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

Re: [scrumdevelopment] Scrum's impact

Expand Messages
  • Bas Vodde
    Hi, On Nokia (as nobody in Nokia seems to be listening to the list at the moment ;P) I d like to answer that, from the perspective that I used to work in Nokia
    Message 1 of 16 , Oct 28, 2009
      Hi,

      On Nokia (as nobody in Nokia seems to be listening to the list at the
      moment ;P)

      I'd like to answer that, from the perspective that I used to work in
      Nokia (before it split of to NSN) and from large organization
      perspective.

      First, I read the financial times (I think) a couple days ago and it
      had a wonderful article about Nokia. The industry analyst who wrote
      the article said that Nokia did lose market share in the smart-phone
      market. Still its the leader in that segment. Also, he said, Nokia at
      the moment has the strongest portfolio he had seen from them in years.
      I'm not saying that they are perfect or good, I'm just saying that
      there are different perspectives.

      Michael James already answered related to "Nokia Test" which
      (unfortunately) is one of the things that made Nokia 'famous' in the
      Scrum community.

      Next, when a company as large as Nokia said "we do Scrum" that that
      can mean a whole spectrum of things. I usually ask 'horizontal' and
      'vertical' organizational questions. Horizontal would be "what % of
      the products use Scrum?" or "What % of the developers use Scrum". The
      vertical questions would be "Did the management of the products change
      using Scrum or is Scrum just happening on "programming level"?" In
      addition, a lot of teams do "ScrumBut," which means they do Scrum...
      but not the things you are supposed to be doing. One of my personal
      favorites recently was a team which I visited who said they did Scrum.
      I asked them when their daily Scrum happened (so I could join and
      observe) and the answer was "it happens when it happens".

      So, within Nokia, as with any large company, there is a huge variety
      in hortizal, vertical, ScrumBut usage which makes it hard to say
      anything about the Scrum usage and the impact on the companies success.

      Also, most large companies cycle is slow and they have lots of legacy
      code they need to deal with. The slow cycle in combination with legacy
      code results in that the effect (result) of using Scrum can be delayed
      for years, sometimes over five years. One product I worked with was
      one of the best Scrum implementations I know. They got killed. Why?
      They couldn't recover from the legacy code and missed market share
      they had after years of unskilled development.

      Last... the success of a company does not only depend on how well you
      do in actually developing products... there is much more to it. I bet
      Scrum, in most companies, have not reached the technology selection
      process. For apple, to select touch screen technology for the iPhone
      while Nokia didn't... was a huge boost.

      Just to be clear, I'm not saying Nokia is good or Nokia is bad. I'm
      saying this is more complex than a simple cause-effect relationship.

      I hope this helps?

      Thanks!

      Bas






      On Oct 26, 2009, at 4:03 PM, matt.evon wrote:

      > I basically love Scrum because it makes sense and its practices just
      > work. However, lately I have started have doubts of its impact.
      > Scrum is claimed
      > - to deliver software faster
      > - to meet the schedule always (by prioritizing stories)
      > - to deliver few, if any bugs
      > - to deliver user friendly software
      > - to deliver innovative software
      > - and the most important: deliver business value.
      >
      > Let's see how these match e.g. to Nokia which uses Scrum and other
      > agile practices (Nokia is used here just as an example because many
      > people know it). Nokia is very successful in low-end phones but they
      > have little to do with software whereas smart phones are all about
      > software. And Nokia is not doing very well in smart phones:
      > - it is actually quite slow in delivering software solutions (touch
      > phones, successful music services, successful content portal,
      > successful apps store, etc.)
      > - it still seems to be late with its own schedules (e.g. the recent
      > launch delay of N900 touch phone)
      > - it doesn't at least stand out with high quality (I guess that N900
      > is delayed due to too high bug count - the typical reason for last
      > minute delays)
      > - it is not famous for delivering exceptional user experience (it
      > used to be in the 90's)
      > - it is not the innovation leader any more (it used to be in the 90's)
      > - and its market share in smart phones is decreasing rapidly (not
      > good for business value)
      >
      > I wonder why Scrum has not helped Nokia, especially taken into
      > account that Nokia is no novice in mobile business or software (it
      > has actually done serious software product development longer than
      > e.g. Microsoft). Any thoughts?
      >
      > Note: this post is not about Nokia, this is about Scrum's impact.
      >
      > Matt
      >
      >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.