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

Re: [scrumdevelopment] example of large scale development + team self organization

Expand Messages
  • Ram Srinivasan
    I met Craig Larman a few weeks back at Agile India 2013. He was talking about this and I was looking forward to this article. Thanks Michael for sharing it !!
    Message 1 of 8 , Apr 5, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I met Craig Larman a few weeks back at Agile India 2013. He was talking about this and I was looking forward to this article. Thanks Michael for sharing it !!

      -Ram


      On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Michael James <mj4scrum@...> wrote:
       

      Lately we've been hearing a lot about prescriptive approaches to large scale development (such as "Scaled Agile Framework") that compromise Agile principles. While waterfall/agile hybrid approaches may be slightly better than what was happening before, are those compromises really necessary?

      This article by Craig Larman is recommended reading for anyone doing Scrum in a company with more than 10 people.
      http://scrumalliance.org/articles/514-how-to-form-teams-in-largescale-scrum-a-story-of-selfdesigning-teams

      One thing I like about his approach is that even if the teams self designed the same way a manager would have designed them, now the teams own the decision. Teams are more likely to self manage when they've chosen each other rather than being assigned to each other.

      --mj
      http://scrumtrainingseries.com/Intro_to_Scrum/Intro_to_Scrum.htm


    • Kurt Häusler
      ... Saying that the Scaled Agile Framework compromises Agile principles might be controversial enough to require some supporting argument. When I read
      Message 2 of 8 , Apr 5, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        On 5 Apr 2013, at 21:36, Michael James <mj4scrum@...> wrote:

        > Lately we've been hearing a lot about prescriptive approaches to large scale development (such as "Scaled Agile Framework") that compromise Agile principles. While waterfall/agile hybrid approaches may be slightly better than what was happening before, are those compromises really necessary?

        Saying that the Scaled Agile Framework compromises Agile principles might be controversial enough to require some supporting argument.

        When I read something like waterfall/agile hybrid as being presented as a valid option my brain turns it into something like a disrespect/respect hybrid, or command & control / servant leadership hybrid, or a fear/courage hybrid.

        It comes down to values and principles, you either believe in them and work according to them, or you don't. And I think there are ways of applying agile values and principles anywhere in the process.

        Now at the very beginning and end of the process we might not be dealing with small batch sizes like stories. Sometimes we are dealing with large, project-sized batches. Perhaps when preparing an initial offer, or opening a web site to the public live once it is finished. Just because you are dealing with a larger batch size at these points in the process doesn't mean we have to abandon our agile values and principles, and switch to a command & control mindset, which is what a waterfall / agile hybrid implies. (Plus you will get a lot of waste and confusion and overhead at the border between the two conflicting cultures).

        Better to keep a good solid agile mindset, even in those parts of the process that use large batch sizes. Reject the waterfall / agile hybrids. Not that "agile" is everything, but waterfall is simply inhuman.
      • Pierre Neis
        T his is interesting because it address 2 different points in Change: - the change goal -- being agile or scrum driven - the transition phases -- passing
        Message 3 of 8 , Apr 6, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          T
          his is interesting because it address 2 different points in Change:
          - the change goal --> being agile or scrum driven
          - the transition phases --> passing through hybrid situation


          On 6 April 2013 08:47, Kurt Häusler <kurt.haeusler@...> wrote:
           


          On 5 Apr 2013, at 21:36, Michael James <mj4scrum@...> wrote:

          > Lately we've been hearing a lot about prescriptive approaches to large scale development (such as "Scaled Agile Framework") that compromise Agile principles. While waterfall/agile hybrid approaches may be slightly better than what was happening before, are those compromises really necessary?

          Saying that the Scaled Agile Framework compromises Agile principles might be controversial enough to require some supporting argument.

          When I read something like waterfall/agile hybrid as being presented as a valid option my brain turns it into something like a disrespect/respect hybrid, or command & control / servant leadership hybrid, or a fear/courage hybrid.

          It comes down to values and principles, you either believe in them and work according to them, or you don't. And I think there are ways of applying agile values and principles anywhere in the process.

          Now at the very beginning and end of the process we might not be dealing with small batch sizes like stories. Sometimes we are dealing with large, project-sized batches. Perhaps when preparing an initial offer, or opening a web site to the public live once it is finished. Just because you are dealing with a larger batch size at these points in the process doesn't mean we have to abandon our agile values and principles, and switch to a command & control mindset, which is what a waterfall / agile hybrid implies. (Plus you will get a lot of waste and confusion and overhead at the border between the two conflicting cultures).

          Better to keep a good solid agile mindset, even in those parts of the process that use large batch sizes. Reject the waterfall / agile hybrids. Not that "agile" is everything, but waterfall is simply inhuman.


        • Jim
          Amen!! Exactly my thoughts, less some I might have let slip. Thanks for the rebuttal.
          Message 4 of 8 , Apr 7, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Amen!! Exactly my thoughts, less some I might have let slip.
            Thanks for the rebuttal.

            --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Häusler <kurt.haeusler@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > On 5 Apr 2013, at 21:36, Michael James <mj4scrum@...> wrote:
            >
            > > Lately we've been hearing a lot about prescriptive approaches to large scale development (such as "Scaled Agile Framework") that compromise Agile principles. While waterfall/agile hybrid approaches may be slightly better than what was happening before, are those compromises really necessary?
            >
            > Saying that the Scaled Agile Framework compromises Agile principles might be controversial enough to require some supporting argument.
            >
            > When I read something like waterfall/agile hybrid as being presented as a valid option my brain turns it into something like a disrespect/respect hybrid, or command & control / servant leadership hybrid, or a fear/courage hybrid.
            >
            > It comes down to values and principles, you either believe in them and work according to them, or you don't. And I think there are ways of applying agile values and principles anywhere in the process.
            >
            > Now at the very beginning and end of the process we might not be dealing with small batch sizes like stories. Sometimes we are dealing with large, project-sized batches. Perhaps when preparing an initial offer, or opening a web site to the public live once it is finished. Just because you are dealing with a larger batch size at these points in the process doesn't mean we have to abandon our agile values and principles, and switch to a command & control mindset, which is what a waterfall / agile hybrid implies. (Plus you will get a lot of waste and confusion and overhead at the border between the two conflicting cultures).
            >
            > Better to keep a good solid agile mindset, even in those parts of the process that use large batch sizes. Reject the waterfall / agile hybrids. Not that "agile" is everything, but waterfall is simply inhuman.
            >
          • Rahorn, Veronica
            What do you do, though, with enterprise-wide implementations? For example, an SAP deployment requires upstream/downstream reviews, CAB meetings, etc. for
            Message 5 of 8 , Apr 10, 2013
            • 0 Attachment

              What do you do, though, with enterprise-wide implementations? For example, an SAP deployment requires upstream/downstream reviews, CAB meetings, etc. for approval for movement to production. Waterfall with its natural “gates” is the best project model (and definitely not inhuman), but many teams are using agile during the design/development phases. Is this what you mean by hybrid?

               

              Thanks,

              Veronica

               

              From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim
              Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 12:33
              To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: example of large scale development + team self organization

               

               

              Amen!! Exactly my thoughts, less some I might have let slip.
              Thanks for the rebuttal.

              --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Häusler <kurt.haeusler@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > On 5 Apr 2013, at 21:36, Michael James <mj4scrum@...> wrote:
              >
              > > Lately we've been hearing a lot about prescriptive approaches to large scale development (such as "Scaled Agile Framework") that compromise Agile principles. While waterfall/agile hybrid approaches may be slightly better than what was happening before, are those compromises really necessary?
              >
              > Saying that the Scaled Agile Framework compromises Agile principles might be controversial enough to require some supporting argument.
              >
              > When I read something like waterfall/agile hybrid as being presented as a valid option my brain turns it into something like a disrespect/respect hybrid, or command & control / servant leadership hybrid, or a fear/courage hybrid.
              >
              > It comes down to values and principles, you either believe in them and work according to them, or you don't. And I think there are ways of applying agile values and principles anywhere in the process.
              >
              > Now at the very beginning and end of the process we might not be dealing with small batch sizes like stories. Sometimes we are dealing with large, project-sized batches. Perhaps when preparing an initial offer, or opening a web site to the public live once it is finished. Just because you are dealing with a larger batch size at these points in the process doesn't mean we have to abandon our agile values and principles, and switch to a command & control mindset, which is what a waterfall / agile hybrid implies. (Plus you will get a lot of waste and confusion and overhead at the border between the two conflicting cultures).
              >
              > Better to keep a good solid agile mindset, even in those parts of the process that use large batch sizes. Reject the waterfall / agile hybrids. Not that "agile" is everything, but waterfall is simply inhuman.
              >

            • Michael James
              ... Did you want me to make the supporting argument? It s been elaborated on quite a bit on one of these lists, but I could recap if there s really any doubt
              Message 6 of 8 , Apr 10, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                On Apr 6, 2013, at 2:47 AM, Kurt Häusler <kurt.haeusler@...> wrote:

                > Saying that the Scaled Agile Framework compromises Agile principles might be controversial enough to require some supporting argument.

                Did you want me to make the supporting argument? It's been elaborated on quite a bit on one of these lists, but I could recap if there's really any doubt about the conflict between this and agility.

                --mj
                (Michael)
              • shyamk77
                Michael, I d be curious to read your supporting argument - regarding the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) - and how it compromises Agile principles, etc. Also
                Message 7 of 8 , Apr 11, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Michael,

                  I'd be curious to read your supporting argument - regarding the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) - and how it compromises Agile principles, etc.

                  Also would love some pointers to the discussions re this subject on this board. I seemed to have missed those discussions/posts.

                  FWIW: Recently, a few teams from my organization have started work using the Scaled Agile Framework for a large enterprise. And from what I have seen and heard so far - it seems to be working reasonably well.

                  I have heard a number of coaches & thought leaders express none too favorable opinion about SAFe in the past - but I did not know enough about it, until recently, to ask them why, etc.

                  With Best Regards

                  SK
                  ------------------------------------------------
                  >
                  > Did you want me to make the supporting argument? It's been elaborated on quite a bit on one of these lists, but I could recap if there's really any doubt about the conflict between this and agility.
                  >
                  > --mj
                  > (Michael)
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.