I have been probably one of the longer running candidates for being a Scrumbut user. Back when I started Agile 11 years ago, the rulebook was slightly different – retrospectives were part of XP and not Scrum and many blended XP and Scrum effortlessly without issues. This time could be described better as doing ScrumAnd. However I also spent a lot of time experimenting, even whilst myself and my teams were in the “shu” phase.
I was an early breaker of the “must be four week Sprints” rule, trying three, two and one weekly Sprints. I eventually settled on two weekly Sprints for large (ten person) teams and weekly for smaller teams.
In smaller teams of 2-3 people I experimented with part time Product Owners – people who co-located with the team for a few hours, but were otherwise contactable at any point in time by phone.
I played with having taskcards, removing Sprint Burndowns and replacing it with stronger visual observation as a marker for Sprint goal failure risk.
Release Burn Downs became Release Burn Ups. The relative worth of a Scrum Master full time versus part time was played with.
I did all this because in those early adoption days guidelines, blogs and books were very limited. I did this because the manifesto said “Individuals and interactions over processes and tools”. I saw Scrum as a process but it did not govern or supercede the manifesto and so I played with the rules hoping to test under what conditions ‘Individuals and interactions’ was better realised and what size of Sprint lengths allowed more effective delivery of working software.
If Lean Startup had been around in those days, not only me, but many of us would have been seen to be setting hypotheses, building, measuring the effectiveness of the change in process because we certainly needed to learn what worked and what didn’t.
I believe, to an extent, that Shu-Ha-Ri is applicable, but there is no clear point to me, nor do I think there should ever be a point when experimentation is not allowed. What early adopters have learnt are the conditions and root causes why certain elements should and should not be done. I only think it appropriate that Ri experimenters delve into the unknown with their eyes wide open to the risks that the previous experimenters have found. This is where the learning can be daunting because this is where the rulebook changes into guidelines and there is a lot of information out there to sift through.
I have seen a team successfully deliver a project with no product owner using a combination of Scrum and Lean Startup. By a strict classification this would be considered Scrumbut, however it was a very successful project (probably more than many others I know because we could prove benefits realisation rapidly and the customer was ever present in the data).
I have seen successful teams have a board of Product Owners. In fact, I am a member of such a board right now. It isn’t detrimental. Prior to the beginning of each Daily Scrum, as a board of Product Owners we collectively decide on priority. The card colour denotes the Product Owner and if the team has queries they know easily who to go to for immediate feedback. Problems with process are only problems if you let them be.
I see teams follow Scrum by the letter and fail – the wrong person was the product owner, cards weren’t broken down enough, the list could be quite exhaustive.
There is always risk in experimenting, but in saying “shu” learners should only go by the rulebook, without encouraging any critical thinking, is only further encouraging the lack of movement into “ha”. When we (as trainers) teach “shu” I believe we should have a responsibility to seed “ha”. It isn’t just about “do x, y, z”, it is “x works best when …”, “x is hard to do when …”, “you may want to consider to also do w when you do x”, in essence, it is the:
- what (approach)
- why (purpose/intent)
- who (is involved and to what extent, RACI is a good model for this)
- when (how often, how does the time impact other elements) and
- how (does it feel when it is working right versus working poorly)
We need to teach people how to think, learn and critically assess, not just give solutions. We need to stop telling them off for experimenting. If that had happened in the early days of Scrum we may have never learned of the value of shorter Sprints and of the hundreds of useful tips, techniques and tricks that we apply each day.
Scrumbut is and has always been a terrible name for deviating from the standard definition. You might argue that what I do is Scrumbut. I would say I do Agile -
For my team and my organisation, I endeavor to improve the cost-effective delivery of value to customers through the establishment of a collaborative, safe, supportive and ever positively evolving environment.
Shouldn’t that be the intent of Scrum too?
Note: This blog is a reply to the great conversation and blog by Bernd Schiffer. This is by no means a statement that I agree or disagree with Bernd, I just wanted to offer my perspective.