Al Shalloway’s Post

Improving Scrum by Attending to Flow, not Merely Using It Preset approaches often lead to a lack of “fit for purpose” Without a theory explaining why and how to improve delivery of value, one can only attend to practices. This is a slow process. “Theory without practices is useless. Practice without theory is expensive” paraphrase of E. Deming Creating a way to make choices does not need to create complexity in the approach. Those who say otherwise just haven’t figured out a way to do it. Learning how to do this also prepares you to continuously improve. Since our goal is to shorten the time from request to realization of value, we should attend to the entire value stream. Scrum is mostly based on cross-functional teams and time-boxing. This is good and results in: • Fewer handoffs, handbacks and delays in workflow • Smaller work items • Frequent finished work product • Avoiding workload beyond capacity These are core principles of flow. This is good because these all help eliminate the creation of waste. Attending to achieving these results directly is more effective than trying to follow Scrum’s practices because doing so keeps your eye on the target, creates awareness for alternative practices and avoids the risk that the framework's practices are not fit for purpose

"Creating a way to make choices does not need to create complexity in the approach. Those who say otherwise just haven’t figured out a way to do it. Learning how to do this also prepares you to continuously improve." Sounds like standard customisations or customisable modules. And the fun begins.

Like
Reply
Paul Oldfield

Team Member at WorkNest Ltd

3y

As always, it is the *understanding* that makes the difference. Following a process by rote might (or might not) produce results. Where what's needed changes over time, the process must either adapt over time and do so in a timely manner, or must be sufficiently robust that the existing process covers all likely cases. Realistically, this is why we favour people over process. Get people who understand, and they can adapt how they work as the need arises without having a process so robust that it can cover all cases without adaptation. Having said that, then yes we need to think about the whole value stream. I'd put the goal slightly differently; say perhaps "to deliver more value sooner"... but that's a side issue. So yes I very much agree "Attending to achieving these results directly is more effective than trying to follow [specific] practices...". It does, however, require a degree of understanding that isn't necessarily available on a team. But the obvious fix is to grow the understanding.

See more comments

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics