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

Re: Confusion about Scrum

Expand Messages
  • paul_hepworth_2000
    ... Thanks. ... Right, thats makes sense and I would be VERY surprised if these are the lines that Ken was referring to as deviations from the original. ... So
    Message 1 of 44 , Jan 2, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Andre" <scrumdevelopment@...> wrote:
      > I just reviewed both Scrum guides. I didn't go through them with a "fine tooth comb",
      > but I think I captured what the differences are.

      Thanks.

      > The main difference is the the Scrum.org version has the following paragraph in the
      > "Release Planning" section, while the Scrum Alliance version does not:
      >
      > **
      > Release planning is entirely optional. If Scrum teams start work without the meeting, the
      > absence of its artifacts will become apparent as an impediment that needs to be
      > resolved. Work to resolve the impediment will become an item in the Product Backlog.
      > **

      Right, thats makes sense and I would be VERY surprised if these are the lines that Ken was referring to as deviations from the original.

      >
      > In addition, the "Final Thoughts" section on the Scrum.org version is a "Tip" at the end
      > of the Scrum Alliance version. There are also some verbiage differences, but they are
      > saying the same thing.

      So this is my concern... are those two minor differences the very items that makes one group's understanding wrong? There has to be something more to this that is not being discussed openly. I am not trying to create a flame war, but If I am going to wave the Scrum flag I want to make sure I agree with the philosophy behind it and not just wave a flag.

      >
      > This is in line with my understanding of Scrum. When I learned it years ago, release
      > planning was never a requirement. I think it is appropriate that it is called out as being
      > optional in Ken's version. However, I'm not sure if I would call the Scrum Alliance
      > version "incorrect", at least from my quick scan. I suppose that you could argue that
      > since the Scrum Alliance version does not "say" that release planning is required, that
      > you would assume that it is. However, both guides talk about burn up and burn down
      > charts. I may have missed it, but I don't believe it states in either guide whether they
      > are optional or not. I believe burn up/burn down charts are optional, yes? Of course,
      > you should have these charts, but if you don't does that mean that you are not doing
      > Scrum?

      When we have to compare a word or two here and there I get worried. This division of though is not being handled correctly. I have observed how Ken and Jeff varied a bit on how they trained and taught Scrum and was never really concerned because neither of them said to the other that they were wrong.

      >
      > Now, here's where I'm concerned. I'm leading the project management group where I
      > work. I'm bringing in agile and lean practices slowly but surely to the organization. The
      > PM group is primarily comprised of PMBOK-ians. Most are used to very clear definitions
      > that are managed by a mature organization (PMI) that's been around for years. There
      > are other members of the team that are relatively new to project leadership in general.
      > All of them also have been recently certified in Scrum...so they are all very excited about
      > changing to a better way to deliver value.
      >
      > I almost sent the first email from Ken to the group, since I'd like them to become more
      > engaged members of the community and be in tune with what's going on. Just before I
      > clicked send I stopped. I realized that if I sent this to them, it would probably do more
      > harm than good. This division is harmful to the Scrum brand and the certification. I'm
      > pretty confident that I'd get some questions like "Does my certification mean anything
      > anymore?". I'm sure they'd also be confused as to where to go for the "source" of
      > information on Scrum. It's awkward to say "yeah, you're certified by the Scrum Alliance,
      > but their definition of Scrum is wrong...so you'll have to go to scrum.org to get the real
      > stuff".
      >
      > So, I'm not really sure what to tell the team about this....

      I did the same thing only I decided to click send. My teams are smaller and I am hoping that this will cause them to be more engaged as they determine what they will or will not do in regards to Scrum. We'll see.

      Paul


      > Thanks,
      > Andre Simones
    • Rafael Sabbagh
      * We had a very long thread about this last December, I believe. * I unfortunately lost a lot of threads the last few months due to my Master s dissertation.
      Message 44 of 44 , Mar 29, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        > We had a very long thread about this last December, I believe.

