Re: Scrum Guide interpretation - Duration is not considered in Scrum
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Stephen Palmer <stephen.palmer@...> wrote:
> I don't know why but I have found that some people seem to find it easier to think about a mid-point review rather than two shorter Sprints. I find this very strange.I believe this idea probably comes from the original Scrum saying that a Sprint is 30 days and some think that is too long to go without some sort of more formal 'howgozit' review.
- Hi, Adam,
--- In email@example.com, Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...> wrote:
> In my opinion it is not the responsibility of the coach to do these things
> per se. Rather, an experienced coach can help guide an organization to do
> these things successfully based on his experience.
> You don't hire sherpas to climb the mountain for you. You hire them for
> their knowledge of the terrain and its various perils so that *you* can
> climb the mountain in relative safety. A coach is a very similar thing.
> Also similarly, the ultimate success or failure of the expedition is not the
> sole responsibility of the sherpa, but most experienced climbers recognize
> that it is irresponsible to proceed without his assistance.
> On May 3, 2011 5:30 AM, "strazhce" <infobox.oleg@...> wrote:
So if I start using Scrum/Agile/whatever without coach, I undertake a risk of doing it wrong. If I hire a coach/mentor, I pay for avoiding most common mistakes other people made and speeding up my change, for opening my eyes to see things I wouldn't come across otherwise. It seems similar to taking or not taking personal/career coach.
Ok, I've thought about some implications (http://www.agileskillsproject.com/collected-knowledge/ideas-to-refine/hiring-agile-coach). My main concern is trusting the coach, but it is a different topic.