Common Misconceptions and Negative Implications

·        It is a common practice for a Product Owner to come up with a set of requirements in the Sprint Planning and disappear during the Sprint. Then appear directly at the Sprint Review forum and conduct the review of the Developers work during the Sprint Review.

·        By doing this, an important opportunity of giving feedback continuously is lost. The feedback becomes a big-bang-end-of-the-sprint activity

·        Since Product Owner is seeing the product first time during the Sprint Review, it can become difficult to take feedback from stakeholders

·        If Product Owner brings along the stakeholders to do a Sprint Review, the Product Owner ends up acting like the “Other party” and does not build confidence in the team doing the work

• When the Product Owner sees the newly increment only at review time, Sprint Review becomes a gate that holds back value from reaching the users. When the Product Owner sees the increment during Sprint an opportunity is created to release value earlier

Recommendations

·        The Product Owner owns the product. Therefore, it is important for the Product Owner to participate in the product development continuously and constantly provide feedback.

·        The Product Owner has to build confidence with the Developers. Developers being left alone is not a great idea. The Product Owner should not behave like an outsider and should not sit on the other side of the table. Once the Product Owner wears the “Product Owner Hat”, he/she is first part of the Scrum Team and then part of the Customer or Client or Stakeholder team

·        Developers must not fear the Product Owner. Feedback is not a cause for worry. Feedback is good. The earlier you receive the feedback, the better it is for the Product

·        Typical steps in the Sprint Review that are seen useful by many teams could be as below

o   The Product Owner should invite the relevant stakeholders for a Sprint Review

o   During the Sprint Review forum, the Product Owner should sit with the Developers

o   The Product Owner should thank the Developers in front of the stakeholders for the work done

o   The Product Owner should take ownership of the product during the Sprint Review and collaborate with stakeholders to make it a working session

o   During the Sprint Review, the feedback should be from Stakeholders and not from the PO. The PO feedback is assumed to have been taken already during the Sprint

o   The stakeholders and Product Owner should think about the next steps based on market place conditions and make adjustments to the Product Backlog

Conclusions

·        Sprint Review should be a working session between entire Scrum Team and Stakeholders

·        Product Owner should be reviewing the product with stakeholders with help of the Developers

·        Product Owner should have provided feedback to the developers continuously throughout the Sprint and should not be seeing the product first time during the Sprint Review

The post Myth – Sprint Review being the review of the Developers done by Product Owner appeared first on World Of Agile.

It is a common mis-conception that Scrum is only useful for small projects.

The real fact is that Scrum is used for solving complex problems. Complex problem is a problem where there are “unknowns” about requirements or the solution.

For solving complex problems, the decisions have to be taken based on what has been done in the recent past. It is extremely difficult to base your decisions based on long-term assumptions. This way of solving problems is called Empiricism or Empirical process control. Scrum is a framework based on Empirical Process Control Theory and therefore, used for solving complex problems.

A complex problem may be big or small. Therefore, the size of the problem has nothing to do with usage of Scrum or other frameworks/methods. A few examples of massive complex problems

• Merger or separation of a bank – When two banks merge or separate, there are a lot of unknown factors on the products in the resultant merged or separated bank. For example, one bank may be a risk-taking bank have an investment product based on a mix of equity, commodities, and derivatives, whereas, second bank might have a more conservative approach based on fixed-deposits, company-fixed-deposits of blue-chip companies and debt market involving only government securities. Now what would be the product applicable for the new merged bank? Would both products be offered by the new bank or would they be another combination product, or if the merged bank carries the image of the conservative bank then should it even offer the risky product? There are a lot of unknowns here. Would the image of a new merged bank be conservative or risk taking? Would the customers of the risk-taking bank accept the conservative products? Would the customers of the conservative bank accept the risky products or accept a risky profile of the new merged bank? This is an example of an unknown scenario. Unless things are tried out, there is no way you could take decisions. As a business, you may try various combinations, but the answers are possible only after trying different products and taking feedback from customers.
• Development of a medicine or vaccine for an unpredictable disease – The whole world grappled with the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. The solution to solve this problem was two-fold – either develop a vaccine to prevent the disease or develop a medicine to kill the virus if anyone gets infected. Both were big unknowns. How the infections spread was unpredictable and also how the disease affects the patients was also unpredictable. Scientists and researchers had no option but to use the trial-and-error approach based on the past knowledge of various viruses. However, the majority of the decisions were based on what was the result of the trails done on various animals and eventually on human beings. Again a complex problem where decision can only be taken based on what has been done in the recent past. The decisions cannot be taken based on long-term planning.

