That team I mentioned, well several things happened. 1) they did not change their burndown to the approved form (I actually don’t know any team that uses the form mandated in the CSM course) 2) the CSM in question was rejected by the team and had his contract terminated early 3) this episode contributed to a disenchantment with Scrum in particular and Agile in general within that organisation. It’s this well-poisoning that I object to most from the Scrum world. It makes my professional life harder to have an organisation promoting this sort of thinking—that individual was a Certified ScrumMaster, applying their certified Scrum mastery, the Scrum Alliance ® has to bear some sort of responsibility for that, if they are going to continue to take people’s money for the certification. Unless, I suppose, they are happy to be seen as a mere diploma mill.

I personally attended a CSM course (as you know) which was incompetently delivered and promulgated nonsense. The Scrum Alliance ® has amply demonstrated to me that it does not care about this. It has, as a corporate entity, made it very clear to me that this is of no concern. A “certification” body that doesn’t care that it’s certifications are badly administered isn’t worthy of the name.

There are plenty of other stories around regarding the dogged application of outmoded ideas in the name of Scrum causing problems for teams (up to and including the loss of contracts) so without wanting to repeat hearsay I am convinced that what I’ve seen is far from unique.

So, I see bad courses promoting bad behaviours, and those bad behaviours doing no-one any good and as far as I can tell no-one in a position to do anything about one of the causes of this cares one whit.

I’ve spent time with some of the luminaries of the Scrum world, too. Less time with fewer of them than you have, no doubt. Individually, indeed, I have also found them thoughtful, interested in the subtleties, looking for new ways to express things and new things to try. That’s a very different thing from the group behaviour of the corporate entity which is the Scrum Alliance ® It’s that group behaviour to which I object.

Now that the above has been said shall I start expecting a different slant?

You said you have seen Scrum teams clicking along. That’s good. I’d be glad to hear about that. Yet you focused on one thing that happened to one such team, that they were told their burn chart was “wrong”.

What happened next? Did they crash and burn? Tell whoever said that to take a flying leap? Find a better chart from the one they had been using before?

I would guess that I know most of the recognized luminaries in the Scrum world, and I’ve spent substantial time with most of them. I find that they are thoughtful, interested in the subtleties, looking for new ways to express things and new things to try. I find that they try to give good value in their courses and consulting.

Are there bad eggs? Surely. But I don’t see how painting the whole Alliance with that brush is helpful.

I’ll be closing comments on this thread soon, but not until you get another say.

I’d be even more glad to hear stories about any influential member whatever of the Scrum Alliance ® recognising that there are parts of the Scrum world that are inflexible and doctrinaire, and that this is a problem. For so long as that doesn’t happen I’m going to continue to consider the Scrum Alliance ® an unhelpful diploma mill.

I only can second that.

All scrum trainers, scrum masters and consultants I’ve met have been very open to changes in methodology – being it planning meetings done differently, dropping review meetings to go live earlier with completed stories (not at the end of a sprint), changing burn down charts (seen tasks left, story points left, hours left, stories left, …). Whatever works best in your setting. Most tell you it’s safe to play by the book in the beginning and then know what to change and why.

Scrum is about pragmatism and common sense mainly.

“It seems to be part of man’s history for a couple of people to get a hold of part of the same idea, then try to tear each other down for being wrong.”

I’ve found this sad in the Amiga/Atari ST days and before, and I find this very sad when seeing all this recent Scrum FUD comming from some kanban “theorists” – it really grew in 2009.

Cheers
Stephan
http://twitter.com/codemonkeyism

I believe that the rhetoric of the Scrum movement and even more so the indoctrination sold by the Scrum Alliance affords this sort of destructive behaviour. YMMV.

Scrum says to remove those impediments. The team says “We know we should do that, according to Scrum, but …” and that is ScrumButt.

No one ever calls ScrumButt on a team that is clicking along. Many people call it on teams that are slogging through visible impediments rather than clean them up.

Thanks,

R

If people figure out a better way, that’s great. That’s what they’re supposed to be doing. And, if they figure out a poorer way, which often they do in the name of “context”, then they will not prosper. The examples you give have some prospect of being a poorer way, and perhaps some prospect of being better.

Either way, Scrum says “Inspect and Adapt”. I’m OK with that. My job is helping people to Inspect and helping them find good ways to adapt.

Thanks,

R

I think the Scrum community uses the “it’s only a framework” argument when they’re being challenged by the XP and Kanban people and the “you’re not doing it correctly” when they’re being challenged by the “it’s not working for me” people.

Funny thing is, the only difference between the former and the latter is the former took some time to find some alternatives.