Skip to main content

Scrumulatory - the feedback

Thanks to the training delegates who took part in my scrum simulation game this week, and for the feedback from the game. +Patrik Kosowski, Suzanne Holmberg, +Emil Särnstrand, Christian Larsson, Jens Olsson, Jorgen Persson you were great!

First and most important feedback - we need a new name. Scrumulatory? You must be kidding. Scrumopoly? Scrumplicity? Scrummy? Burn-it-down? There's got to something better!

Equally important is the feedback about how to simplify the rules while keeping the emphasis on Scrum learning and Scrum decision making... rather than cards and mental arithmetic! I hear you Emil. More preparation by the facilitator and fewer rules to read before you can start. There are several changes in the pipeline now for the next outing.

Overall people gave positive feedback along with the suggestions for improvement so it's definitely getting another outing at the next course. One useful suggestion was to make the game open for others to play and modify. Absolutely. If you'd like to try it with your group or training course, send me a message and I get a copy of the rules and basic equipment over to you. Once we get a reasonably stable set of rules, we'll share it open source so it can have a life of its own.

Play is the basic structure for human learning. Enjoy!
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Does your Definition of Done allow known defects?

Is it just me or do you also find it odd that some teams have clauses like this in their definition of done (DoD)?
... the Story will contain defects of level 3 severity or less only ... Of course they don't mean you have to put minor bugs in your code - that really would be mad - but it does mean you can sign the Story off as "Done"if the bugs you discover in it are only minor (like spelling mistakes, graphical misalignment, faults with easy workarounds, etc.). I saw DoDs like this some time ago and was seriously puzzled by the madness of it. I was reminded of it again at a meet-up discussion recently - it's clearly a practice that's not uncommon.

Let's look at the consequences of this policy. 

Potentially for every User Story that is signed off as "Done" there could be several additional Defect Stories (of low priority) that will be created. It's possible that finishing a Story (with no additional user requirements) will result in an increase in…

"Plan of Intent" and "Plan of Record"

Ron Lichty is well known in the Software Engineering community on the West Coast as a practitioner, as a seasoned project manager of many successful ventures and in a number of SIGs and conferences in which he is active. In spite of knowing Ron by correspondence over a long period of time it was only at JavaOne this year that we finally got together and I'm very glad we did.

Ron wrote to me after our meeting:

I told a number of people later at JavaOne, and even later that evening at the Software Engineering Management SIG, about xProcess. It really looks good. A question came up: It's a common technique in large organizations to keep a "Plan of Intent" and a "Plan of Record" - to have two project plans, one for the business partners and boss, one you actually execute to. Any support for that in xProcess?

Good question! Here's my reply...

There is support in xProcess for an arbitrary number of target levels through what we call (in the process definitions) P…

Understanding Cost of Delay and its Use in Kanban

Cost of Delay (CoD) is a vital concept to understand in product development. It should be a guide to the ordering of work items, even if - as is often the case - estimating it quantitatively may be difficult or even impossible. Analysing Cost of Delay (even if done qualitatively) is important because it focuses on the business value of work items and how that value changes over time. An understanding of Cost of Delay is essential if you want to maximise the flow of value to your customers.

Don Reinertsen in his book Flow [1] has shown that, if you want to deliver the maximum business value with a given size team, you give the highest priority, not to the most valuable work items in your "pool of ideas," not even to the most urgent items (those whose business value decays at the fastest rate), nor to your smallest items. Rather you should prioritise those items with the highest value of urgency (or CoD) divided by the time taken to implement them. Reinertsen called this appro…