Help!!! My Sprint Review is Out of Control!

A past co-worker reach out distressed about their Sprint Review meetings running amuck. Too many participants, topics, and tangents dropped the value of the meeting down to zero. Clearly, the Scrum Master must get the meeting refocused, but what’s the best way to do that?

National Library of Ireland - Flickr

National Library of Ireland – Flickr

This team operates in a plan, build, and run model. In other words, there are people responsible for planning, people responsible for development, and people responsible for support. A problem with this model is the cost of transitioning work between the 3 teams.

In an attempt to lower the cost of the handoff, the build team (scrum team) decided to incorporate the transfer to the support team (run) during their Sprint Review meeting.

Not surprisingly, the participants in the Sprint Review meeting increased and the build team now struggles to complete the support transition in the 4 hour time box (4 week Sprints), let alone the actual activities that are supposed to be completed during a Sprint Review meeting.

From the Scrum Guide:

During the Sprint Review, the Scrum Team and stakeholders collaborate about what was done in the Sprint. Based on that and any changes to the Product Backlog during the Sprint, attendees collaborate on the next things that could be done to optimize value. This is an informal meeting, not a status meeting, and the presentation of the Increment is intended to elicit feedback and foster collaboration.

This means that the build team is not properly reviewing the current increment of software. They are not adjusting the product backlog to optimize the potential value of the next Sprint. And they are not collaborating with the product owner to get aligned for the next Sprint Planning session.

To solve this problem, the build team should add transitioning support of the new feature/story/bug fix to their Definition of Done. There are 3 clear benefits to moving the cost of this activity from the Sprint Review Meeting to the overall Sprint.

  1. Impact of the requirement will show in the team’s velocity. The build team should estimate their work knowing that transitioning the feature to the support team is part of the effort. This ensure that the cost of the process is known and can be discussed in real terms.
  2. Impact of the requirement will show in the value delivered. Similar to the value benefit, knowing the impact to amount of value a team can deliver in a sprint is another metric that can help guide better decision making and operational practices.
  3. The value of the requirement can be discussed in terms of impact to the organization. Having metrics replaces emotional conversations. Rather than argue that a transition meeting has zero value, the team can discuss the merits of the system in terms of value.

Perhaps most important of all is that the build team gets their Sprint Review meeting back. This meeting is critical for getting the team ready for the next Sprint and to ensure that product backlog is optimized and ready to be used in the next Sprint Planning meeting.

Bad Agile Management Burns Scrum Teams

Last month Giles Bowkett wrote a scathing blog post about scrum called: Why Scrum Should Basically Just Die in a Fire. It’s a provocative article that shows how damaging bad agile and scrum can be to a team.

Ms. Glaze | Flame | Flickr

Ms. Glaze | Flame | Flickr

I’m not going to go point by point and argue with Mr. Bowkett about his experiences with scrum. They are his experiences, and they are truly awful. I have sympathy for him and those who have been burned by a botched agile transformation.

With waterfall, teams know what they are signing up for at the start of a project. They know there will be problems and that a death march is likely. They also know that the date set at the beginning of the project is likely wrong, but still they soldier on.

But with agile and scrum it’s supposed to be different. The agile manifesto is a developer play aimed at making the lives of engineers better. Scrum specifically puts the team in control of how they accomplish their work. Everything should be great.

But often, it isn’t.

Mr. Bowkett makes this point by calling out many common scrum anti-patterns that he has experienced:

These are all valid – and unfortunately common – problems on scrum teams. However, the conclusion that he draws from the existence of these problems misses the mark.

In other words, in its best-case scenario, Scrum’s a dog-and-pony show. But that best-case scenario is rare. In the much more common case, Scrum covers up the inability to recruit (or even recognize) engineering talent, which is currently one of the most valuable things in the world, with a process for managing engineers as if they were cogs in a machine, all of equal value.

Rather than cover up individual inabilities, scrum exposes the bad practices of organizations. Quickly. Work becomes transparent, impediments become obvious, and old practices become extra painful.

The culprit here are manager who thought they were getting hyper-productivity for free. They want the benefits of scrum, without having to change.

Mr. Bowkett’s problem is with lousy managers, not scrum.

The agile community is also partially to blame. The tendency is to focus coaching and training on the scrum team. But it is the management team members that we need to be working on the most. Bad scrum cannot take root in an organization that embraces the scrum values from the top down.

Part of embracing the scrum values is accepting the twelve principles of agile from the agile manifesto, which Mr. Bowkett also railed against.

I don’t think highly of Scrum, but the problem here goes deeper. The Agile Manifesto is flawed too. Consider this core principle of Agile development: “business people and developers must work together.” Why are we supposed to think developers are not business people?

We’re not. The intent of this agile principle is the end the “us vs them” mentality between IT and “the business”. With Scrum, the expectation is that the product owner is co-located with the development team and available to answer questions about the product backlog items.

This isn’t a slight against the business acumen of developers. It’s a call for close collaboration between stakeholders and engineers. How else can the development team know if they are working on the most valuable features for the business?

Question: Have you been a part of a poor agile transformation? What went wrong? How could things have gone better? You can leave a comment by clicking here.

