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

Re: [scrumdevelopment] Scrum in non-co-located, non-overlapping teams? (was: Meeting minutes for stand up meetings

Expand Messages
  • Sean Corfield
    ... That was almost spoonfed, just waiting for your response! :) -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect s View -- http://corfield.org/ World
    Message 1 of 20 , Jan 3, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
      Well, one could argue (and this one would) that refusal to collocate the team constitutes insufficient effort.

      That was almost spoonfed, just waiting for your response! :)
      -- 
      Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
      An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/
      World Singles, LLC. -- http://worldsingles.com/

      "Perfection is the enemy of the good."
      -- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880)
    • scott
      I completely agree that you take a hit by not all being in one place! My point about the standup meeting is that to me it s the least important of the Scrum
      Message 2 of 20 , Jan 3, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        I completely agree that you take a hit by not all being in one place!

        My point about the standup meeting is that to me it's the least important of the Scrum elements - it's specifically constrained in format to a level of sharing that doesn't really require synchronicity (though that's still the best way to go!). If everybody is sharing that information daily with the rest of the team you're still getting most of the benefit of the meeting.

        I think the dispersed approach has other problems in information sharing that are MUCH more significant than whether or not you have a daily meeting - the lack of the continuous communication and contextual awareness among the team members is the big hit. I worked last year as a remote collaborator with an otherwise collocated team, relying on webcams and skype. It worked pretty well except when it didn't work at all, because nobody thought to call me for an impromptu discussion.

        BUT, at the same time, that all-in-one-room model is not specifically a Scrum thing. I still think the absolutely critical thing for calling a process "Scrum" is the prioritization-selection-tracking-demo-retrospective cycle guided by a scrum master, rather than whether the "tracking" part is done in a real-time meeting or via regular-but-asynchronous sharing.

        scott

        --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Mark Levison wrote:
        >
        > Sean you're probably doing pretty well and the best you can given the
        > circumstances.
        >
        > The point about not Scrum is that everything should have a label so we're
        > clear about what is in bonds and what isn't.
        >
        > As to creating multiple teams I usually hear about mixed onshore offshore
        > teams and I get asked how to coordinate 14-15 people in this context. My
        > answer was about that sort of case.
        >
        > cheers
        > Mark - mangled by a phone
        > On Jan 2, 2013 5:53 PM, "Sean Corfield" wrote:
        >
        > > **
        > >
        > >
        > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Markus Gaertner wrote:
        > >
        > >> **
        > >>
        > >> well, putting it to extremes, a Scrum team that works all over the
        > >> globe would probably have to plan in time so that they could pair up
        > >> with someone not in their timezone once they tackle a particular hard
        > >> task at hand. Even pairing for 2 hours becomes a drag with it.
        > >>
        > >
        > > Now you're conflating an XP practice (pairing) with Scrum which is getting
        > > off-topic, yes? ***
        > >
        > > Others in this thread have touched on an interesting subtlety that I
        > > hadn't considered: focusing on actual vocal sharing of information, rather
        > > than (for example) a group chat room. Both allow for a virtual stand up
        > > meeting for a distributed team in real time. Are there specific benefits to
        > > a conference call as opposed to going round a chat room, having each person
        > > summarize yesterday's achievements, today's planned work and any obstacles
        > > in their path?
        > >
        > > I think there are definite benefits to a real time meeting - in contrast
        > > to Scott's position that async communication could replace the stand up -
        > > but I'm interested to hear thoughts on an audio meeting vs a group chat
        > > meeting. FWIW, our whole team is in a group chat room (instant message) on
        > > Skype all day long and we work primarily Pacific day time to ensure maximum
        > > overlap. The group chat is where we all ask questions, share information
        > > and coordinate anything that the team as a whole works on. We don't
        > > (currently) have a daily stand up via the group chat but as we grow the
        > > team I'll probably instigate that to ensure that at least once a day
        > > everyone really does share progress and problems.
        > >
        > > I'm under no illusions about what we're doing not being Scrum - given our
        > > likely physical setup for the foreseeable future I don't see Scrum as
        > > achievable for us. We use Unfuddle as a wiki, ticketing system and git
        > > repository so any work committed or any ticket updated by any team member
        > > is communicated to all team members (and, at least so far, all team members
        > > seem to take the time to read thru those emails and offer advice on each
        > > other's tickets or ask questions about aspects of solutions).
        > >
        > > Mark suggested creating independent Scrum teams in each location but that
        > > wouldn't apply in our situation - everyone works from home and no two team
        > > members live close enough to meet up and work together physically.
        > >
        > > *** As for pairing, we use iChat for shared control of a single computer
        > > with two-way audio and that works pretty well since the team all know each
        > > other pretty well (but this is getting off into XP territory and isn't
        > > really relevant to this thread).
        > > --
        > > Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
        > > An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/
        > > World Singles, LLC. -- http://worldsingles.com/
        > >
        > > "Perfection is the enemy of the good."
        > > -- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880)
        > >
        > >
        >
      • Mark Levison
        ... Conversely after the retrospective I would argue its the 2nd most important meeting in Scrum. Basically I tell teams if you can t talk daily then its not
        Message 3 of 20 , Jan 3, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:46 PM, scott <sepreece@...> wrote:
           

          I completely agree that you take a hit by not all being in one place!