Naturally, the approach for solving these kinds of problems is to shorten your planning horizons, try out things, if things do not work then try something else, if things work then try something else to make the solution stronger. So isn’t Scrum a way of solving such problems? Scrum shortens the planning horizon to maximum one month, then uses the inspect-adapt cycles (at the bare-minimum) through Sprint Reviews, Daily Scrums and Sprint Planning. The implementation of the Product Backlog is in-fact a way of adapting the requirements as you move forward and as more is known about the problem you are solving.

Therefore, it is a myth that Scrum is for small projects.

Conclusion

The size of the project has nothing to do with the use of Scrum or not.

• Scrum is based on Empirical Process Control Theory.  Empiricism asserts that knowledge comes from experience and making decisions based on what is observed.
• Scrum combines four formal events (Sprint Planning, Daily Scrum, Sprint Review and Sprint Retrospective within a containing event, the Sprint) and three Artifacts (Product Backlog, Sprint Backlog and Increment) to implement empiricism. These events work because they implement the empiricism pillars of transparency, inspection, and adaptation.
• Thus, Scrum is being used for solving complex problems (unknown requirements or unknown solutions) for small as well as large projects where constant inspection and adaptation is necessary and decisions have to be taken based on what is observed. Scrum Team observes what is happening based on the feedback received and adapts to the changes.

The post Myth about Scrum only being useful for small projects appeared first on World Of Agile.

Common Misconceptions and negative implications

Some teams treat the Sprint Backlog as just a smaller version of the bigger plan (Product Backlog) and start creating baselined Sprint Backlogs for multiple future Sprints. The negative implication of this practice is that the “Inspect and Adapt” cannot happen. This becomes just disguising the waterfall and calling it Scrum.

Recommendations

• There should only be one Sprint Backlog. This represents the forecast for the current Sprint. At the end of the Sprint, the Sprint Backlog is emptied. All remaining items are taken back to the Product Backlog. All completed and done items are taken into Increment. The reason why this is done this way is to give opportunity to the Product Backlog to be re-ordered if needed.
• It is possible that the Product Backlog item changes the order since there might be change of business priorities. If the Sprint Backlog is baselined for multiple sprints at the start then an important opportunity for inspection and adaptation is lost.
• The discussions in the Sprint Planning result into a new Sprint Backlog based on the business objective to be achieved this Sprint. Even during the sprint, the Sprint Backlog emerges – more details get added and new things get clarified.
• To see how to handle changes in scrum please click here

The post Myth about creating multiple Sprint Backlogs before first sprint starts appeared first on World Of Agile.

Common Misconceptions and negative implications

Most teams implement Sprint Planning as three parts – Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3. The Product Owner comes in part 1 and 2, helps with setup of the Sprint Goal (WHY) selection of functionality (WHAT) and then the Developers sits and thinks over the technical (HOW) during the Part 2 of the sprint planning. The implication of this is that PO then does not get involved in the detailing and the road-blocks that team faces and technical feasibility problems that result during the Part 3 becomes a back-and-forth discussion between PO and Developers. This obviously results in a loss of productivity.

Recommendations

• The whole Sprint Planning process is an iterative, incremental and collaborative process and therefore there are three Topics and not three Parts to the meeting.
• First topic – WHY – is the business objective
• Second topic – WHAT – is the selection of the Product Backlog Items which may help achieve the goal. So, it is forecasting what items should be part of this Sprint. The scrum team should self manage and pickup items that they think they will be able to deliver in the Sprint.
• Third Topic – HOW – is the discussion of details and feasibility of the items and the help required from Scrum Master or Product Owner to get this done.
• So, you can consider the WHAT and HOW are iterative in nature where the HOW revolves around the WHAT and joint discussions are necessary. There are possible considerations that may happen to the WHAT because of the HOW. Technicalities do influence to a large extent on WHAT can be done and what cannot.
• The Sprint Planning Event can end with a decision on THE WHY – Sprint Goal, a forecast of WHAT needs to be done and the HOW for at-least a few things to be done over the next few days. However, the Sprint Planning PROCESS does not end with Sprint Planning EVENT. The Product Owner and Developers keep doing the discussion on the two topics – WHAT and HOW throughout the Sprint. Many-a-times, the teams do these detailed discussions on the HOW for the WHATs after daily scrums on the plan for next 24-48 hours.

So, my recommendation is not to call the Sprint Planning as Part1, Part2 and Part3 but iterative, incremental and collaborative process of Topic1, Topic2 and Topic3 which starts with Sprint Planning and continues throughout the Sprint.

The post Myth about Sprint Planning consisting of three parts Part1, Part2, Part3 vs Topic1, Topic2, Topic3 appeared first on World Of Agile.

Common Misconceptions and negative implications

Sprint Review is thought to be a “sign-off event by the Product Owner” or “a demo forum by developers” by most organizations. This is an INCORRECT understanding of the Sprint Review.

