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

Scrum Artifacts

Expand Messages
  • Hristo Georgiev
    Dear All, During the last few years I knew that Scrum has three artifacts: the Product Backlog, the Sprint Backlog, and a Burndown Chart. The same three
    Message 1 of 10 , Mar 17, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear All,

      During the last few years I knew that Scrum has three artifacts: the Product Backlog, the Sprint Backlog, and a Burndown Chart.
      The same three artifacts are also listed by the Scrum Alliance (see http://www.scrumalliance.org/pages/scrum_artifacts). However, the Scrum Guide from 2011 (http://www.scrum.org/storage/scrumguides/Scrum_Guide.pdf) lists the following artifacts: Product Backlog, Sprint Backlog, Increment.
      I also have seen some sources list the following as the Scrum Artifacts: Product Backlog, Sprint Backlog, Increment, Sprint Goal, and Definition of Done.
      I have the following question:
      Which are the Scrum artifacts?


      Thank you for your help,

      Hristo
    • Laurent Bossavit
      Hi Hristo, ... What are you going to do differently based on the answers you receive? (I m not trying to sidestep the question, which I d tend to answer with
      Message 2 of 10 , Mar 17, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Hristo,

        > Which are the Scrum artifacts?


        What are you going to do differently based on the answers you receive?

        (I'm not trying to sidestep the question, which I'd tend to answer with "any of the above that the team judges useful". Rather, I'm trying to figure out what makes the question worth asking.)

        Cheers,
        Laurent
      • Hristo Georgiev
        Hi Laurent, Thank you for your answer. I am a PhD student and I would like to include a section on Scrum in my thesis. I wanted to cite as source the Scrum
        Message 3 of 10 , Mar 17, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Laurent,

          Thank you for your answer.

          I am a PhD student and I would like to include a section on Scrum in my thesis. I wanted to cite as source the Scrum Guide from 2011 and I noticed inconsistency.

          I also did a presentation (some time ago) on Scrum at the organisation I work for and I talked about the three Scrum artifacts i.e., the Product Backlog, the Sprint Backlog, and a Burndown Chart. I was thinking if I had to do the same presentation now, what I would say about the Scrum artifacts.

          An answer such as:
          >> any of the above that the team judges useful
          is perfectly understandable and this is what we do, however, I am looking for a more specific answer (if possible).
          I guess the main reason of asking the question is for a better personal understanding.


          Kind regards,

          Hristo




          --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Laurent Bossavit <lolists@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hi Hristo,
          >
          > > Which are the Scrum artifacts?
          >
          >
          > What are you going to do differently based on the answers you receive?
          >
          > (I'm not trying to sidestep the question, which I'd tend to answer with "any of the above that the team judges useful". Rather, I'm trying to figure out what makes the question worth asking.)
          >
          > Cheers,
          > Laurent
          >
        • Pierre Neis
          Scrum Artifacts are: - Product Backlog - Release Burndown - Sprint Backlog - Sprint Burndown *Pierre E. Neis** Agile/Lean Coach**, (available)* ...
          Message 4 of 10 , Mar 17, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Scrum Artifacts are:
            • Product Backlog
            • Release Burndown
            • Sprint Backlog
            • Sprint Burndown

              
            Pierre E. Neis Agile/Lean Coach, (available)
             | Mobile: (+352) 661 727 867
            http://meetwith.me/pierreneis

             

            Blogger Twitter LinkedIn SlideShare XING Google Plus
            Contact me: Skype pierre.neis
            TwitterLatest tweet: If You're Happy And You Know It - SF Agile Emergent Content - by IdeaScale http://t.co/x9N0HkBq via @SFAgile2012 Follow @elPedroMajor Reply Retweet   16:19 Mar-17
            Save a tree - kill a beaver


            On 17 March 2012 17:32, Laurent Bossavit <lolists@...> wrote:
             

            Hi Hristo,



            > Which are the Scrum artifacts?

            What are you going to do differently based on the answers you receive?

            (I'm not trying to sidestep the question, which I'd tend to answer with "any of the above that the team judges useful". Rather, I'm trying to figure out what makes the question worth asking.)

