams (Kimball Fisher)
                        > > >
                        > > Leader? Would you not see "leadership" as situational in a truly
                        > > self-organised team,?
                        >
                        > I'm not sure... it seems to me that there is a overshooting reaction
                        > against leaders. I think that a servant leader could be helpful. I do
                        > change my mind on this every couple of month, but I found the book of
                        > Fisher thought provoking, and I recommend it.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Being on this, I will like to read more on this subject, any
                        > recommendation?
                        >
                        > >
                        > > > For instance, it is not just removing impediment (reactive), but
                        > also
                        > > > provide relevant information of the context, so the team could take
                        > better
                        > > > decisions (proactive).
                        > > >
                        > > > The focus of the SM/Lead change as the team mature.
                        > > >
                        > > What do you refer to as Lead in a Scrum Master?
                        >
                        >
                        > See my comment above. The four letter word L*** is disgusting to you?
                        > Don't get me started with Master! :)
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > We sometime miss some learning opportunities coming from other line of
                        > thought because of difference on the wording. You might find interesting
                        > a short description and a picture of that at
                        >
                        http://juangabardini.blogspot.com/2008/04/self-directed-work-teams-pictu\
                        > re.html
                        >
                        <http://juangabardini.blogspot.com/2008/04/self-directed-work-teams-pict\
                        > ure.html>
                        >
                        > Regards
                        >
                        > Juan
                        >
                      • Lucas Machado
                        Hello all, Thanks for all the great input so far. The ScrumMaster s Checklist should give me a few more things to think about that I haven t considered, but
                        Message 11 of 11 , Aug 19, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hello all,

                          Thanks for all the great input so far. The ScrumMaster's Checklist
                          should give me a few more things to think about that I haven't
                          considered, but I'm still not sure it answers my question completely.

                          I think I may have been a little misleading in my initial email...By
                          "no impediments" I was referring to issues brought up during the daily
                          scrums that are keeping people from progressing on their tasks (i.e. a
                          design task is blocked until some new tech comes online, or someone's
                          computer died, etc.). Also, it isn't everyday that there are no
                          impediments, just most days.

                          I don't mean to imply that our group is running perfectly and nothing
                          can be improved. In fact, I think there's a lot that we could
                          improve, but most of the things we've identified so far don't require
                          that I spend a lot of time actively doing something. For example,
                          here's a list of things we came up with at our last sprint retrospective:

                          - move sprint backlog from Hansoft to cards on a wall (this was taken
                          care of during our planning meeting this morning)
                          - as a team, we need to put more thought into task breakdown during
                          sprint planning so that there are fewer surprises once we've committed
                          and started working (happens during sprint planning meeting, no extra
                          work needed by SM)
                          - we need to timebox art tasks (doesn't require much, if any SM time)
                          - we need to move the group closer together (SM needs to email the
                          folks that will do the moving, but this won't require much SM time)
                          - we need to make sure we don't get caught up in completing tasks and
                          forget about our goals (SM can identify during the daily, and course
                          correct after the meeting, but shouldn't take much of SMs time outside
                          of that)

                          As you can see, few of these issues require that the SM do anything
                          outside of our regular meetings. In most cases, it's the developers
                          who need to do something differently, and the SM just needs to step in
                          to remind the team if they forget.

                          A programmer on my team raised an issue that led to my original
                          post...He said he felt that throughout each sprint the group
                          experienced a couple periods of "team flow"
                          (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)), but that we should
                          be striving for that throughout the entire sprint. He said that the
                          key difference between periods of flow and those without was how often
                          the team was coming together to show each other what they've done,
                          integrate their work, and discuss next steps. Some members of the
                          group initiate these get-togethers occasionally, and others not at
                          all. As a result, this programmer would initiate the talks more often
                          than not. He feels that this should be part of the SMs
                          responsibility, but he recognizes that it is very difficult for the SM
                          to do so when he/she isn't involved in the work that gets done between
                          one daily scrum and the next. I could just check in with people
                          multiple times a day, but that doesn't seem like a very useful
                          interaction. This isn't the only reason I bring up this topic, but it
                          is the main reason.

                          I guess what I'm looking for is more meaningful ways to interact with
                          the group between daily scrums to help them work towards their goals
                          (besides removing impediments and implementing items raised in the
                          retrospective).

                          Does that explain my situation a little better?

                          Thanks
                          --lm

                          --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Juan Gabardini"
                          <jgabardini@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Sorry, David
                          > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Juan Gabardini"
                          > <jgabardini@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Hi Dave
                          > > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "David H." <dmalloc@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Juan Gabardini jgabardini@ wrote:
                          > > > > Hi Lucas
                          > > > >ou
                          > > > > Sometime a member of the team needs coaching on tech skills. In
                          > > those
                          > > > > situations, a tech- savvy SM would be nice.
                          > > > >
                          > > > Why would the SM have that responsibility and not the team? I do not
                          > > understand?
                          > > Did I imply this?
                          > >
                          > > Let me try again:
                          > >
                          > > In those situations, a tech- savvy SM (or any other team member) would
                          > > be nice.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Additional, in a mature team, the leader should rather spend time
                          > > looking
                          > > > > the surroundings than the team (a shepherd rather than a sheep
                          > > herder). See
                          > > > > Leading self-directed work teams (Kimball Fisher)
                          > > > >
                          > > > Leader? Would you not see "leadership" as situational in a truly
                          > > > self-organised team,?
                          > >
                          > > I'm not sure... it seems to me that there is a overshooting reaction
                          > > against leaders. I think that a servant leader could be helpful. I do
                          > > change my mind on this every couple of month, but I found the book of
                          > > Fisher thought provoking, and I recommend it.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Being on this, I will like to read more on this subject, any
                          > > recommendation?
                          > >
                          > > >
                          > > > > For instance, it is not just removing impediment (reactive), but
                          > > also
                          > > > > provide relevant information of the context, so the team could
                          take
                          > > better
                          > > > > decisions (proactive).
                          > > > >
                          > > > > The focus of the SM/Lead change as the team mature.
                          > > > >
                          > > > What do you refer to as Lead in a Scrum Master?
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > See my comment above. The four letter word L*** is disgusting to you?
                          > > Don't get me started with Master! :)
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > We sometime miss some learning opportunities coming from other line of
                          > > thought because of difference on the wording. You might find
                          interesting
                          > > a short description and a picture of that at
                          > >
                          >
                          http://juangabardini.blogspot.com/2008/04/self-directed-work-teams-pictu\
                          > > re.html
                          > >
                          >
                          <http://juangabardini.blogspot.com/2008/04/self-directed-work-teams-pict\
                          > > ure.html>
                          > >
                          > > Regards
                          > >
                          > > Juan
                          > >
                          >
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.