        I unfortunately lost a lot of threads the last few months due to my Master's dissertation. I'm glad it's almost over! :)

        > One reason is that industry doesn't pay for the research, so it doesn't get done. There's a big gap between the universities and industry.

        True. We're trying to make this gap smaller here in Brazil (when it comes to Agile methodologies at least), but it's very, very hard.

        > Let's face it. Industry is cheap. They're always looking for the results of the research, but they don't want to pay for it. :-)

        Yep. But I don't think the industry is the only part interested on research results. We, as active people at the Scrum/Agile community, should be very interested on that.Well, I believe PMI puts some effort on research that justifies their beliefs, right? Maybe the ScrumAlliance and Scrum.org could do that too.



        Best,
           Rafael Sabbagh


        On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 17:59, woynam <woyna@...> wrote:
         


        We had a very long thread about this last December, I believe.

        One reason is that industry doesn't pay for the research, so it doesn't get done. There's a big gap between the universities and industry.

        Let's face it. Industry is cheap. They're always looking for the results of the research, but they don't want to pay for it. :-)

        Mark



        --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Rafael Sabbagh <sabbagh@...> wrote:
        >
        > Yes, I agree. The question is: why then isn't serious research on
        > Agile/Scrum use being performed?
        >
        > Academically speaking, if I want to even justify why I am writing about
        > Agile and Scrum in my Master's dissertation, I should use any "valid"
        > research. Instead, I have to use this kind of thing, 'cause that's what
        > exists, and that's why I still need it.
        >
        >
        > Best,
        > Rafael Sabbagh
        >
        >
        >
        > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:19, woynam <woyna@...> wrote:
        >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Sigh. This kind of "research" drives me completely nuts. First, this does
        > > not appear to be a proper random poll. It's an online poll of "Agile"
        > > companies. It does not represent a true sample of all IT companies.
        > >
        > > What can we conclude from the numbers? Simply that 84% of companies that
        > > consider themselves agile that bothered to answer the survey have used
        > > Scrum.
        > >
        > > This is a *far* cry from concluding that 84% of all companies use Scrum.
        > >
        > > Mark
        > >
        > > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com<scrumdevelopment%40yahoogroups.com>,

        > > Hariprakash Agrawal <haricha@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > link is:
        > > http://blogs.forrester.com/tom_grant/09-04-17-extended_family_agile
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > - Hari
        > > >
        > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Rafael Sabbagh <sabbagh@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > Getting back to that, did anybody have access to the actual Forrester
        > > > > Report about Agile and Scrum usage? It's now cited everywhere, but the
        > > > > actual data is nowhere on the web (not even at the Forrester website).
        > > Even
        > > > > if I'd want to buy it, I couldn't.
        > > > >
        > > > > I'm finishing my Master's dissertation and it would be great to add
        > > that
        > > > > data (and be able to refer to the report/research).
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > Best,
        > > > > Rafael Sabbagh
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 15:57, Bob Hartman <bob.hartman@>wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > >>
        > > > >>
        > > > >> I don't want to fan the flames any more, but a quick Google search
        > > brought
        > > > >> up a Forrester blog entry with the information about Scrum usage which
        > > Ken
        > > > >> cited. I don't want to comment on it, but I thought if people were
        > > > >> interested they could see the data themselves at http://bit.ly/8ACF3g
        > > > >>
        > > > >> - Bob -
        > > > >>
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --
        > > > Regards,
        > > > Hariprakash Agrawal (Hari),
        > > > An Agile Coach (XP, Scrum), Certified Scrum Master, Trained Six Sigma
        > > Black
        > > > Belt, CMMi Consultant, ISO 9001:2000 Lead Auditor, MTech (Reliability &
        > > > Quality Engg) from IIT-KGP
        > > > http://opcord.com - OpCord provides trainings/consulting on many
        > > > frameworks/processes and testing services for organizations
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >


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