TrainingConferencesAbout UsContact UsAdvertiseSQE.com

StickyMinds.com: brain food for building better software

Join

Join

Clarify Your Search Criteria
Tips on Using Our Search Feature(s)
StickyMinds.com Home
ResourcesEventsTopicsPowerPassJobs
Software Testing & QA Online Community  >  Detail: ScrumBut: Failure to Deliver



A StickyMinds.com Original
Article Picture
ScrumBut: Failure to Deliver

By Michele Sliger

Send This Content to a FriendGet a Short Link to This ContentPrint This ContentSee User Comments About This Content

Summary: In this article, Michele Sliger discusses one of the more common "ScrumBut" practices that, while allowing teams to say "We suck less," isn't really in keeping with intended Scrum practices. This ScrumBut practice is the persistent failure of the team to complete the agreed-upon features in the iteration or sprint.


ASTQB
I'm frequently disturbed by the ease with which ScrumBut teams allow unfinished features to slide from one sprint into the next, creating a pattern of failure in meeting their sprint commitments—a pattern that the team considers acceptable. In these environments, it is normal to overhear quotes such as "Don't worry about it. We'll just finish it up in the next sprint," and "It's no big deal. We always have two or three stories that we don't finish." As Temple Grandin would say, "Bad is the new normal."

The failure to meet commitments should not be considered acceptable. If your Scrum team is doing this, please reconsider.

When I teach Scrum, I tell the new teams two things:

  1. It is OK not to meet your sprint commitment.
  2. It is NOT OK not to meet your sprint commitment.

They are both true statements. The following F. Scott Fitzgerald quote explains the importance of the dichotomy: "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise."

It is OK to fail to meet your commitment when the team is new, or if unforeseen problems prevent getting to done, or if external issues like layoffs or natural disasters cause a slowdown. Every team—even a seasoned one—will miss meeting its sprint commitment on occasion.

But if the team has been working together for a while and knows how much it can complete on average in a sprint, then it is NOT OK to establish a pattern of not keeping your promise. A commitment is a promise. In Scrum, committing to a sprint is a promise to do the best you can to deliver what the team collectively said it would deliver in that sprint. If the Scrum team takes a lackadaisical attitude toward its sprint commitment, it means either that team members don't understand the meaning of the commitment or that the meaning has been altered to mean something else entirely. If it means something else, the team has moved away from the Scrum framework and values and into ScrumBut territory.

This ScrumBut practice is often indicative of the corporate culture. For some organizations, letting things slide and not keeping promises is simply in keeping with company values. Does that make the slippage OK? Absolutely not. It does speak to an organizational issue that should be addressed, which is one of the things that Scrum does so well: It makes problems highly visible very quickly, so that they can be resolved. If the corporate culture is accepting of this lackadaisical "We suck less" paradigm that tends to breed ScrumBut teams, then its leadership and vision should be questioned.

Regardless of the company's culture, teams should think of their sense of personal integrity and pride in delivery to overcome this ScrumBut practice. The sprint retrospective is a good place for the team to address this.

Remember that the ultimate determination of whether or not failure to meet sprint commitments is acceptable behavior is up to the team. The ScrumMaster can force neither a team nor individuals to adopt a set of values that drive their behaviors. The team must want to make this change on its own. It takes a confident ScrumMaster to hold up a mirror to the team and be willing to ask the questions that will make the team consider its actions and the ramifications. Asking the team, "Is it OK for us to make a promise and then break it?" undoubtedly will make the team feel uncomfortable, but it is a fair question.

The ScrumMaster also may want to make sure that the team is aware of the five values of Scrum: Commitment, Openness, Focus, Respect, and Courage. You can try an exercise with the team using the template "We believe in (value), therefore we will (do something)." Ask the team members to brainstorm on what they believe in and what they plan to do about it. An example outcome from one team might be "We believe in Respect, therefore we will not raise our voices in anger but instead will discuss our differing viewpoints calmly and with open minds." Or, for this particular ScrumBut issue, a team may come up with "We believe in Commitment, therefore we will do whatever it takes to deliver on our promises to the business and to our customers." Using the five Scrum values as a starting point, the ScrumMaster can lead the team in the creation of a set of team working agreements, or value statements, that will drive its behaviors. The team creates these, and the ScrumMaster facilitates the discussion.