          My point about the standup meeting is that to me it's the least important of the Scrum elements - it's specifically constrained in format to a level of sharing that doesn't really require synchronicity (though that's still the best way to go!). If everybody is sharing that information daily with the rest of the team you're still getting most of the benefit of the meeting.


          Conversely after the retrospective I would argue its the 2nd most important meeting in Scrum.

          Basically I tell teams if you can't talk daily then its not going to go well. Remember the purpose of the meeting is to coordinate and synchronize for the rest of the day. Sharing of information is how we do that.

          Cheers
          Mark Levison
          Agile Pain Relief Consulting | Writing
          Proud Sponsor of Agile Tour Gatineau Ottawa Nov 28, Toronto 26 and Montreal 24
        • woynam
          It must be the 5x cost savings. (Rolls eyes). Mark
          Message 4 of 20 , Jan 3, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            <sarcasm>

            It must be the 5x cost savings. (Rolls eyes).

            </sarcasm>

            Mark

            --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Ron Jeffries wrote:
            >
            > Hi Sean,
            >
            > On Jan 3, 2013, at 1:49 PM, Sean Corfield wrote:
            >
            > > Good to know, thanx. Sometimes the discussions in this group can give the impression that "everyone" can do Scrum if they just apply sufficient effort, so it's good to see recognition of situations where it can't be applied - and that there are effective alternatives.
            >
            >
            > Well, one could argue (and this one would) that refusal to collocate the team constitutes insufficient effort. That said, there are many decent ways to build software and if a company chooses for some reason to use extremely distributed teams (despite the 4X or greater performance decline), then Scrum may not be a good choice for them.
            >
            > Ron Jeffries
            > www.XProgramming.com
            > Impossible is not a fact. It is an opinion. -- Muhammad Ali
            >
          • Sean Corfield
            ... Yes, having most of the team co-located and just one or two remote is almost the worst of both worlds. I saw that several times at Macromedia where one or
            Message 5 of 20 , Jan 3, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 12:46 PM, scott <sepreece@...> wrote:

              I worked last year as a remote collaborator with an otherwise collocated team, relying on webcams and skype. It worked pretty well except when it didn't work at all, because nobody thought to call me for an impromptu discussion.


              Yes, having most of the team co-located and just one or two remote is almost the worst of both worlds. I saw that several times at Macromedia where one or two team members had moved away for various reasons and the rest of the team mostly continued on without them :(

              At least when everyone is remote, everyone is aware of communication needing to include "the team" rather than "an individual".
              --
              Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
              An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/
              World Singles, LLC. -- http://worldsingles.com/

              "Perfection is the enemy of the good."
              -- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880)
            • scott
              Well, I didn t say you didn t need to be able to talk everyday - just that you may be able to get along without an all-together-at-the-same-time standup
              Message 6 of 20 , Jan 4, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Well, I didn't say you didn't need to be able to talk everyday - just that you may be able to get along without an all-together-at-the-same-time standup meeting, if you've got good communications and a discipline of sharing.

                But this is largely hypothetical, in any case - I'm not recommending it! Sometimes, though, the people you need to do what you want to do aren't in the same place and aren't fungible.

                scott

                --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Mark Levison wrote:
                >
                > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:46 PM, scott wrote:
                >
                > > **
                > >
                > >
                > > I completely agree that you take a hit by not all being in one place!
                > >
                > > My point about the standup meeting is that to me it's the least important
                > > of the Scrum elements - it's specifically constrained in format to a level
                > > of sharing that doesn't really require synchronicity (though that's still
                > > the best way to go!). If everybody is sharing that information daily with
                > > the rest of the team you're still getting most of the benefit of the
                > > meeting.
                > >
                >
                > Conversely after the retrospective I would argue its the 2nd most important
                > meeting in Scrum.
                >
                > Basically I tell teams if you can't talk daily then its not going to go
                > well. Remember the purpose of the meeting is to coordinate and synchronize
                > for the rest of the day. Sharing of information is how we do that.
                >
                > Cheers
                > Mark Levison
                > Agile Pain Relief Consulting
                > | Writing
                > Proud Sponsor of Agile Tour Gatineau Ottawa Nov
                > 28, Toronto
                > 26 and Montreal 24
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.