            Cheers,
            Laurent


          • Laurent Bossavit
            Hi Hristo, ... Inconsistency isn t a surprising observation, Scrum is an evolving body of ideas, drawn in different directions by different people according to
            Message 5 of 10 , Mar 17, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Hristo,

              > I am a PhD student and I would like to include a section on Scrum in my thesis. I wanted to cite as source the Scrum Guide from 2011 and I noticed inconsistency.

              Inconsistency isn't a surprising observation, Scrum is an evolving body of ideas, drawn in different directions by different people according to different motivations.

              The Scrum of 2012 is different from the Scrum of 1995 or 1997 and the intervening years have seen various changes even in what was written by the same people. (For instance the burndown chart dates from 2000, the Definition of Done from 2003-2005 - see http://guide.agilealliance.org/ and the various entries there.)

              The best you can do, in the absence of a consensus answer, is to cite your sources and refer explicity to "the artifacts of Scrum according to the Scrum guide", and so on. (Ironically, the very use of the term "artifact" is somewhat un-Scrum-like. See what Wikipedia has to say about that word, not that I fully trust what Wikipedia has to say on anything.)

              In one sense, the only "artifact" that absolutely cannot be taken off the list is "Increment".

              Cheers,
              Laurent
            • Hristo Georgiev
              Hi Laurent, Thank you for your answer. I am a Scrum practitioner for few years now and I have witnessed Scrum evolving. Some of the changes are probably
              Message 6 of 10 , Mar 17, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Laurent,

                Thank you for your answer.
                I am a Scrum practitioner for few years now and I have witnessed Scrum evolving. Some of the changes are probably influenced by discussions in this usergroup, however, I was not expecting inconsistencies in www.scrumalliance.org and www.scrum.org.

                Thank you for your help,

                Hristo





                --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Laurent Bossavit <lolists@...> wrote:
                >
                > Hi Hristo,
                >
                > > I am a PhD student and I would like to include a section on Scrum in my thesis. I wanted to cite as source the Scrum Guide from 2011 and I noticed inconsistency.
                >
                > Inconsistency isn't a surprising observation, Scrum is an evolving body of ideas, drawn in different directions by different people according to different motivations.
                >
                > The Scrum of 2012 is different from the Scrum of 1995 or 1997 and the intervening years have seen various changes even in what was written by the same people. (For instance the burndown chart dates from 2000, the Definition of Done from 2003-2005 - see http://guide.agilealliance.org/ and the various entries there.)
                >
                > The best you can do, in the absence of a consensus answer, is to cite your sources and refer explicity to "the artifacts of Scrum according to the Scrum guide", and so on. (Ironically, the very use of the term "artifact" is somewhat un-Scrum-like. See what Wikipedia has to say about that word, not that I fully trust what Wikipedia has to say on anything.)
                >
                > In one sense, the only "artifact" that absolutely cannot be taken off the list is "Increment".
                >
                > Cheers,
                > Laurent
                >
              • Charles Bradley - Scrum Coach CSM PSM I
                Hristo, The SA(Scrum Alliance) and S.O(Scrum.org) are two entirely different organizations, with different leaders, different certifications, and probably
                Message 7 of 10 , Mar 18, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hristo,

                  The SA(Scrum Alliance) and S.O(Scrum.org) are two entirely different organizations, with different leaders, different certifications, and probably different philosophies.  They also have a lot of common goals so they have a lot in common.  I would expect to see different things come out of each org, and those different efforts/orgs might grow to be even more different in coming years. 

                  Having said that, the 2011 Scrum Guide is the product of S.O, and it contains many significant changes.  I'll link below to some content on my site about those changes, but I'll now try to answer your question...

                  The term artifact has a pretty generic definition, so trying to decide "what are the Scrum artifacts?" is not a simple activity.  I do agree with Laurent though that you could just reference a specific source for your presentation and use that source's interpretation of what the Scrum artifacts are.
                   
                  Or, you could lump together the artifact conversation and just mention some "key concepts of Scrum".  One thing I think is worth mentioning is that "Burndowns," while no longer in the "artifacts" section of the new 2011 Scrum Guide specifically, are mentioned in the new guide as "monitoring progress" at both the release and sprint levels, much like they were in previous Scrum Guides.  The main difference is that the 2011 Scrum Guide "genericizes" (makes more generic) the notion of burndowns. 

