Skip to main content

From Scream to Scrum

On Wednesday, Patrick Weiss, Director of eBusiness Solutions for Publiconnect, came to the Scrum Breakfast in Zurich to talk about his experiences as Customer / Product-Owner of two large projects which were managed using Scrum. As his talk was in German, I will summarize here.

He didn't start out to do Scrum. A change was necessary due to serious problems in the progress of his projects. Unhappiness was widespread and trust was down to zero. Without going in to detail, the problems were ascribed to "communications issues", which were corrected by changing the Project Leader and introducing Scrum.

Scrum was a suggestion of the contractor (well, my suggestion actually), and so it met with initial skeptisicm. Can it really be "agile" if we can only change our mind every three weeks? Will creativity and design suffer? It felt very limiting to only be able to react to changes at the beginning of a sprint.

The advantages soon became clear. Problems stopped accumulating, The coordination effort declined substantially. Within the months, trust between customer and supplier was reestablished.

Challenges

"Scrum changes a lot!" So a lot of practices are affected and people need time to adapt to the new framework.
  • Budgeting (particularly working with Management) presents new challenges because it is not clear exactly what will be provided (I can tell you exactly what it will cost, but not what it will do!).
  • Because of the uncertainty in the deliverables, rollout planing with sales is difficult, because they want to know what the product will do.
  • Teams that extend over corporate boundaries are a challenge, particulary if the rolls compete with one another (2 architects, 2 designers, 2 project leaders, etc.).
  • Not everybody likes transparency.
  • The team becomes more important than the individual.
  • Interdisiciplinary thinking is not something everybody wants to do.
  • "Chicken Management" - how to deal with management and other stakeholders.
  • "Ken Schwaber vs. Commen Sense"
Highlights

The management and coordination effort for the customer declined substantially. The playing rules defined expectations, provided predictability and gave everyone a sense of security. A constant, relatively high level yet sustainable level of pressure kept everybody focussed. Teamwork encouraged thinking about the whole (before everyone was a specialist and integration was a problem). More trial and error, less reading of tea leaves. Problems don't accumulate. Easier to react quickly to changes in Market, Customer Requirements, and Management Directives.

Focus on Results ("Output") and rapid feedback move the project forward, rapidly and in the right direction. Frequent releases give marketing lots to talk to the customers about.

Summary

The results of Scrum were rather different than the fears about Scrum. Motivated people work better together. Collective wisdom of the team is better than the individual wisdom of an expert. Stable teams can handle changes (e.g. staff changes) better than collections of individuals. The flexibility in design and concept was better. And "transparency" (bringing all issues out into the open as quickly as possible) encourages trust and promotes rapid solutions, even of difficult problems.

(end of summary)

You can download his presentation. Thank you Patrick for a very interesting and thoughtful retrospective on realizing large projects from the customer's point of view.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Scaling Scrum: SAFe, DAD, or LeSS?

Participants in last week's Scrum MasterClass wanted to evaluate approaches to scaling Scrum and Agile for their large enterprise. So I set out to review the available frameworks. Which one is best for your situation?

Recently a number of approaches have started gaining attention, including the Scaled Agile Framework ("SAFe") by Dean Leffingwell, Disciplined Agile Development (DAD), by Scott Ambler, and Large Scale Scrum (LeSS), by Craig Larman and Bas Vodde. (Follow the links for white papers or overviews of each approach).

How to compare these approaches? My starting point is Scrum in the team. Scrum has proven very effective at helping teams perform, even though it does not directly address the issues surrounding larger organizations and teams. An approach to scaling Scrum should not be inconsistent with Scrum itself.

Scrum implements a small number of principles and constraints: Inspect and Adapt. An interdisciplinary Team solves the problem. Deliver something of va…

Sample Definition of Done

Why does Scrum have a Definition of Done? Simple, everyone involved in the project needs to know and understand what Done means. Furthermore, Done should be really done, as in, 'there is nothing stopping us from earning value with this function, except maybe the go-ahead from the Product Owner. Consider the alternative:
Project Manager: Is this function done?
Developer: Yes
Project Manager: So we can ship it?
Developer: Well, No. It needs to be tested, and I need to write some documentation, but the code works, really. I tested it... (pause) ...on my machine. What's wrong with this exchange? To the developer and to the project manager, "done" means something rather different. To the developer in this case, done means: "I don't have to work on this piece of code any more (unless the tester tells me something is wrong)." The project leader is looking for a statement that the code is ready to ship.

At its most basic level, a definition of Done creates a sh…

10 Warning Signs, that your team is not self-organizing

How do you know that self-organization is working? The Bern Chapter of Scrum Breakfast Club looked into this questions, and identified the following warning signs (which I have taken the liberty of translating).

The team reports to the Scrum Master at the Daily ScrumPeople wait for instructions from the Scrum MasterTeam members don't hold each other responsible [for their commitments]The same impediment comes up twice"That's the way it is" => resignation"I" instead of "We"Flip charts are lonelyCulture of conflict-avoidanceDecisions processes are unclear, nor are they discussedPersonal goals are more important than team goals
To this list I would add my a couple of my favorites:
you don't see a triangle on the task board (not working according prioritization of stories)after the daily Scrum, people return directly to their desks (no collaboration)there are a least as many stories in progress as team members (no pairing)
P.S. You can join the …