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

Presentation: Putting IT all together

This is a presentation I gave to an audience of University staff: 

In this seminar, I invite you to consider what the University’s online services would be like, if we worked together to design them from the perspective of the student or member of staff who will use them, instead of designing them around the organisational units that provide them. I’ll start with how the services might appear to that student or member of staff, then work back from there to show what this implies for how we work, how we manage our data, and how we integrate our IT systems. It might even lead to changes in our organisational structure.

Our online services make a vital and valued contribution to the work of our students and staff. I argue that with better integration, more consistent user interfaces, and shared data, this contribution could be significantly enhanced.

This practice is called “Enterprise Architecture”. I’ll describe how it consults multiple organisational units and defines a framework …

Not so simple...

A common approach to explaining the benefits of Enterprise Architecture is to draw two diagrams: one that shows a complicated mess of interconnections, and one that shows a nicely layered set of blocks. Something like this one, which came from some consultants:


I've never felt entirely happy with this approach.  Yes, we do want to remove as much of the needless complexity and ad-hoc design that litters the existing architecture.  Yes, we do want to simplify the architecture and make it more consistent and intelligible.  But the simplicity of the block diagram shown here is unobtainable in the vast majority of real enterprises.  We have a mixture of in-house development and different third-party systems, some hosted in-house, some on cloud infrastructure and some accessed as software-as-a-service.  For all the talk of standards, vendors use different authentication systems, different integration systems, and different user interfaces.

So the simple block diagram is, basically, a l…

2016 has been a good year

So much has happened over the last year with our Enterprise Architecture practice that it's hard to write a succinct summary.  For my day-to-day experience as enterprise architect, the biggest change is that I now have a team to work with.  This time last year, I was in the middle of a 12-month secondment to create the EA practice, working mainly on my own.  Now my post has been made permanent and I have recruited two members of staff to help meet the University's architectural needs.

I have spent a lot of the year meeting people, listening to their concerns and explaining how architecture can help them.  This communication remains vital, the absolute core of what we do and we will continue to meet people in this way.  We also talk to people in other Universities in order to learn from what they are doing and to share our own experience back.  A highlight in this regard was my trip to the USA last January.

Our biggest deliverable for the past year was the design of the data wa…