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

Re: [scrumdevelopment] RE: The Essence of Agile and Scrum

Expand Messages
  • Linda Rising
    John Muir, the founder of the Sierra Club said something like -- when you try to pick up any one thing, you find it s connected to everything else in the
    Message 1 of 8 , Dec 9, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      John Muir, the founder of the Sierra Club said something like -- when you try to pick up any
      one thing, you find it's connected to everything else in the universe :-)!

      I've seen projects that were struggling unsuccessfully with short timeboxed iterations -- what
      saved them was Scrum meetings. I'm a real fan of those meetings. You gotta have good
      communication or those short timeboxed iterations deliver too many surprises :-)!

      It's all connected, guys :-)!




      Craig Larman wrote:
      I think I said something like "an iterative lifecycle of short timeboxed
      iterations is the most important ingredient in successful process."


      Consider an alternative: a 3 year waterfall project in which year 1 is
      requirements analysis, year 2 is design, and year 3 is implementation.


      I claim that on such a project, you could throw all the pair
      programming, self-directed creative team, scrum meetings, test first
      development, etc at it you want, and it would still be very risky, and
      perhaps fail due to the myriad problems that arise from a sequential
      lifecycle of very long req -> des -> impl.


      I've seen lots of techniques and values in the 25 years I've been in the
      business, and nothing has more influence and implications than moving
      from "year 1 req, year 2 des, year 3 impl" to "from the start, when only
      partial reqs are known, incrementally build software in 4 week (or
      whatever) iterations." from that lifecycle practice arises explicitly or
      implicitly so much else in terms of PM, req analysis, adaptation, risk
      mgmt, prioritization, build tools and test practices,
      architecture/design, ...


      I think that in the modern promotion of "agile" methods, the old,
      venerable and key critical practice of short iterations rather than the
      waterfall, which dates back to the 70s in some enlightened camps, is the
      real magic sauce without which the other practices and values lose much
      power.


      As an aside, Dr. Vic Basili and I are writing "the history of iterative
      development" article for IEEE Computer. It is a fascinating history
      imho.

      Do any of you have contributions to the chronology and references? Input
      much appreciated at: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HistoryOfIterative

      regards, craig


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Ken Schwaber [mailto:ken.schwaber@...]
      Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:28 PM
      To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
      Cc: Craig Larman
      Subject: The Essence of Agile and Scrum

      I was at a BOF at SD East and Craig brought up that he thought that
      time-boxing, as in the Sprint, was the essence of agility. I demurred
      a
      reply at the time, but I've decided in retrospect that time-boxing is
      critical. However, the following aspects are equally critical, and all
      of
      them play with each other to create the beauty of agility:
      1. That the work being done in the time-box is of the greatest urgency
      and
      importance to the user, the customer, otherwise why is the time-box
      relevant?
      2. That the people in the time-box are able to be as creative as
      possible
      to
      reach the best solution they can come up with. That is, that the
      principles
      of self-organization and then emergence will be given full play within
      the
      time-box. If someone external is directing the team, then it's not
      agile.
      3. That the team has good engineering practices so that what they
      create
      is
      the real thing, not just some pale shadow of the real thing ... such
      as a
      buggy, poorly designed set of functionality that really never has a
      chance
      of being "an increment of potentially shippable code."

      My thoughts,
      Ken



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

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




    • Craig Larman
      I think I said something like an iterative lifecycle of short timeboxed iterations is the most important ingredient in successful process. Consider an
      Message 2 of 8 , Dec 9, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        I think I said something like "an iterative lifecycle of short timeboxed
        iterations is the most important ingredient in successful process."


        Consider an alternative: a 3 year waterfall project in which year 1 is
        requirements analysis, year 2 is design, and year 3 is implementation.


        I claim that on such a project, you could throw all the pair
        programming, self-directed creative team, scrum meetings, test first
        development, etc at it you want, and it would still be very risky, and
        perhaps fail due to the myriad problems that arise from a sequential
        lifecycle of very long req -> des -> impl.


