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

RE: [scrumdevelopment] RE: The chickens and pigs metaphor

Expand Messages
  • Alex Jouravlev
    MessageCan I add one more? 3) Rugby Players. Deploying SCRUM in a country where everyone knowns the laws of rugby and many people played or still playing, or
    Message 1 of 66 , Jun 25, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Message
      Can I add one more?
       
      3) Rugby Players. Deploying SCRUM in a country where everyone knowns the laws of rugby and many people played or still playing, or watch their kids school games regularly, can cause conflicts of vocabularies.
       
      Alex
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Michael Bannen [mailto:mbannen@...]
      Sent: Saturday, 26 June 2004 5:14 AM
      To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] RE: The chickens and pigs metaphor

      My last comment on the issue (I think) is that, forgetting the offense issue, it would be useful to have a more 'professional' way and professional labels to explain the concept of chickens and pigs. This would be useful for two reasons:
       
      1) Humorless executives: I don't know about you but I've encountered enough humorless, fact-based executives that know that telling them the chicken and pig story would undermine my credibility. They already think a lot of project management is mumbo jumbo (don't tell me about theories, estimates and probability, just tell me when, how much, and get it done). Using imprecise and 'goofy' terms like chicken and pigs would confirm his or her suspicions. Terms that are more 'professional' would serve me better in these circumstances
       
      2) Adoption: share vocabularies are very powerful for both communicating and earning buy-in. 'Chicken role' and 'pig role' would not penetrate the vernacular of a large organization, at least not beyond IT. To earn widespread adoption of SCRUM generally and chicken-and-pig role concepts specifically, we need language that can be broadly used, broadly understood and broadly accepted. We want people to refer to themselves, to understand themselves, in these roles, and to accomplish this they need to be able to talk about it. "My role on the XYZ project is 'pig'. Won't happen.
       
      That everyone on projects (at least in my organization) knows the terms like 'scope statement', 'project sponsor', risk mitigation--even if they don't understand that details or purpose of such things--indicates that the PMI concepts have been incorporated into the organizational vocabulary. That these terms also do not smack of theory is important (try selling an executive on 'the theory of constraints'). They are part of a FORMAL methodology (I hear this term all the time) and they 'sound' professional and meaningful.
       
      Agile methods and scrum in particular needs such a vocabulary if they are to be widely adopted.
      Shall we that our terms need to go through another iteration.
       
      - Michael
       
      --
       
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Steven Gordon [mailto:sagordon@...]
      Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 12:23 PM
      To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] RE: The chickens and pigs metaphor

      If everyone has heard the joke, then we seem to agree it is a constructive, shared metaphor.
       
      If some people have not heard the joke, then it is an opportunity to lighten things up by starting with a joke.
       
      If there are some people on your team who find the joke offensive, then I suspect there will be many cultural conflicts to deal with on the project. Starting with the joke will alert you to this issue at the very beginning of the project.  (Are there cultures without the concept of "joke"?)
       
      Steven A. Gordon, Ph.D.
      Manager, Software Factory
      Arizona State University
      PO Box 875506
      Tempe, AZ 85287-9509
      http://sf.asu.edu
      (480)-727-6271
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Steven Mak [mailto:tcmak@...]
      Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 9:57 AM
      To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] RE: The chickens and pigs metaphor

      Hi,

      Can I know when we need to tell 'pig and chicken' to
      others?

      My 2 cents:

      If I needed to explain the purpose of the meeting and
      differentiating who are committed and involved, I
      would go into the explanation of the meaning instead
      of calling them 'pig and chicken' unless I have the
      chance to explain the joke with 'pig and chicken'.

      It's rather offending to call someone a pig or a
      chicken (at least in my community), unless you are
      very familar with them and they understand very well
      on what you are talking about.

      But I think it is pretty good to use 'chicken and pig'
      within the scrum community as we all understand the
      meaning well.

      Cheers,
      Steven

      --- David A Barrett <dave.barrett@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > My wife has a visceral dislike of the "Chickens and
      > Pigs" titles.  I assume
      > because neither name has pleasant connotations in
      > North American society.
      > She tells me, "Don't say that out loud, people won't
      > know why you're
      > calling them a Pig!"  Personally, I think some of
      > that shock value can be
      > beneficial since it makes the concept stick out
      > quite clearly in your mind
      > once it has been explained.
      >
      > I cannot think of any other metaphor which conveys
      > the concept commitment
      > v. involvement any better than that silly joke.  In
      > some ways, I think it
      > sums up the heart and soul of Scrum, and if Scrum
      > ever adopts a logo, I
      > think it should be a cartoon Chicken and Pig.
      >
      > I particularly like the term "Chicken in pigs
      > clothing".
      >
      > All that being said, as someone pointed out earlier,
      > Scrum and its elements
      > are not supposed to be a replacement for common
      > sense.  You really need to
      > be sensitive to other people's feelings and cultural
      > backgrounds, and I
      > would refrain from openly referring to individuals
      > as pigs or chickens when
      > there are people who aren't "in" on the joke
      > present.
      >
      >
      > Dave Barrett,
      > Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company
      >
      >



           
                 
      __________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
      http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


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





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





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



    • Marc Hamann
      ... In other words, we should call it R ... i.e. take the scum out of scrum. (Cryptic crossword enthusiasts might find this funny... ;-) ) Marc
      Message 66 of 66 , Jun 28, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mon, 2004-06-28 at 14:21, Steven Gordon wrote:
        > Are we saying that we should deprecate the early non-PC version of
        > SCRUM with the pig and chicken roles in favor of
        > a PC version with player and spectator roles?

        In other words, we should call it "R"...

        i.e. take the scum out of scrum.

        (Cryptic crossword enthusiasts might find this funny... ;-) )

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