Sprint Review is actually a feedback solicitation forum. The Scrum Team seek feedback from the stakeholders during the Sprint Review. This helps address the deviations. The Product Owner and Developers work together on a day-to-day basis. The Product Owner DOES NOT wait till the end of the sprint to give feedback to the Developers.

Recommendations

• Product Owner needs to participate during the Sprint and provide feedback throughout the Sprint to the team. This gives an opportunity to the team to work on the feedback by the PO and adapt if required. This also gives opportunity for the PO to get the product ready by the time the Sprint ends.
• Product Increment is considered as an INPUT into the Sprint Review and not an output as thought by many people. Therefore, sign offs (if any) have to be done before the Sprint Review starts. Also the sign-off – if anyone has to do – it has to be the Product Owner. That’s why the word “Owner”.
• When the Sprint Review starts, the Product Owner and Developers have to be in sync with what is being shown to the stakeholders. If both the roles are in sync, then Sprint Review becomes an excellent opportunity to solicit feedback from stakeholders – who could be sales teams, marketing teams, sponsors, end-user representatives etc.
• If one wants to use the word “Demo”, then my recommendation is to use the word during the Sprint when Developers demos the product continuously and seeks feedback from the PO. Demo should be ongoing and day-to-day where-as the Sprint Review is the minimum opportunity to solicit feedback from stakeholders.
• Some may argue that getting Increment is impossible considering that stakeholder feedback happens in a Sprint Review. What we really recommend is that Sprint Review should be a “minimum” forum to seek feedback from stakeholders. Scrum does not stop you from getting more feedback from stakeholders during the Sprint.
• The objective of the Sprint is to get a “usable” Increment at the end of the Sprint. This is possible if feedback is taken frequently from stakeholders – at a bare minimum during the Sprint Review. The Product Owner feedback should be day-to-day

Sprint Review therefore, is an informal opportunity for the Scrum Team to solicit feedback from stakeholders and make sure that the deviations are addressed.

The post Myth about Sprint Review being a sign-off event or a demo forum appeared first on World Of Agile.

Common Misconceptions and negative implications

Most organizations and Agile experts implement Sprint Length as a fixed length baselined at the time of writing a SoW or a contract.

Recommendations

• Scrum Guide recommendation is to keep the Sprint Length “Consistent”. Scrum Guide does NOT recommend a “Fixed” Sprint Length. We can change Sprint Length if there are negative implications being caused because of incorrect Sprint Lengths.
• Considerations for changing the Sprint Lengths
• Changing Longer Sprint Lengths to shorter Sprint Lengths (say 4 weeks to 2 week)
  • The scope keeps changing during the Sprint and Sprint Backlog becomes a mess. What we started off at the time of Sprint Planning and what we ended up in a Sprint Review is drastically different
  • Teams develop a “student syndrome”. Means – team takes it easy for the first couple of weeks. Then goes for a dash to the finish. The team then ends up working 18 hour days for last 2-3 days
  • The feedback is so drastic each Sprint Review that you need to re-work the whole thing. Think about the Sprint Length if this happens frequently.
  • Teams and PO don’t speak to PO often and communication breaks down resulting in no or minimal feedback during the Sprint.
• Changing Short Sprint Lengths to Longer Sprint Lengths (say 1 week to 4 week)
  • Teams come under a huge stress. Deliverable every Friday is not easy. The stress levels take a toll and teams get sick of the stress.
  • Innovation goes down with very short sprint lengths. Teams become very “short-term” focussed.
  • Dividing items into smaller units becomes difficult. Beyond a point, breakdown of Product Backlog Items becomes a formality/academic rather than a real need.
  • Spilled-over work to next Sprint becomes common with very short sprint lengths. Teams are unable to create something useful.
  • Motivation goes down because of stress levels or not being able to get the Sprint to produce something usable every Sprint or stakeholders constantly feeling upset about not being able to complete.
• DISCLAIMERS SO THAT YOU DON’T MIS-UNDERSTAND OUR STATEMENTS ABOVE
  • DO NOT keep changing the Sprint Lengths often. Try a Sprint Length, see if it works. If it does not work, then change. Once you find a length which is solving most of the problems, then stick with it. Be CONSISTENT. Being able to change the Sprint Length does not mean you become random and chaotic in the way you work.
  • DO NOT think that there is a “PERFECT Sprint Length”. There can never be a “Perfect Sprint Length”. See what Sprint Length solves “MOST” of your issues.
  • DO NOT change the Sprint Length when you are inside the Sprint. Just because you are not completing a Scope, does not mean, you change the Sprint Length by extending it. Sprint ends when a Timebox ends. You may think about changing the Sprint Length from the next sprint onwards.

The post Myth about baselining the Sprint Lengths at the start of the project and never changing it appeared first on World Of Agile.

