4 ms·
It can be beneficial if done right - but most places just don't do it right at all. I've even seen officially certified scrum masters using it in ways that go
by hooby 6y ago
It can be beneficial if done right - but most places just don't do it right at all.
I've even seen officially certified scrum masters using it in ways that go completely against the ideas that are behind it.
The main idea of Scrum is, to empower the entire team to decide on their own processes through finding consensus, and to get rid of annoyances that slow things down.
If Scrum itself becomes that annoyance that slows you down - then according to Scrum you absolutely need to get rid of it.
All the different parts of scrum should be considered an all-you-can-eat buffet. You are not supposed to eat all of it - you are supposed to just pick out the things you like the most.
The only core principle is to regularly meet up and discuss how to improve things. That cycle between two such discussions is typically called "sprint" - and that meetup where you discuss improvements is typically called "retrospective". Nothing else about scrum is a requirement. It's just a list of things that worked for some other teams - doesn't mean it will work for you.
- robador 6y ago> Nothing else about scrum is a requirement From the perspective of Scrum this is incorrect. It is specifically stated that: > Changing the core design or ideas of Scrum, leaving out elements, or not following the rules of Scrum, covers up problems and limits the benefits of Scrum, potentially even rendering it useless. [1] Eg. If you don't follow the framework, you're not doing Scrum [1] https://scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html https://scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html
- hooby 6y agoI politely disagree. I've read the book "Scrum: The Art of Doing Twice the Work in Half the Time" by Jeff Sutherland and J.J. Sutherland which goes into the history of how Scrum was invented, and the ideas and philosophy behind it - and neither that quote of yours, nor anything similar to it, is represented in that book. I've also read "Essential Scrum" by Kenneth S. Rubin, which many consider the best book to read on Scrum, and that does not endorse anything like your quote either. That book definitely is more on the "all-you-can-eat buffet" side of things. Both books clearly state in some form or other, that ALL processes cause overhead - and that does include the processes suggested/recommended by Scrum. And that's why you should always use as little processes as possible. Sadly you can't work without any processes at all - if you try that, some informal processes will just emerge on their own. It just doesn't work without - unless you are a tiny team of friends. Scrum has become a big commercial enterprise, that wants to sell courses and trainings and scrum master certificates. They have a financial incentive to churn out rules to follow, because that's how they earn money. But that's surely not what is best for teams and work motivation. I really don't think that Scrum originally was about rules at all - it was (and should be) about what is best for teams and work motivation. Just my 2 cents.
- robador 6y agoI appreciate the politeness :D The quote comes from the official Scrum guide. I'd say that is an authoritative source (just like yours, mind). I was just pointing out that according to 'the bible' you have to incorporate the framework as a whole, or not call what you're doing Scrum (Scrumbut perhaps?). I agree with you on the commercialism surrounding Scrum and the financial incentive.
- hooby 6y agoWell, I guess I'm better off keeping a good distance form that NuScrum stuff - I'll be sticking with the original Scrum ;) And yeah, I'll keep calling the old one just "Scrum", as it always was called, whether or not "the bible" allows me to :P