Scrum 201: Desire

Posted on by
Reply

Any sports coach knows that the Team must have desire.

In my classes I talk to the people about how much improvement they expect to make in 1 year. With 1 team.  Often it is in the 20% range.

And I use Henry Ford’s famous quote: “Whether you think you can, or you can’t, you’re right.”  So, I usually think that 100% improvement in 1 year is realistic for a specific team.

As a coach or a SM, if they are going to achieve hyperproductivity, the Team must want it.  And, to some degree, they must believe it is possible.

So, the question becomes, how do you get them to have the desire?

This is not an easy thing. In fact, you cannot make them have desire.  But, if there is something inside them, you can draw on that.  You can blow on that ember of desire, and make it blaze.

Sometimes you can give them a challenge. To be the best team in your company, or your state.  For example. Or to be much better than they are today, and prove that with metrics.

In Lean, we have the idea, expressed in a Lexus ad, of the ‘continuous pursuit of perfection.’  So, we establish a vision of perfection. (Usually we know this vision is not perfect, or later we see it is not really perfect.  But it motivates us; it gives us something concrete that seems within our grasp.)  So, we use the vision of perfection to build the desire.

Little’s Second Law: People are remarkably good at doing what they want to do.

So, if you can help them build their desire, in a concrete way, then they can start to make the changes that can drive tremendous improvement.

Scrum 201: Team

Posted on by
Reply

We want all Scrum teams to become hyper-productive.

Why?

Well, so they can enjoy life and be satisfied.  And feel like they accomplished something.  So, in part, this requires that they reach hyperproductivity without working any extra hours.

Second, we assume that hyperproductivity also means much greater business value delivered.  This of course will not always be the case. But it should be.

What level is considered hyperproductive?  5x-10x greater than average waterfall productivity.  But we will settle for 5x-10x the teams initial baseline.  Which is usually about what they are doing the 3rd sprint.

So all teams do this? No.

Can all teams do this? No.  Although we expect all teams to try, and to make serious progress.  Meaning: We expect each team to change its firms substantially.

***

Where do we start?

I think the first thing is: Is this Scrum team a real Team?

Far too often the answer is no.

They don’t think of themselves as a Team. They don’t work as a Team. And they don’t measure Team productivity.

So, we often have to start by convincing them they are a Team.

***

Lots of the work is talk. Repeating basic ideas about Teams. Sometimes we must remove non-team players. We must add Team metrics. We must ask managers and customers to view them as a Team.  And we must show them the small successes of good teamwork. And build on that.

It is not what they say, it is how they feel and act.  First, how they feel.

Each team has its own team chemistry.  This must be built.

Once they feel like a Team, then it is easier to coach the specific actions that a Team takes to support each and be successful as a Team.

Often, many people in the Scrum team have never been on a good sports team.  Or on a good team at work. So, often, you don’t have much tacit understanding to work with.  Makes it harder.

And lots of the talk and work is on people outside the Team, who are inadvertently destroying the team, through all kinds of words and actions. You, as maybe the ScrumMaster, must change the immediate ‘culture’ to foster the Team.

Not easy. But a good place to start.

I suppose you can play Scrum without really being a Team, a real Team. But Scrum is meant to be played as a strong Team sport.  This is when you will see the real productivity, the real value.

Why should the PO attend the Daily Scrum?

Posted on by
Reply

Umm. Good question.  We partly discussed this in an earlier post.

First, the Scrum Guide (2011) does not require that the PO attend the Daily Scrum.  If you asked Jeff Sutherland is normal preference though, he would say it is probably better if the PO attended regularly.

OK, so why?

Well, first, the Team needs to know it is a Team. And the PO is part of the Team. Yes, he is different than the others. Much like a hockey goalie is different than the other skaters.  But still part of the Team.

Often the key problem is: how to get the Business Value and the detailed requirements into the Team?  It is not going perfectly yet. This is very often our biggest problem.  And it is a very hard problem. There are several ‘laws’ of software development that speak to this problem.

And the PO is key to its solution.

So, we can say that the PO comes to the Daily Scrum to hear about progress (or lack thereof).  We must be careful saying it that way. The PO has a kind of leadership role, it is true. But he is not the ‘boss’ that the Team ‘reports’ to. Or, at least, this is not the approach we want in Scrum.

We want the whole Team, including the PO to be in the same boat.  Maybe the PO is like George Washington in that famous picture, but everyone is doing things to ‘manage’ the boat toward success. And they are all ‘in this together’.

