RE: [scrumdevelopment] Re: CONCERN: over continuing
- Schisming/Fragmentation of Scrum & Agile
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Check out Ken's blog for post mentioning the Continuous Improvement
Framework. These blogs contain some information on what Ken and
scrum.org are working on in this direction. The posts are from last
year and a lot has happened since then, a lot of good.
Sent from my Windows Phone From: Doug
Sent: =E2=80=8E13-=E2=80=8E4-=E2=80=8E2013 04:12
Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: CONCERN: over continuing
Schisming/Fragmentation of Scrum & Agile
I notice in your discussion below you've focused on the difference between =
the Scrum Alliance and scrum.org. But I am as equally (and perhaps more so=
) interested in the work being done by Leffingwell (and Scott Ambler before=
him) that focused on the "higher level" / longer-time-scale, more encompas=
sing, and governance/portfolio considerations - those beyond the more conde=
nsed, shorter-time-span Scrum (or XP) iteration cycle.
Now perhaps that is simply an area that the Scrum Alliance and scrum.org do=
es Not want to address (at least in any detail, apart from a "mention" of t=
his), and instead wants to stay focused on that smaller, more immediate scr=
um cycle, and take the approach of deferring/referring these other consider=
ations to other faction's definitions & processes. If so, then minimally, =
I'd think it'd be worthwhile to develop a strong "handshake/handoff" defini=
tion/process between the two (or some other more desirable alternative - al=
ong with the appropriate justification/rationale for doing so.
I am convinced that this effort will be helpful to the business world out t=
here. I have seen and heard - first-hand - distinct disagreements as well =
as entrenchment of positions for different factions, as well as significant=
and now widely-publicized efforts to reformulate and "rename" very similar=
and like roles in the Scrum and overlapping agile approaches (Leffingwell'=
s SAFe, for instance). I believe such "conflicts" are going to confuse pot=
ential benefactors of these processes - **not** help them.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...> wro=
>lliance wanted their own description of Scrum, for business reasons that ha=
> Hi Kurt,
> On Apr 10, 2013, at 5:03 AM, Kurt H=C3=A4usler <kurt.haeusler@...> wrote:
> > As far as Scrum goes, specifically the differences between the Scrum
> > Guide and Core Scrum, well people are concerned about that. I noticed
> > a few threads on Xing recently about the topic. Some people see the
> > differences as being serious and important, and something in dire need
> > of resolution. I and many others don't care that much. I think I
> > prefer the Scrum Guide's latest description of Scrum, but really,
> > whatever works best for the team is fine for me, and I find heated
> > discussions on the topic a bit of a waste of effort that could be
> > better invested elsewhere.
> Xing, just the place to discuss that.
> FYI, we could not, of course, plagiarize the Scrum Guide, and the Scrum A=
ve some validity.
>=20lieve that Ken and Jeff, the Guide's authors, deserve respect as the creato=
> We were, however, very careful not to contradict the Guide, because we be=
rs of Scrum. In addition, we went through a long and difficult gauntlet wit=
h the Core, so that there is very little disagreement with what the Core sa=
ys. Much of accomplishing this involved removing material that concerned ev=
en a few reviewers. In the final round of reviews, we were held to a nearl=
y impossible standard: We were asked to ensure that no Certified Scrum Trai=
ner -- not even one -- would say that they wouldn't use the Core.
>=20meaning between the Guide and the Core, although there are of course many =
> As such, it would surprise me greatly to find any significant variance in=
differences in the specific words and phrases used. That doesn't mean it c=
ouldn't happen, but the current intention was that there should be no signi=
>=20ng in the Scrum Alliance might shift substantially away from the thinking o=
> I could imagine that changing. I could imagine that some center of thinki=
f Ken and Jeff. If that were to happen, the Scrum Alliance would have some =
thinking to do about how to position these new ideas, and I would have some=
thinking to do as well, because I think the creators of methods should get=
to say what the method is, whether they copyright, patent, or trademark th=
e thing, or not. Even if they are wrong about what they recommend!=20
>=20mand that the Product Owner sell her soul to Space Vampires has no place in=
> If there is something wrong in Scrum, I feel free to call it out. "The de=
Scrum!!" I would even feel free to define a new process where the PO sells=
her soul, instead, to Underground Werewolves, which is obviously better. B=
ut I would not feel free to call that new process "Scrum".
>=20nt discrepancies between the Guide and the Core, it is news to me, in part =
> So if people on Xing, wherever that may be, think there are any significa=
because they have not brought their concerns to the attention of anyone who=
could answer their concerns or do something about it. I suspect that is be=
cause the people of Planet Xing have sold their souls to Space Vampires. Wh=
ich is just wrong.
> Ron Jeffries
> If not now, when? -- Rabbi Hillel
To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@eGrou=
ps.comYahoo! Groups Links