@AgileCabane this is a common anti-pattern- ppl attending to their performance & not the overall flow. It's a common challenge with any team-centric approach. You need to cultivate a entire value stream perspective.
1/
And, for all the focus on "self-organization" it doesn't apply when that impedes overall value delivery.
2/
@AgileCabane self-organization, btw, is not why scrum works (see Challenging Why (not if) Scrum Workshttps://bit.ly/36XWW1g )
it's eliminating delays, handoffs and handbacks. ber
3/
@AgileCabane now if the specialists only have a story or 2 it's ok they don't join the team, but otherwise they should act like a team member
4/
@AgileCabane Not trying to bash scrum here, but don't know how to say this nicely but Scrum's focus on the team and self-organization may work against you - you have to focus on value delivery across teams
/5
@AgileCabane Why we want to focus on flow while using Lean and Agile
see Challenging Why (not if) Scrum Works bit.ly/36XWW1g
6/
@AgileCabane if it's just a story here or there maybe the specialist can just jump in for a story. borrow team member's for when they spend most of their time w/another team. Then you need to see if them spending time on the ceremonies is more than compensated by the time save by the team 7/7
in the implicit vs explicit agreement discussion, it should be mentioned that implicit does not really mean you can not follow an agreement when it doesn't make sense while explicit means you must. You can just add to your explicit agreement - only do this when it makes sense. 1/
you might also add "when you don't do it, let someone know because it might make sense to improve the agreement."
Implicit merely means we've not explicitly discussed what we're doing. Why would you not want to explicitly state the groundrules of you working together? 2/
the idea that explicit means written down or hard to change is one of the great misunderstandings of Kanban still in the Scrum community. Explicitly stating how a team works together is one of the cornerstones of Lean. 3/
i love it when i find the integration process of DA with FLEX finds errors (yes, something wrong) in FLEX and not just improvements to it. Finding what's wrong with your approach is something to look at.
1/
I tend to think of DA FLEX like I would a service. When I tell a service provider something's wrong I expect them to listen and say "oh, we'll fix that. Thanks for your input." 2/
I don't expect them to tell me "ah, you're just bashing." Or, "well we could do that, but then it wouldn't be our service."
The first means that they're not listening, the 2nd means i should look for another provider.
When you hear people tout the simplicity of an approach, it is often an indication that they've lost sight of the goal - the effectiveness of the approach.
how something is defined and how something is used may be quite different 1/2
Things often start simple (1 gear car), turn more complicated (multiple gears), then become simple to use (automatic transmission).
Use a DA consultant to help you figure out what's simple for you. Then use that. A little foresight goes a long way. 2/3
Maybe the understanding in "simple to understand, difficult to master" is the wrong understanding. We need to understand what works for us. Then it's not so difficult. Choice is power. Choice is fit for purpose.
3/3
when your problem is simple, basing a solution on specific practices may work. But when the problem is complex, more of a thinking and education approach is required.
our approaches should be about teaching us how to improve our results. Not presume following them provides us good results.
in '00 a framework within which to figure out what to do made sense because we didn't understand the theories under software development. Now we do. Using those theories directly is more effective. You can start with a set of often useful practices if you want to. then adjust
timeboxing/iterations are practices. not inherent to Agile. When you require using them you liimit your choices. What you want is: quick feedback, managed WIP, visibility, quality workflow, cadence. work on those directly - lean/flow/ToC provide guidance.
nothing wrong w/ timeboxing. However, you shouldn't drive from it. Drive from flow. Timeboxing's a practice that provides discipilne &structure that may be needed. When build Scrum on flow you realize you want short cycle times for stories. Can eliminate timeboxing when useful.
most companies I talk to have more problem on missing, unclear, changing requirements than with their teams. Focusing on the teams and not portfolio/product management is like trying to put a gasoline fire out from a leaking pump without stopping the pump from leaking.
an example of why we need more than empiricism. Imagine the theory underneath this about sub-atomic particles that you cannot observe. This theory is useful, but not observable - only (in)validatable with experiments.
1/2
Consider how this odd behavior can now be understood, how its implications (death by radiation poisoning) can be understood and dealt with (lead as a protective shield).
2/
Now, consider a Scrum team process. If you get wierd behavior what do you do? Without theory you just have to stick to Scrum practices or insert other practices. But, since Scrum creates a psychological barrier to stay within its sopce, you may never find a way out. 3/