Later, if the team reverts to old habits and once again takes a laid-back approach to Commitment, the ScrumMaster can simply ask the team, "Is this in keeping with our working agreement on Commitment?" Part of the ScrumMaster's job is to remind the team of the decisions it made.

Don't accept persistent failures to meet sprint commitments. Question why and how the team came to accept this behavior as normal, and together make a real commitment to change for the better.

Further Reading
For more info on the "ScrumBut" and "We suck less" phenomenon, see Michele's previous article "Little Scrum Pigs and the Big Bad Wolf."


About the Author
Michele Sliger has extensive experience in agile software development, having worked in both XP and Scrum teams before becoming a consultant. As a self-described "bridge builder," her passion lies in helping those in traditional software development environments cross the bridge to agility. Along with co-author Stacia Broderick, their book The Software Project Manager's Bridge to Agility focuses on the topic, helping PMI-trained project managers make the transition. Michele is a Certified Scrum Trainer (CST) and a certified Project Management Professional (PMP). If you have a question, or would like help with your agile adoption, Michele can be reached at michele@sligerconsulting.com.

Back to Top
 

StickyMinds.com Weekly Column From 6/8/2009 

Member Comments
Add Your CommentExpand Comments
 
Comment:    
by Janice Linden-Reed 6/18/2009

Your column states that the reason teams don't finish is due to a "lackadaisical attitude toward its sprint commitment" and that a scrum master should make the team uncomfortable to make them change their ways. It is just as likely that practices such as having too much work in progress at once leads to inability to finish. It is appropriate for management to look at the reality of the situation and make process changes as needed. Look for the reasons that a problem exists instead of just casting blame.

Author's Response:
6/19/2009    
My column is about teams that have established a pattern of not meeting their commitment and think that it's fine, and why that's not a good attitude to have. This isn't about "casting blame". It's about identifying the issue and asking hard questions that help the team to identify the problem and then allow the TEAM to make process changes -- not management. This article was NOT about teams that are still in the early stages of agile adoption who are struggling with mastering the basic practices. Of course these novice teams will make mistakes like having too much work in process! That's why a ScrumMaster is so important - to help guide these teams from forming and storming to norming and performing.

 
 
Comment:    
by Frank Gorham-Engard 6/9/2009

A team may work efficiently, produce quality software as quickly as possible and still fail to guess when it will be ready (or how much of it will be ready at the end of the iteration). Failure to meet iteration goals can not be interpreted as failure to do the best job developing software. It may be interpreted as the inability to accurately predict the future. Many members of scrum teams (including the team I am Scrum Master of) pay little regard to forecasting while focusing on doing a great job developing software. While they are very willing to report what they are working on and how much more they think they need to do, the idea that...Read On

Author's Response:
6/19/2009    
Again, this column is about teams that have established a pattern of repeatedly failing to meet their iteration commitment and think that it's perfectly fine. Of course I am not expecting estimates that are correct -- they wouldn't be estimates then. Estimating is about being less wrong. But a seasoned team should know not to over-commit on a regular basis, iteration after iteration after iteration. They should be tracking the running average of their velocity, and using this to ensure that they not take on more work than they can reasonably expect to complete. And as I mentioned in the column, even when they are disciplined in this fashion, there will still be times when they will be unable to deliver on their commitment. And that's fine and normal. It's the PATTERN of consistently over-committing that I discourage.

 
Back to Top



 
Ads By Google
What's This?
 
 



About Us   |   Contact Us   |   Terms & Conditions   |   Privacy Policy   |   RSS Feed



© 2013 StickyMinds.com. All rights reserved.
PNSQC

Tricentis



Agile Development Conference & Better Software Conference West