Skip to main content

The Dark Side of Scrum?

In the last week I've seen a couple of blog posts that bemoan a codification of agile software development into rigid project management frameworks.  Both are interesting and caused me to reflect on our own adoption of agile - because to a fair extent we are doing exactly what these posts criticise.

The first such post is titled The Dark Side of Scrum.   Thomas Scranz asks why, if the first principle of the agile manifesto is that we value individuals and interactions over processes and tools, have people adopted Scrum as a dogmatic codified interpretation of agile?  I will note my thoughts in this post. (I hould clarify that we're not following Scrum per se; our process started nearer XP and has adopted some notions from Scrum and DSDM along the way).

Thomas first argues that with continuous integration and automated testing tools, we can move beyond fixed two-week time boxes to a faster and more flexible delivery cycle.  Well, that may be true for an organisation where agile is more ingrained and understood, but for us the two-week iterations are already a tremendous improvement on what went before and we still have quite a bit of work to bring these ideas to more of our projects.  The fixed development cycles are also very useful in explaining agile to our business partners.  The structure of this codified approach gives our partners and user groups a clear schedule for interacting with the projects. So while Thomas may well be right for his firm, that more flexible approach is not for us just yet.

Thomas's next beef is with the notion of the product backlog.  He argues that specifying and estimating everything up front is time consuming and prone to change as the project develops.  This is an area where I have some agreement.  Many agile advocates seem to want two incompatible things:
  1. A complete list of estimated stories so that you can measure progress towards the goal, and
  2. Freedom to add new stories and re-estimate throughout the project.
If Thomas had focussed on this aspect, I think I could have agreed with him. Instead, he described his experience that a product backlog tends to be a wishlist of everything and that the individual items tend to be feature requests rather than expressions of what the user will be able to achieve with the product.  Our experience so far is rather different.  Our old waterfall "business requirements documents" had exactly those flaws - they tended to be long lists of all the features that the customers could think of, with little or no relation to how people would use the system.  User stories have given us a large step forwards, both in describing what users want to achieve and in helping them prioritise the things that are really important.

The third point from Thomas's article was that Scrum stand-ups can create an interrogation atmosphere, because they focus on what each person did yesterday and will do today.  He suggests instead to focus on the progress of each user story rather than on each team member.  This seems a potentially good idea, provided that everyone leaves the stand up knowing what they need to do next and what the rest of the team expect of them.  As I'm not involved in projects at that level, I'd be interested to hear which approach works best for our project teams.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Changing Principles

In EA, architecture principles set a framework for making architectural decisions.  They help to establish a common understanding across different groups of stakeholders, and provide guidance for portfolios and projects.  Michael Durso of the LSE gave a good introduction to the idea in a webinar last week for the UCISA EA community.

Many organisations take the TOGAF architecture principles as a starting point.  These are based on the four architectural domains of TOGAF: business, information/data, applications, technology/infrastructure.  These principles tend to describe what should be done, e.g. re-use applications, buy in software rather than build it, keep data secure.  See for example the principles adopted at Plymouth University and the University of Birmingham.

Recently though, I encountered a different way of looking at principles.  The user experience design community tend to focus more on how we should do things.  E.g. we should start with user needs, use iterative developm…

Why the UCISA Capability Model is useful

What do Universities do?

This may seem a strange question to ask and the answer may seem obvious.  Universities educate students and undertake research.  And perhaps they work with industrial partners and create spin-off companies of their worn.  And they may work with local communities, and affiliation bodies for certain degress, and they definitely report on their activities to government bodies such as HEFCE.  They provide student services and support.  The longeryou think about it, the more things you can think of that a University does.

In business, the things that an organisation does are called "capabilities", which is a slightly strange term.  I think it is linked to the HR idea of a combination of the CAPacity and ABILITY to do a task.  Whatever the name, it is a useful concept.  A capability is more basic than a process: a University may change the way it educates students but as long as it remains a University it will educate them one way or another.

A capability …

A new EA Repository

One of my goals since starting this job two years ago has always been to create a repository for architecture documents.  The idea is to have a central store where people can find information about the University's applications, data sources, business processes, and other architectural information.  This store will make it easier for us to explain our plans, to show the current state of the University's information systems, and to explain what Enterprise Architecture is all about.

It's taken a long time to reach this goal, mainly because we're often had more pressing and immediate work to be done.  The creation of a repository is one of those tasks that is very important but never quite urgent.  So I'm now very happy to say that we are in the process of deploying a repository and modelling tool.


This is the culmination of a careful process to select the most appropriate tool for our needs.  We began by organising several workshops to gather requirements from a rang…