                  As an example, while you don't have to use a Sprint burndown to monitor Sprint progress any more, you do have to monitor the progress of a Sprint in a way that at least satisfies the following criteria:
                  • You must sum the work remaining for the Sprint at least daily
                  • You must monitor Sprint progress with trending/tracking of these sums daily
                  • Dev Team must project the likelihood of achieving the Sprint Goal from time to time
                  • Burn charts are good monitors/trending, but techniques can vary.
                  You can find more info on the changes in the 2011 Scrum Guide on my web site here:
                  http://www.scrumcrazy.com/Scrum+2.0+-+The+New+Direction

                  AFAIK, I'm the only one besides S.O to write in detailed fashion about the changes in the 2011 Scrum Guide.  If others have good sources, I'd love to know about them and link to them from my web site.

                  -------
                  Charles Bradley
                  http://www.ScrumCrazy.com




                  From: Hristo Georgiev <georgievh@...>
                  To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 1:09 PM
                  Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Scrum Artifacts

                  Hi Laurent,

                  Thank you for your answer.
                  I am a Scrum practitioner for few years now and I have witnessed Scrum evolving. Some of the changes are probably influenced by discussions in this usergroup, however, I was not expecting inconsistencies in www.scrumalliance.org and www.scrum.org.

                  Thank you for your help,

                  Hristo





                  --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Laurent Bossavit <lolists@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Hi Hristo,
                  >
                  > > I am a PhD student and I would like to include a section on Scrum in my thesis. I wanted to cite as source the Scrum Guide from 2011 and I noticed inconsistency.
                  >
                  > Inconsistency isn't a surprising observation, Scrum is an evolving body of ideas, drawn in different directions by different people according to different motivations.
                  >
                  > The Scrum of 2012 is different from the Scrum of 1995 or 1997 and the intervening years have seen various changes even in what was written by the same people. (For instance the burndown chart dates from 2000, the Definition of Done from 2003-2005 - see http://guide.agilealliance.org/ and the various entries there.)
                  >
                  > The best you can do, in the absence of a consensus answer, is to cite your sources and refer explicity to "the artifacts of Scrum according to the Scrum guide", and so on. (Ironically, the very use of the term "artifact" is somewhat un-Scrum-like. See what Wikipedia has to say about that word, not that I fully trust what Wikipedia has to say on anything.)
                  >
                  > In one sense, the only "artifact" that absolutely cannot be taken off the list is "Increment".
                  >
                  > Cheers,
                  > Laurent
                  >




                  ------------------------------------

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

                  <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scrumdevelopment/

                  <*> Your email settings:
                      Individual Email | Traditional

                  <*> To change settings online go to:
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scrumdevelopment/join
                      (Yahoo! ID required)

                  <*> To change settings via email:
                      scrumdevelopment-digest@yahoogroups.com
                      scrumdevelopment-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                  <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                  <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



                • Hristo Georgiev
                  Hi Charles, Thank you very much for your help and for the link. Kind regards, Hristo
                  Message 8 of 10 , Mar 18, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Charles,

                    Thank you very much for your help and for the link.