        I've seen lots of techniques and values in the 25 years I've been in the
        business, and nothing has more influence and implications than moving
        from "year 1 req, year 2 des, year 3 impl" to "from the start, when only
        partial reqs are known, incrementally build software in 4 week (or
        whatever) iterations." from that lifecycle practice arises explicitly or
        implicitly so much else in terms of PM, req analysis, adaptation, risk
        mgmt, prioritization, build tools and test practices,
        architecture/design, ...


        I think that in the modern promotion of "agile" methods, the old,
        venerable and key critical practice of short iterations rather than the
        waterfall, which dates back to the 70s in some enlightened camps, is the
        real magic sauce without which the other practices and values lose much
        power.


        As an aside, Dr. Vic Basili and I are writing "the history of iterative
        development" article for IEEE Computer. It is a fascinating history
        imho.

        Do any of you have contributions to the chronology and references? Input
        much appreciated at: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HistoryOfIterative

        regards, craig


        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Ken Schwaber [mailto:ken.schwaber@...]
        > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:28 PM
        > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
        > Cc: Craig Larman
        > Subject: The Essence of Agile and Scrum
        >
        > I was at a BOF at SD East and Craig brought up that he thought that
        > time-boxing, as in the Sprint, was the essence of agility. I demurred
        a
        > reply at the time, but I've decided in retrospect that time-boxing is
        > critical. However, the following aspects are equally critical, and all
        of
        > them play with each other to create the beauty of agility:
        > 1. That the work being done in the time-box is of the greatest urgency
        and
        > importance to the user, the customer, otherwise why is the time-box
        > relevant?
        > 2. That the people in the time-box are able to be as creative as
        possible
        > to
        > reach the best solution they can come up with. That is, that the
        > principles
        > of self-organization and then emergence will be given full play within
        the
        > time-box. If someone external is directing the team, then it's not
        agile.
        > 3. That the team has good engineering practices so that what they
        create
        > is
        > the real thing, not just some pale shadow of the real thing ... such
        as a
        > buggy, poorly designed set of functionality that really never has a
        chance
        > of being "an increment of potentially shippable code."
        >
        > My thoughts,
        > Ken
      • Alan Shalloway <alshall@netobjectives.co
        Linda: It is all connected. However, I believe Craig s observation is still correct -- as is yours. In fact, together, they give the insight that we use to
        Message 3 of 8 , Dec 10, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Linda:
          It is "all connected." However, I believe Craig's observation is
          still correct -- as is yours. In fact, together, they give the
          insight that we use to institute agile in a company that is not
          currently doing agile. We say: let's get short, time-boxed cycles
          in. OK, now that we know we have to do this, what things must we do
          to facilitate this (this is usually a scope problem). What things
          can we do to facilitate this (there is always low-hanging fruit).
          If we can't do monthly cycles (our preference) can we at least break
          the project up somewhat?

          This enables us to unfold the problem, so to speak. Do a little,
          see how it works and do some more.

