Procrustes of Greek myth was an innkeeper with a curious proposition: he would give you a free night at his inn, but there was a special bed you had to be fitted into in order to sleep. As you lay in the bed, if you were too short, your legs were pulled out of their sockets to make you long enough to fill the bed exactly, and if you were too tall your legs were chopped off. Rumor has it Procrustes went on to a successful career as a Scrum Master, where his skill was put to use during sprint planning.
Scrum is a good start
Scrum is a great start for teams that have been mired in
Waterfall. It helps get them to start thinking of smaller batch sizes – weeks
instead of years. Ceremonies such as Sprint Retrospective help establish the
idea of continuous improvement.
Scrum was also useful back when introducing Agile into an
anti-agile organization. It provided a set of well-defined events, schedules,
activities and roles that appealed to line supervisors coming from a project
management background. It also fostered an “us versus them” mentality (“Scrum
Master leads and coaches organization in its Scrum adoption”) that is not
really necessary now that most (all) agile adoption initiatives are top down.
Teams that depend on Ceremonial Scrum often run into issues.
Having regularly scheduled ceremonies implicitly tells the team to wait until
the next occurrence before doing anything. An example is the sprint
retrospective. An issue or need for improvement from the first days of the
sprint lingers until the retrospective occurs.
How do you deal with “leftovers” (stories started but not
finished) at the end of a sprint? Do you take velocity “credit” for them? Do
you stop work? Do you need to resize them? Put them back on the backlog? How
much velocity credit do you take? What if a team takes on a “stretch” story and
fails to finish it? How does that “count” on velocity? What about
infrastructure work that takes longer than a single sprint?
Where’s the value?
More importantly, what is the value to the customer of the
team spending time trying to figure this out?
Imagine you are part of a team racing Formula One, and every
ten minutes you are told to stop (wherever you are on the track) and estimate
how many laps, what kind of lap and against which other drivers, you will complete
in the next 10 minutes. It must be exact! You are going to “commit” to it!
You have to estimate based on the risk of dealing with which
other drivers in which laps where on the track. Uncertainty about weather.
Doubt about how well your pit crew works.
You’ll then estimate using a Fibonacci number, derived by
the team using a consensus mechanism like Planning Poker. “I voted 13 because
Mario Andretti in the hairpin with new tires”. The team then “commits” to
completing that many “story points” of laps based on what lap stories of
previous sizes were completed in previous 10-minute chunks.
Then during the next 10-minute span of time (or, let’s call
it, “sprint”) the driver knows to slow down if they would exceed the quota, or
drive recklessly if they are behind. Because after all, meeting numerical quotas
are more important than quality. Procrustes would be proud. Deming would not. (See
his rule #11).
Maybe just try to win the race
What if, instead of spending all those brain cycles on
getting the estimate right, and making commitments, your team just tried to win
the race? You remember, just deliver value? The team would have no need to
“game” the estimates.
What to do instead?
You could use an emergent metric, such as how many laps you
actually you completed in the last ten minutes. Don’t worry about partial laps,
only count those that actually completed. You could focus on finishing. If you
are part-way thru a lap, finish it then start the next one. You could pay
attention to improving your process, and stop managing to quotas.
No comments:
Post a Comment