The PO could come to ‘comment’ on Team progress. Again, careful.  What do you mean by comment?  So, if the Team has a question that the PO can answer, certainly in or just after the Daily Scrum, he will ‘comment’ or answer.  But the idea is not that he gets to, in a top boss kind of way, stand above the Team and critique ‘the other guys’ (the Team).  Again, in Scrum the PO is part of the Team. They win or lose together.

Maybe the PO tells the Team the tasks they will do?  NO!  Well, even that, in a different way, we must be careful how we say it.  So, at what Scrum defines as the Task level, no the PO as such would never define and ‘force’ the tasks on the Team. In part it is because we assume the PO is normally a business person, and would not even know which tasks need doing. In part, we want the full Team to self-organize, and define their own tasks.

But, from a certain point of view, each PBI (product backlog item or story) represents work, and in a sense represents a ‘task’ for the Team. In that way, yes the PO is the person who does the final ordering of the Product Backlog. So, if the Team gets all the PBIs done that they ‘committed to’, then the PO can ‘give’ them the next PBI to work on in the Sprint.

The PO could come to determine if the Team needs help.  Umm, again, careful how you say it.  Yes, the PO could come to hear all the answers to the 3 questions. And, if something comes up where the PO could help, and that help can be provided quickly, then that could happen in the Daily Scrum. But often the discussion could be too long (bust the 15 minute time box), so the PO may only be able to identify that help is needed, and then provide the help after the Daily Scrum.

Now, who actually identifies that the help is needed? Well, it could be anyone, so the best way to say it is that the Team (including of course the PO) identifies that help is needed.  From the PO. But specifically, it can be the PO who discovers first that help is needed on a given story.

One final reason for today (for why the PO attends the Daily Scrum). The PO should give his own answers to the 3 questions. Why?  In part because he is a Team member (meaning, he is a member of the Scrum Team, not that he is doing ‘Team role’ work). By reporting to the Team, he and everyone starts to think of him more as a Team member.  By reporting to the Team, over time everyone starts to see better how integral his work is to Team success.  Yes, the PO’s work is different. Yes, his work is not as tied to the current Sprint as it is for the Implementers. But still, the whole Team needs to start to understand better how all the work is connected. (And if some is not usefully connected….well, maybe fix that.)

Could we imagine some ‘mis-understandings’ between business and technology at the beginning that could lead to some ‘awkward’ conversations?  Yes! And this is good!  Because now we as a Team will be addressing real, hard, difficult issues.

Could this conflict or tensions get out of hand?  Yes. And the SM must manage the conflict. Making it more useful rather than ‘just conflict’.

***

OK, that’s what I think. What do you think?

Latest ‘Agile Release Planning’ ebooklet

Posted on by
Reply

I am pleased to announce that I have completed a full edit of the booklet.

It covers:

* Vision
* Product Backlog
* Business Value
* Effort
* Risks, Dependencies, Learning, MMFS, and other
* Ordering the Work
* Drawing the line
* “Communications Plan”
* The Fix-It Plan
* Other things
* Release Plan Refactoring

I use these ideas in the workshop that I now do for every course. So, I know the ideas work.

And I am feeling better about how they are expressed in this booklet.

But I would appreciate your comments.  If you like it, and if you find things to be improved. Or if you have questions.

Please download the booklet here.  It is about 33 pages.

Leading Fearless Change Workshop – Apr 12th!

Posted on by
Reply

We recommend that all agile advocates and all ScrumMasters and Product Owners learn more about making change happen.

Change both in the large (changing the organization and adopting Scrum more or better) and in the small (changing to fix each impediment).

Mary Lynn Manns will be leading a 1-day workshop on change. In Charlotte. April 12th. I can hardly imagine a better way to learn about change, and how to do it better.  Nor can I imagine a more essential skill set.

For more info: http://leanagiletraining.com/ChangeWorkshop-Charlotte-1.html

Hope you can join us!

Making Change Happen

Posted on by
Reply

We must make people change, and we hope we know the direction. And we hope we know the specific changes.

In Scrum, we believe in big changes, in kaikaku.  This happens when we first implement Scrum.

And we do smaller changes, also. Kaizen.  We do them as impediment removal, for example.

Changes is easy in a way.  They must change, it is clear to you.  And your ideas are good.

But change is usually hard also. You feel like you have no power. They want to stay the same. They want to change a different way than you propose.

