Ken Schwaber on ScrumBut
March 4, 2010Ken, as you probably know, is one of the founders of Scrum, the methodology. In recent months we have seen an exponential increase in articles (or, blog entries I should say) that criticize Scrum in a big way, and hold it responsible for the woes of the world.
First, let me say, dear reader, in case you’ve never worked outside of the game/software industry: there hasn’t been a management process in history that hasn’t been torn down and spat on. Every new idea ends up being seen as a management fad or consultant’s slot machine. What is presented as an evolutionary business idea – and usually backed up by a great success story – tends to spread like wildfire, and every company and their dogs rush to implement it with little thought to the consequences. Because they too want to see the benefits nudge their bottom line (up, preferably). Because, if it worked for them, surely it will work for us, right?
Er… no. A process is a process. It’s not a magic spell or a wish granted by the tooth-fairy. Every new process that you implement will face the reality of every organisation: that it is made of people. People are complex, and the way they interact are even more complex. And when that interaction needs to be funnelled to successfully meet complex challenges (and game development certainly fits that category), you need to seriously address the whole system, and not the process.
One of the important points that Ken makes (and has made time and again in the past) is that Scrum is, just like a photographic developer, great at revealing the things that are broken or inefficient in an organization. And folks, let’s not kid ourselves: most organizations are dysfunctional.
Which brings me back to the key problem here. Nobody, and especially a company’s management, likes to hear the bad news. And like any system where you try to introduce change, its first response is usually to oppose that change. This we know from the study of system dynamics. And system dynamics also tells us that in many cases, if you want to make a lasting and positive change to a system, a worse-before-better behaviour is to be expected. Do you know many organizations that are willing to accept that cost? I don’t.
So there you have it: very few organizations have what it takes to withstand the pressure of moving from the old ways to scrum. Those that are willing to make the necessary and often painful adjustments will reap the benefits. The others will stumble along, unable to tap into the greater potential that is available.
Whilst on the subject of scrum, there’s another important idea that needs to be driven home to organizations that take on the scrum challenge: it is that there is no end state when transitioning to agile.
Bon vent, et bonne route.
PS: in case you’re wondering, I’m not suggesting that scrum is the only path to enlightenment. There is no only way. And if what works for you (including waterfall) enables you to successfully run your business, don’t mess with it. What I mentioned above about organizations still holds true, irrespective of what process you’re using.
PPS: What, sometimes I switch from British English to American English? Yep, I sure do, I hope you can forgive me ^_^
