There has never been a shortage of criticism around the Scrum method for agile project management. However there has been a recent spike in the churn and swirl, and it’s time for some perspective. Specifically this:
The old understanding of the Scrum landscape is dead, and a newer more relevant version is rising in its place.
However, with this jarring change, comes a lot of complaints, confusion, and cults.
1. Complaints over Scrum It’s hip to complain about Scrum. All the kids are doing it, and it makes you feel good. A couple years ago, Jim Shore was among the first cool rebels, saying “Rescuing Scrum teams keeps me in business”. His complaints boiled down to Scrum certifications, which give beginners a false sense of competence, leading to disasters that he has to clean up. The criticisms haven’t changed since then. Just a couple weeks ago, agile co-founder Bob Martin posted his thesis on the shortcomings of Scrum, which offered the same old critiques we’ve heard before. Several people offered their rebuttals, but I doubt that will stop the hen-pecking any time soon. Granted, some of the criticisms are legitimate. But I see very few of these hipsters stepping into the mire to make things better. I am much more impressed by gurus like Ron Jeffries or Alistair Cockburn, who became Scrum trainers because of the complaints, so that they could be a part of the solution. It turns out that Bob Martin and Jim Shore have been contributing to the upcoming Certified Scrum Developer program. This, it seems, is their noble attempt to fixing Scrum’s lack of focus on technical training, which confuses me a little…since they’re still complaining.
2. Confusion over Scrum Over the last week, Mike Cottmeyer has been asking some good hard questions about what Scrum really is:
- “How can you certify something that doesn’t have a standard body of knowledge around it?”Actually, the official statement of the Scrum method is spelled out in the Scrum Guide. The problem is that it’s too prescriptive, and the ‘experts’ aren’t very good at explaining what that means. For example, I’ve seen several hyper-performing teams that don’t have a burndown chart anywhere. The official body of knowledge would call them non-compliant ‘ScrumButs’, but I would say the burndown is optional. As long as you some kind of empirical visibility into whether they will make your deadlines, you’re okay. Further exacerbating the problem is the exam, which offers a few questions that focus on the letter of the law, rather than the spirit. So, as in any complex field, there are good ScrumMasters and bad ScrumMasters, good PMPs and bad PMPs, good doctors and bad doctors, good lawyers and bad lawyers. When you have a disparity among experts certified in a complex field of many grey areas, then the market is the ultimate decider of who’s got it together. There is a reason why Mike Cohn is the best-selling author on Scrum: his examples offer the pragmatic flexibility the market wants.
- “How can you certify a developer, when there’s no developer role in Scrum?”. The Scrum Alliance already certifies more than just the official roles in the Scrum method (i.e. practitioner, trainer, coach). A developer certification will be the first introduction of a scrum application role. There is a LOT of dialog happening around the Agile BA, the Agile User Experience Designer, and the Agile Portfolio Manager. But there’s no formal agile method that calls those roles out either. Yes, the market is yearning for practical knowledge on application of agile thinking to specific job descriptions. I get a lot of questions from people asking how to apply scrum if they are a graphic artist, or a tech writer. But, that doesn’t mean Scrum is confused about what it is. Scrum is still the same at its core. I think it’s perfectly reasonable for the stewards of a methodology to offer maturity around how to apply it to a given skillset.
What’s even more ironic about all this is the ongoing complaints. It used to be “Scrum is evil, because it leaves out technical practices.” Now it’s “Scrum is evil, because it wants to promote technical practices.” So which is it? - “Shouldn’t Scrum focus only the IT field?” - Software people grumble about the Scrum Alliance’s stated mission to “transform the world of work”. However, I believe we could have the most mature IT department in the world, but still have that IT department reporting into a broken corporate culture. We’re seeing high-quality software evolving the fundamentals of human communication and learning at break-neck speeds, but we still laugh nervously at the sit-coms depicting bad bosses. You mission is your mission. My mission is my mission. You want to create a new set of expectations around what it means to be a software engineer. I want to create a new set of expectations about what it means to be a manager or executive. Scrum fits my mission, and it doesn’t fit your mission, that’s okay. Just don’t tell me my mission is foolish.