Common Misconceptions and negative implications

Most leadership and product owners feel that Developers has to commit to a scope during the Sprint Planning. That is, most leadership try to implement the concept of “baseline scope” for the Sprint.

• By doing this, it prevents opportunities for inspection and adaptation during the sprint.
• Team gets “locked” into delivering baselined scope instead of trying to find out if they are going in the right direction or wrong.
• Critical opportunity to inspect and adapt is then lost and deviation is detected during the Sprint review.
• Then starts the discussions on “change requests”, “sign offs”, “not being able to give scope properly”When the Developers yields to pressure of delivering baselined scope, the team comes under pressure and naturally working hours increase. More dissatisfaction results.

Recommendations

• At the time of Sprint Planning meeting make only a forecast instead of commitment. One should have an openness to change if the need be instead of making the team commit.
• Adapting quickly helps one get more closer to what is required to be done really.
• Once an attitude develops with the team that “we are adaptable” and “not everything needs to be done as per forecast” teams become more receptive to the change.
• Sprint Backlog always evolves – and let it evolve. The whole point why we are doing Scrum is because of the “unknown” nature of the work.
• The reason the teams are reluctant to accept changes in the Sprint Backlog is because they are asked to work late and deliver the commitment and at the same time accept all last-minute changes. One must remember that there is always a cost of the change. However, the cost of the change is taken in terms of a Scope compromise in Scrum. That means if the Sprint backlog changes, something in the Sprint Backlog may have to be pushed to the next sprint or later.
• One must remember that while the Sprint Backlog evolves, does not mean we are random and chaotic in our way of work. We are handling changes. We are not in Chaos. That means, if the changes are big, and big changes are happening frequently then it is time to either look at how we are gathering our requirements or if the Sprint Lengths are to be shortened.
• To see how to handle changes in scrum please click here

The post Myth about Sprint Backlog being a commitment appeared first on World Of Agile.

At the beginning of the sprint cycle , a “Sprint planning meeting” is held.

• Creating a objective to the Sprint – The Sprint Goal
• Create a Sprint Backlog by selecting what work is to be done

There are 3 TOPICS in the Sprint Planning Event

• TOPIC 1 – WHY – Entire Scrum Team discusses on the objective for the Sprint
• TOPIC 2 – WHAT – Entire team selects the part of the Product Backlog which should go as part of this Sprint. This may be based on the past performance of the team.
• TOPIC 3 – HOW – Details of the plan on how things need to be done is decided in the third topic. This is primarily done by the Developers.

Product Owner and Sprint Planning Meeting

In Scrum, the sprint planning meeting is attended by the entire Scrum team. Outside stakeholders may be invited based on the need. Outsiders may include SMEs on business side or technical side.

During the sprint planning meeting, the product owner describes the highest priority features to the team which may help achieve the business objective. The team clears the doubts that they have and creates the plan for the Sprint.

Product Owner should ensure that enough discussions are done on Product Backlog items even before coming to the Sprint Planning event. Generally, the Sprint Planning should be used for clarifying enough details so that the plan for the Sprint can be prepared quickly.

The Product Owner’s is accountable for coming up with a business objective based on which a sprint goal is crafted by the Scrum Team. Sprint Goal is a short, one- or two-sentence, description of what the team plans to achieve during the sprint. It is written collaboratively by the team and the product owner. Sprint Goal gives a little bit of flexibility to the Scrum Team to do the work.

The following are example sprint goals on an eCommerce application:

• Integration of 2-3 payment engines in the e-Commerce site
• Develop a shopping cart to checkout and ship items
• Develop a login functionality for e-Commerce site

Click Here to Watch our video on Inputs to Sprint Planning

For myths around Sprint Planning, refer to following articles

• Myth about Sprint Planning consisting of three parts Part1, Part2, Part3 vs Topic1, Topic2, Topic3
• How to split user stories

The post Sprint Planning appeared first on World Of Agile.

Scrum Events are mandatory opportunities given by Scrum to Inspect and Adapt. The reason they are mandatory is that Scrum is a inspect-adapt way of solving complex adaptive problems. If we do not use the minimum opportunities then a fundamental aspect of Scrum is compromised. These events are specifically designed to enable critical transparency and inspection. Failure to include any of these events results in reduced transparency and is a lost opportunity to inspect and adapt.

Scrum Events create regularity and minimize the need for meetings not defined in Scrum. All events are time-boxed events, such that every event has a maximum duration. Once a Sprint begins, its duration is fixed and cannot be shortened or lengthened. The remaining events may end whenever the purpose of the event is achieved, ensuring an appropriate amount of time is spent without allowing waste in the process.

There are 5 Events in Scrum

• Sprint – which is container of all the other events
• Sprint Planning
• Daily Scrum
• Sprint Review
• Sprint Retrospective

Following is the summarization of all events

The post Scrum Events appeared first on World Of Agile.