Skip to main content

Scrum is Lean with a Turbo-Charger

A colleague and Lean-Master at a large financial institution gave me a copy of Lean Kaizen: A Simplified Approach to Process Improvements by George Alukai & Anthony Manos. More than anything else, this book drove home to me the similarities and differences between Scrum and Lean (at least Lean, outside of Software Development).

‘The heart of Lean is the Kaizen Process.’ Kaizen means ’change for the better’ and is loosely translated at Continuous Improvement. This is actually a misleading translation, because Kaizen does not imply an iterative repeated process.

The core Kaizen event is nothing else than a Scrum Retrospective. In fact, the descriptions of how to run the meetings are so similar, I suspect they have a common source.

Two differences become quickly apparent:
  • While Lean talks ‘bottom up’, it assumes top-down management. This book describes (sometimes in excruciating detail) how to organize a Kaizen event, including one month of preparation, a few days for the event itself, and then a month of post processing. My favorite suggestion was creating posters ‘Coming to a Workplace Near You: IMPROVEMENT!’ I can see the staff rolling their eyes.
  • Each Scrum Team holds a Kaizen event once per sprint. You might even argue that the daily scrum is a Kaizen event. So 12 to 24 times per year is typical.
By following the approach in this book, one group might get 6 Kaizen events per year, but probably more like one to two, because of the effort involved.

The more subtle difference is that management organizes & choreographs the process. The advantage of the Lean approach is that management is more committed making the suggestions happen. I have experienced that this can be a problem for Scrum teams...

Under Scrum, each team sends a filtered, prioritized list of improvements, usually one or two top issues to management after every sprint. When management supports the Scrum teams, wonders can happen. Would you like to be one of the companies which discovered ‘we got more lean doing 6 months of Scrum than doing 3 years of lean with traditional management’?


François said…

I don't agree on your last sentence.
Lean methodology prone to remove everything that is not needed or, depending where you come from, to optimize the flow of production.

IMHO Scrum aims at giving release of softwares at every release, it has nothing to do with lean.

Moreover, Knaban doesn't necessarily involve an heavy change in project management. So, if the firm isn't really involved in, it won't change anything from the outside point-of-view.
As Scrum have a global vocabulary and special artifacts, its changes are more visible from the outside. It's like if you decide to get CMMI approval or to move on the RUP, you'll have significant changes, very visible.
(This is not very clear, but the idea lies somewhere)

Peter said…
Hi François,

IMHO the focus of Scrum is on identifying organizational dysfunction. Make the problem visible, then you can deal with it.

"Lean Software Development" is so far removed from what, say, the Lean Management Institute, would tell you about Lean that it's not funny. I would call Kanban an Agile Framework that draws heavily on Lean Principles. And even Kanban can cause real conflict with management.

You right about one thing though: Scrum does not give you VSD's and the many tools of Lean. It does apply the principles consistently (if less explicitly in some cases than Kanban).

Still, I have seen enough companies unable to break out of their sclerosis using top down "lean" management. I have watched these same companies make tremendous progress in just 6 months doing Scrum.

So I am convinced that if you set out to do Lean, and use Scrum as your means to accomplish that goal, you will be far more effective than if you just apply Lean Principles and Tools using traditional management practices.


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 …