                    Kind regards,

                    Hristo



                    --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Charles Bradley - Scrum Coach CSM PSM I <chuck-lists2@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Hristo,
                    >
                    > The SA(Scrum Alliance) and S.O(Scrum.org) are two entirely different organizations, with different leaders, different certifications, and probably different philosophies.  They also have a lot of common goals so they have a lot in common.  I would expect to see different things come out of each org, and those different efforts/orgs might grow to be even more different in coming years. 
                    >
                    >
                    > Having said that, the 2011 Scrum Guide is the product of S.O, and it contains many significant changes.  I'll link below to some content on my site about those changes, but I'll now try to answer your question...
                    >
                    > The term artifact has a pretty generic definition, so trying to decide "what are the Scrum artifacts?" is not a simple activity.  I do agree with Laurent though that you could just reference a specific source for your presentation and use that source's interpretation of what the Scrum artifacts are.
                    >  
                    > Or, you could lump together the artifact conversation and just mention some "key concepts of Scrum".  One thing I think is worth mentioning is that "Burndowns," while no longer in the "artifacts" section of the new 2011 Scrum Guide specifically, are mentioned in the new guide as "monitoring progress" at both the release and sprint levels, much like they were in previous Scrum Guides.  The main difference is that the 2011 Scrum Guide "genericizes" (makes more generic) the notion of burndowns. 
                    >
                    > As an example, while you don't have to use a Sprint burndown to monitor Sprint progress any more, you do have to monitor the progress of a Sprint in a way that at least satisfies the following criteria:
                    >
                    > * You must sum the work remaining for the Sprint at least daily
                    > * You must monitor Sprint progress with trending/tracking of these sums daily
                    > * Dev Team must project the likelihood of achieving the Sprint Goal from time to time
                    > * Burn charts are good monitors/trending, but techniques can vary.You can find more info on the changes in the 2011 Scrum Guide on my web site here:
                    > http://www.scrumcrazy.com/Scrum+2.0+-+The+New+Direction
                    >
                    > AFAIK, I'm the only one besides S.O to write in detailed fashion about the changes in the 2011 Scrum Guide.  If others have good sources, I'd love to know about them and link to them from my web site.
                    >
                    >
                    > -------
                    > Charles Bradley
                    > http://www.ScrumCrazy.com
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > >________________________________
                    > > From: Hristo Georgiev <georgievh@...>
                    > >To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                    > >Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 1:09 PM
                    > >Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Scrum Artifacts
                    > >
                    > >Hi Laurent,
                    > >
                    > >Thank you for your answer.
                    > >I am a Scrum practitioner for few years now and I have witnessed Scrum evolving. Some of the changes are probably influenced by discussions in this usergroup, however, I was not expecting inconsistencies in www.scrumalliance.org and www.scrum.org.
                    > >
                    > >Thank you for your help,
                    > >
                    > >Hristo
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >--- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Laurent Bossavit <lolists@> wrote:
                    > >>
                    > >> Hi Hristo,
                    > >>
                    > >> > I am a PhD student and I would like to include a section on Scrum in my thesis. I wanted to cite as source the Scrum Guide from 2011 and I noticed inconsistency.
                    > >>
                    > >> Inconsistency isn't a surprising observation, Scrum is an evolving body of ideas, drawn in different directions by different people according to different motivations.
                    > >>
                    > >> The Scrum of 2012 is different from the Scrum of 1995 or 1997 and the intervening years have seen various changes even in what was written by the same people. (For instance the burndown chart dates from 2000, the Definition of Done from 2003-2005 - see http://guide.agilealliance.org/ and the various entries there.)
                    > >>
                    > >> The best you can do, in the absence of a consensus answer, is to cite your sources and refer explicity to "the artifacts of Scrum according to the Scrum guide", and so on. (Ironically, the very use of the term "artifact" is somewhat un-Scrum-like. See what Wikipedia has to say about that word, not that I fully trust what Wikipedia has to say on anything.)
                    > >>
                    > >> In one sense, the only "artifact" that absolutely cannot be taken off the list is "Increment".
                    > >>
                    > >> Cheers,
                    > >> Laurent
                    > >>
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >------------------------------------
                    > >
                    > >To Post a message, send it to:  scrumdevelopment@...
                    > >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                  • Joshua Partogi
                    Charles, On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Charles Bradley - Scrum Coach CSM PSM I
                    Message 9 of 10 , Mar 20, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Charles,

                      On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Charles Bradley - Scrum Coach CSM PSM I <chuck-lists2@...> wrote:
                       

                      Hristo,

                      The SA(Scrum Alliance) and S.O(Scrum.org) are two entirely different organizations, with different leaders, different certifications, and probably different philosophies.  They also have a lot of common goals so they have a lot in common.  

                      If you don't mind, can you please explain the different philosophies between two organizations? I thought they are both concerned with Scrum and as far as I concerned they have the same philosophies.

                      Best, 

                      --
                      @jpartogi
                    • RonJeffries
                      Hello Joshua, ... The two organizations are in business, competing for approximately the same market. They are both trying to help people but they are not
                      Message 10 of 10 , Mar 20, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hello Joshua,

                        On Mar 20, 2012, at 8:26 AM, Joshua Partogi wrote:

                        If you don't mind, can you please explain the different philosophies between two organizations? I thought they are both concerned with Scrum and as far as I concerned they have the same philosophies.

                        The two organizations are in business, competing for approximately the same market. They are both trying to help people but they are not cooperating to do that even if we might think that they should. Their business strategies are similar in some ways (courses and tests leading to ratings) but they differ in their strategic partnerships and many details of how they do business.
                        If not now, when? -- Rabbi Hillel

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