So, the first pattern is that you become an Evangelist.  You want to get people to change. You start with ‘Ask for Help’. Get others involved.

You want to get some traction. Use ‘Just Do It’.  And get started in a small way with your change.  You want to explain the change to more people. Use ‘Personal Touch’ to make it the change specific to those you are working with.

See more patterns and ideas in Fearless Change.  Or read here.

We cannot emphasize too much the importance of adding change upon change. Incremental change. Compounded change.  This is the way to 5x-10x improvement.

 

Selling the benefits of Scrum

Posted on by
Reply

Two other CSTs (scrum trainers) made some comments in a Google Group, which got me thinking.  They reminded me of the following exercise I normally do in my Scrum classes.

Every class is different, but imagine a class that is mixed. Some people are new to Scrum, some have a few months experience, some have 9-24 months’ of experience.

And a recent experience makes me think I should modify the exercise. A bit.  I have to say explicitly: “If change is going to happen, you must ‘sell’ Scrum. In some sense of the word sell.”

I show a slide listing all the benefits of scrum.  ‘More Fun’ being one of the big benefits. In all, 6 or 7 benefits…

I then ask the class:
‘I need an estimate from you. Each of you.  A single rough percentage.  On average across all these factors.
If on Monday you start with one team, maybe your real team, and you get to work with them for 1 year, after all that you learn in this course and your hard work in applying it over 1 year, in removing impediments over a year — how much better will the Team be, after one year?
Using whatever weighting you want to use on these (pointing to the slide) 6 or 7 success factors.
So, George (first person) what is your number?’

And then I go around the room.

I get a wide range, sometimes.  Usually a bunch of low numbers.  0% (rarely), 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%…sometimes 80%, 100%, 150%, 200% (rarely).  As you might guess, almost always many more low numbers than high numbers.

Usually I end that segment with the Henry Ford quote: “Whether you think you can or you can’t, you’re right.”

***
In the past, I have been asked to ‘sell’ in several different contexts. And it has usually made me uncomfortable.  So, why am I asking us all to sell now?

It is simple. Change makes people uncomfortable. Unless they see a real reason to change, they will not change.  For example, the company culture will not change.

So, to get change to happen you must ‘sell’. In some sense of the word. And sell in a compelling way.

Now, I know from experience that the benefits of doing Scrum properly are tremendous. So, obviously, we want everyone to experience those benefits. But it starts, as John Kotter says, with a sense of urgency.  And that means we, who understand Scrum, must be continually ‘selling’.

Now, selling to me does not mean: fakery, lying, exaggerating, forcing people to listen, etc, etc.  By ‘selling’ I mean giving people a chance to have, or to have again, that sense of urgency for the change.

Blue pill and Red pill

Posted on by
Reply

In a class in Romania, a participant asked me: “don’t you think you are setting false expectations? Scrum may help but it will not help that much. This sets false expectations and disappoints people.”

Good comments. Good concerns. But I don’t agree that we are setting false expectations, although I think these issues must be addressed.

As background, I said that we want each team to increase their productivity by 5 to 10 times. And we want that by working normal, sustainable pace. And with everyone (as far as possible) having more fun. And we want to double productivity in 6-12 months.

Now, this assumes that we get aggressive about removing impediments. Creative in identifying them. That we make a good business case for many of them. That we act rigorously and professionally. And that the managers and the firm permit us to fix things, if we make a reasonable business case.

I admit these the managers often don’t let us fix enough impediments.  Sometimes almost none.  But usually the biggest problems are elsewhere.

So, if someone has managers who won’t let us fix impediments readily (and yes this situation exists in the real world some), I still expect them to try to fix things. Yes, it will be harder, and maybe it will be hard to double productivity.

And I think a lot of ‘bad’ managers are just decent people and they just need someone smart like you to help them see the light.

As another partial answer to his question…

It helps to tell the truth even when it is hard. And I think adults should not lose heart even when things aren’t good and the path forward is unclear. In other words, adults should not get discouraged.

Scrum does not believe in taking the Blue pill.

For those who have not seen the Matrix movie in a while, let me remind you. The Red pill means that you can see the truth, and it is painful and hard, but you have a chance at freedom.  And a chance to fix things.  The Blue pill gives you ‘happiness’ as the Matrix would like you to see it, with a blue filter.  But it is false and it is not the truth you are seeing. And freedom is not possible. You give up freedom for a false ‘happiness.’