3. Cults Recently, Scrum co-founder Ken Schwaber stepped away from his activities at the Scrum Alliance and launched the Scrum.org initiative to focus on the software industry. Yes, there was some disagreement and some hurt feelings about how things played out. Yes, there is some confusion as to the differences and similarities between the two organizations’ products. It’s messy and confusing, and Cory Foy spells out all the sordid drama. Many have been left feeling like they have to pick sides.
But that’s what creative destruction is all about. One guy does something first, the next guy does it better. Another guy holds true to a niche, and another branches out. Then, you have a little consolidation of players and a few products being abandoned, and eventually the landscape settles. Already, the Scrum Alliance points to Scrum.org as the authoritative definition of the Scrum method itself. Furthermore, Schwaber is being featured as a headliner at the upcoming Scrum Alliance Gathering in Orlando. So, some reconciliation and consolidation is happening already. Unfortunately, it’s human nature to gossip about the drama, but that won’t be the ultimate determination of what the market will choose.
That’s my take on things. The old understanding of Scrum is dead. It no longer fits nicely into a the box you want it to be confined to. Instead, there is a newer more mature understanding of Scrum evolving. The Product Owner committee, the skill-specific applications of Scrum, and the transfer of ownership from Ken Schwaber to a democratic community are all examples. Scrum is adapting to real world constraints, in order to become more relevant to the real world.
Scrum is dead. Long live Scrum.
[Read the comments below, and then read Part 2]
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Hi Jesse,
There appear to be some misunderstandings around the dev certification which may be leading to confusion.
The Scrum Alliance, unless something has changed, killed the Certified Scrum Developer program. The work that Jim Shore, Uncle Bob and others were involved in was an exploratory session – whose work was ignored and thrown out. The only current program addressing Scrum Developers is from Ken Schwaber.
Second, the discussion around “World of Work” isn’t about making your managers better. It’s about applying Scrum to Lawyers, and Financial Analysts, and Music Producers, and Film Producers, and Marketers. Organizational change typically impacts many areas of the organization – I agree with that. But saying that the Scrum Alliance should be focusing on these areas is out-of-bounds to me.
Finally, the blog post where I mention the “sordid details” is at http://blog.coryfoy.com/2010/02/they-could-have-been-contenders/ in case anyone wanted to see more information.
My take on all of it, as I mention in the blog post, is that things need to change, and indeed, they may be changing. I’m holding out until after the gathering to see what things have been going on under the covers. It’s a shame I have to do that – weren’t we, as a Scrum Community, promised transparency just a few months ago? But, there it is. I’m hoping good changes come out of it – but only time will tell.
Thanks for the clarification, Cory. I’ve added your very cool link into the post. Here’s my question though, if the SA isn’t going to be the one to apply agile thinking to lawyers, financial analyssts, music producers, and managers, then who will? Are tech workers the only knowledge workers worthy of agile thinking?
Hi Jesse,
Thanks. It’s not an either/or kind of thing.
Unfortunately, my comment here turned into a full on blog post (http://blog.coryfoy.com/2010/02/but-if-the-scrum-alliance-cant-do-it-who-will/). The heart of the matter is that we aren’t doing it well here in the software industry, so why should we think we can also take on spreading that to other industries in the current structure?
Cory
Jesse, This is really a nice post and thank you for the insights you brought in here. I do not complain over Scrum as a framework after practicing Scrum in Offshore project management for 5 -6 years now. But in this context, which is offshore project development I always had to have my own version of scrum, because Scrum as it is failed. As you quoted, I see many versions of Scrum coming out in the industry, but as much as we criticized Scrum we use it as a baseline for the methods we practice.
Right now with all these offshore and scrum and some other Agile experience I have , Im in the process of creating a Offshore Project Management framework based on Scrum which is really interesting..
Thushara, your chat about tailoring Scrum served as no small inspiration for this post. Too many people out there are literally afraid to color outside the lines, but not you. I continue to be impressed at what you and Exilesoft have done tailoring Scrum for offshore projects. I only wish there was more dialog about Agile project tailoring, rather than chatter about “that’s not Scrum”.
Cory, I like where this conversation is going; it’s helping me get a better sense of the agile industry’s issues. Specifically, your latest post crafts a very good description of the execution problems of the Scrum Alliance. However, I don’t think that means the mission is fragmented. See my response post here: http://www.jessefewell.com/2010/02/26/scrum-is-dead-long-live-scrum-part-2/