Re: SCRUM development in a multi-task environment
- Scrums work well for teams with a high degree of cohesion and low
dependencies on other teams. When the chaos in the environment is so
high that you have to start cancelling sprints, however, reduce the
length of the spints. Sometimes I lower the sprint length to as
little as one week, and then - as things get more stable - start
bringing the length back up.
During the sprint you'll often find that the team has dependencies
without which the project won't succeed. Start another Scrum team
doing this work. Sometimes you'll have multiple teams working on co-
dependent work. To keep each other informed, have a "scrum of
scrums" every day after the individual scrums. This is where each
scrum leader reports on what his team has accomplished and what
problems they're running into. By sharing this, the teams become
aware of their mutual progress and can adapt.
--- In email@example.com, "spy" <thespywhocame@h...> wrote:
> I am a project manager that recently started using SCRUM
methodology as a
> way of re-energizing and re-focussing my team on the current
> I have found I had already been using variations of all of the SCRUM
> techniques, and I was intrigued and excited by the prospect of
combining all of these techniques in a simple incremental and
structured approach to the
> So far the SCRUM is working out great, however the external chaos
> be creeping back in.
> This is primarily due to the fact that our current organizational
> relies too heavily on a multi-project multi-task basis.
> Fundamentally I see SCRUM as a single project methodology only. I
> primary driving force behind the methodology is the focussing of
> shielding the team from the "chaos"
> I my situation where "chaos" comes in the form of multiple
> projects with varying priorities, the SCRUM is starting to fall
> Is there any work on such scenarios or are there alternative
> I am thinking of running multiple simultaneous SCRUMS whereby the
> are shortened to reflect the decreased time available due to
> however this approach seems contrary to the simplified focussed
> Any ideas would be appreciated.