So, people can and do complain that Scrum makes them see bad things. And, so far, Scrum compared to waterfall, does do that.  You do see more ‘bad’ things using Scrum.  Because Scrum makes them visible (not because Scrum causes them to exist).

Except that seeing the truth makes it easier to fix things.

The next thing to say is that Scrum, after everything, is still more fun than waterfall.  Well, if they play real Scrum.

Change: “You miss 100% of the shots you never take.”

Posted on by
3

This is a quote by Wayne Gretzky.
I am flying to Canada now. And I like hockey.

Today the quote reminds me of how hard change is.

To make any change happen in an organization is hard.  Takes a lot of energy.  Takes a willingness to miss a shot, to make a mistake, as Gretzky says.  That takes guts.  Most people don’t have guts for things they don’t really really care about.

Why is it so hard?

First, I think organizations are mainly there to remain ‘static’.  A company is there to preserve the situation.  Yes, yes, of course any corporation is building things or providing services for its customers.  So, a kind of change is happening all the time.

But the main idea of the corporation is to assure that the basics are there every day.  Regular, unchanging.  The building is there, its warm (or cool), the lights are on, the processes are known, you know who to go to, etc, etc.  The same.  Every day.  Despite all the other things in the world that are changing.

And people want that.  They need that stability.

Second.  While people actually like some change, some degree of variety, still…

Still they don’t want to be changed.  They don’t want to be the helpless pawn of some brilliant change that I (the great and wonderful Oz) am bringing them.  No one wants to be a helpless pawn.

Also, there is too much change these days.  People are tired of it.  Why was everything stupid yesterday, and today, again for the 1000th time, we must change everything?  Too much (damn) change!  Stop it!

And you can feel this yourself, and see that it ties back also to that helplessness.

Still, people like change, they believe in improving their situation.  So, if you can tie your idea to that inner feeling of progress, then they will want the change.  Want it, at least to some degree.

Third, politics.

By this I mean the messiness of dealing with people in groups.  The hierarchy, the power, the games. So, with any change, we must ‘play politics’ to some degree. Very bothersome for most of us.

So, where am I going with this?

To this idea: That one must be very motivated if one is going to start to make a significant change in a company (or any organization).  Very motivated.  Otherwise, one is easily stopped by all the barriers to change.

Kotter calls this motivation a sense of urgency.

***
I recently had an in-house class.  And I was teaching them Scrum.

And most in this class found some aspects of it ‘impossible’.  Meaning, that most of them did not think they could get the culture in their company to change that much.

My initial reaction was an inner anger (not shown outwardly).  Anger that they in effect wanted me to change Scrum.  Anger that these very talented people would let so much potentially good change go by, ‘merely’ because they thought that such as change was ‘impossible’.  I say this in part because I know that people — less talented than these people are — have made this kind of change happen. And against odds equally as great.

But, looking back, anger is not good. And also not appropriate.  They don’t owe it to me to change.  And my getting angry that they can’t see the benefits and push through to get them, for themselves, my being angry about that, well, it is sweet and all, that I want them to have a better life, but also kind of silly.

Now, later I am reading Fearless Change by Mary Lynn Manns and Linda Rising.  One of the change patterns in the book is Personal Touch.  I start reading that pattern.

Aha!

I got two big flashes of insight.

First, most of the people in that group do not value the change in the way I do.  And they have no reason to.  They had no experience of its real success.  To them, it was just ‘Joe talking’ — maybe sounds good, but no inner conviction yet.

Secondly, every one is different.  One has to explain the change to each person, slowly, and help them come to see that it will benefit them (or even, that it has benefited them).

So, once you have helped someone care enough, gotten through to them in some unique way, then you will see someone who will make change happen.

Someone who will take many shots, and happily miss many.  Knowing that eventually they will win the game.

We band of brothers

Posted on by
Reply

“We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.”  A great speech did Shakespeare write.

Here it is explained. The leadership in the real field of battle, against great odds.  You may find this interesting as well.

Here it is enacted. Kenneth Branagh. You may wish to go to about 2 mins 20 secs in.

A bit later King Henry speaks:

We are but warriors for the working-day;
Our gayness and our gilt are all besmirch’d
With rainy marching in the painful field;
…

And time hath worn us into slovenry:
But, by the mass, our hearts are in the trim;

You may perhaps recognize yourself in this situation: that time hath worn you down, yet still your heart is in the trim.

Enjoy!

And may your Team have its heart half so much in the trim.