          Alan Shalloway
          Net Objectives


          --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Linda Rising <risingl@a...>
          wrote:
          > John Muir, the founder of the Sierra Club said something like --
          when
          > you try to pick up any
          > one thing, you find it's connected to everything else in the
          universe :-)!
          >
          > I've seen projects that were struggling unsuccessfully with short
          > timeboxed iterations -- what
          > saved them was Scrum meetings. I'm a real fan of those meetings.
          You
          > gotta have good
          > communication or those short timeboxed iterations deliver too many
          > surprises :-)!
          >
          > It's all connected, guys :-)!
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Craig Larman wrote:
          >
          > >I think I said something like "an iterative lifecycle of short
          timeboxed
          > >iterations is the most important ingredient in successful
          process."
          > >
          > >
          > >Consider an alternative: a 3 year waterfall project in which year
          1 is
          > >requirements analysis, year 2 is design, and year 3 is
          implementation.
          > >
          > >
          > >I claim that on such a project, you could throw all the pair
          > >programming, self-directed creative team, scrum meetings, test
          first
          > >development, etc at it you want, and it would still be very
          risky, and
          > >perhaps fail due to the myriad problems that arise from a
          sequential
          > >lifecycle of very long req -> des -> impl.
          > >
          > >
          > >I've seen lots of techniques and values in the 25 years I've been
          in the
          > >business, and nothing has more influence and implications than
          moving
          > >from "year 1 req, year 2 des, year 3 impl" to "from the start,
          when only
          > >partial reqs are known, incrementally build software in 4 week (or
          > >whatever) iterations." from that lifecycle practice arises
          explicitly or
          > >implicitly so much else in terms of PM, req analysis, adaptation,
          risk
          > >mgmt, prioritization, build tools and test practices,
          > >architecture/design, ...
          > >
          > >
          > >I think that in the modern promotion of "agile" methods, the old,
          > >venerable and key critical practice of short iterations rather
          than the
          > >waterfall, which dates back to the 70s in some enlightened camps,
          is the
          > >real magic sauce without which the other practices and values
          lose much
          > >power.
          > >
          > >
          > >As an aside, Dr. Vic Basili and I are writing "the history of
          iterative
          > >development" article for IEEE Computer. It is a fascinating
          history
          > >imho.
          > >
          > >Do any of you have contributions to the chronology and
          references? Input
          > >much appreciated at: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HistoryOfIterative
          > >
          > >regards, craig
          > >
          > >
          > >>-----Original Message-----
          > >>From: Ken Schwaber [mailto:ken.schwaber@v...]
          > >>Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:28 PM
          > >>To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
          > >>Cc: Craig Larman
          > >>Subject: The Essence of Agile and Scrum
          > >>
          > >>I was at a BOF at SD East and Craig brought up that he thought
          that
          > >>time-boxing, as in the Sprint, was the essence of agility. I
          demurred
          > >>
          > >a
          > >
          > >>reply at the time, but I've decided in retrospect that time-
          boxing is
          > >>critical. However, the following aspects are equally critical,
          and all
          > >>
          > >of
          > >
          > >>them play with each other to create the beauty of agility:
          > >>1. That the work being done in the time-box is of the greatest
          urgency
          > >>
          > >and
          > >
          > >>importance to the user, the customer, otherwise why is the time-
          box
          > >>relevant?
          > >>2. That the people in the time-box are able to be as creative as
          > >>
          > >possible
          > >
          > >>to
          > >>reach the best solution they can come up with. That is, that the
          > >>principles
          > >>of self-organization and then emergence will be given full play
          within
          > >>
          > >the
          > >
          > >>time-box. If someone external is directing the team, then it's
          not
          > >>
          > >agile.
          > >
          > >>3. That the team has good engineering practices so that what they
          > >>
          > >create
          > >
          > >>is
          > >>the real thing, not just some pale shadow of the real thing ...
          such
          > >>
          > >as a
          > >
          > >>buggy, poorly designed set of functionality that really never
          has a
          > >>
          > >chance
          > >
          > >>of being "an increment of potentially shippable code."
          > >>
          > >>My thoughts,
          > >>Ken
          > >>
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@e...
          > >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-
          unsubscribe@e...
          > >
          > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          > >
          > >
          > >
        • David J. Anderson
          Which might be why Jim HIghsmith called them ecosystems or Gerry Weinberg applied general systems theory - they are connected systems, there is no isolated
          Message 4 of 8 , Dec 10, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Which might be why Jim HIghsmith called them
            "ecosystems" or Gerry Weinberg applied general systems
            theory - they are connected systems, there is no
            isolated cause-effect relationships.

            David
            --
            David Anderson
            http://www.uidesign.net/
            The Webzine for Interaction Designers

            --- Linda Rising <risingl@...> wrote:
            > John Muir, the founder of the Sierra Club said
            > something like -- when
            > you try to pick up any
            > one thing, you find it's connected to everything
            > else in the universe :-)!
            >
            > I've seen projects that were struggling
            > unsuccessfully with short
            > timeboxed iterations -- what
            > saved them was Scrum meetings. I'm a real fan of
            > those meetings. You
            > gotta have good
            > communication or those short timeboxed iterations
            > deliver too many
            > surprises :-)!
            >
            > It's all connected, guys :-)!
            >


            __________________________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
            http://mailplus.yahoo.com
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.