Scrum Master is a Title, Servant Leadership is a Mindset

If a person believes that carrots and sticks lead to productivity, no 2-day class and a certificate on the wall can change that. But those who seek to empower people and teams can become great scrum masters and servant leaders.

Unknown | Team | Flickr

Unknown | Team | Flickr

In the comments section of my post “Help! The Scrum Master is the Impediment”, Darko asked that I cover servant leadership. Darko seems to also have experience with a scrum master who does not behave well and asked some great questions about the role:

  1. What is a servant leader?
  2. How does a scrum master serve their team as opposed to directing it?
  3. Where in practice does the scrum master meet their servant role – can you give concrete examples?

What is a servant leader?

The term servant leader came about in an essay by Robert Greenleaf title “The Servant as Leader”. In his essay, Greenleaf described a servant leader as “one who makes sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served.

He offered these question as a litmus test to servant leadership:  “Do those served grow as persons? Do they while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants?

How does a scrum master serve their team as opposed to directing it?

The change in mindset necessary to become a servant leader is incredibly hard for a scrum master who comes from command and control background. There are a few changes in thinking that can help with this transition:

  • Favor self-organization:  Don’t make decisions for the team or assign their work, ask them how they will tackle the next sprint goal. And trust them to follow through.
  • Enable self-management:   Scrum teams self-manage their work and their practices. Rather than dictate how the team will deliver value back to their business partners, work to remove the organizational barriers to their success.
  • Let teams fail:  This is more difficult than it seems. Allowing a team to “fail” and learn important lesson that will pay off down the road is difficult. But sometimes it is necessary for the growth of the scrum team. When this does happen…
  • Provide cover for your team:  Your company/organization/business will not initially understand how your scrum team works. Coach up through the management chain so that “failure” and other experiments by the scrum team are encouraged, not punished.

Daniel Pink’s book “Drive” gives insights in to what motivates people and is the best argument against command and control that I’ve ever read. This is the book that project managers making the transition to scrum master should read – and then apply the lessons to their scrum teams.

Where in practice does the scrum master meet their servant role – can you give concrete examples?

A servant leadership minded scrum master should be a servant to their team every day. By challenging the team with a probing question during a sprint retrospective or by recommending a  fist of five check to get everyone involved in a discussion, scrum masters are constantly on the lookout for opportunities to apply their servant role.

I remember a particular situation as a scrum master where I had to work with a design manager who was against scrum and agile. He insisted on design reviews prior to any code being written and would mandate technical solutions that the scrum team did not agree with.

I was obligated by my role to try to coach this person in order to make sure that the scrum team was empowered to manage their work – within the bounds of accepted corporate standards. The discussions were tense and difficult. But the team came first. Eventually, we were able to work out modified design rules for scrum teams and we went on to have many successful sprints.

Situations like that are risky. I was dealing with a member of the management team and had to walk a very fine line in order to help the scrum team and keep my job. Ken Schwaber’s warning was constantly on my mind: A dead scrum master is a useless scrum master.

But things did – and tend to – work out.

Geoff Watts wrote and amazing book on scrum masters as servant leaders called “Scrum Mastery: From Good to Great Servant Leadership”. He goes in to a lot more detail about the habits and behaviors of great scrum masters. It is an excellent resource for any scrum master looking to improve.

Thanks to Darko for asking the questions about servant leadership. I hope that I’ve shed some light on this important topic. If you have a question or would like to see an agile topic covered please send me a message or leave a comment below. I look forward to hearing from you.

Question: What do you think it takes to become a great scrum master and servant leader? You can leave a comment by clicking here.

HELP!!! The Scrum Master IS the Impediment!

At the heart of the scrum master role is servant leadership. We are driven by serving our teams as teachers, mentors, and coaches. It’s our job to help the team remove impediments, not to become one.

Brandon Glasley | Facepalm | Flicker.com

Brandon Glasley | Facepalm | Flicker.com

As a newly minted Professional Scrum Master (PSM I), I returned to my team excited and ready to get underway. Unfortunately, I brought back a purist view of scrum and had not fully grasped the concept of servant leadership. In other words, I failed miserably.

The problem started in the daily scrum’s. I took a heavy handed approach and ran the meeting how *I* saw fit. I asked the questions of each scrum team member and asked follow-ups where I felt *I* needed more information.

During a sprint planning meeting, I pressed the team to use the AS AI WANTIN ORDER TO format for user stories. The team came up with their own format that they felt more comfortable with. And still I pressed on.

Why I felt the authority to do so is beyond me. User story formats are not prescribed by scrum. A development team member approached me and very respectfully disagreed with me in many of these areas. Tension grew between us.

After a particularly stressful daily scrum, he stormed out and I was left with a team of amazed developers staring back at me…disappointed. And they were fully justified.

I tracked down the developer that stormed out and after a tense, but respectful meeting I finally started to see the errors of my ways.

Scrum – A Pocket Guide tell us that “The scrum master has no interest in scope, budget, delivery, or tasks but coaches and facilitates the complete ecosystem in scrum to manage them.”

I was still being a project manager. That was no longer my role.

I apologized to the team and they showed me a lot of grace by giving me another chance. We went on to deliver some amazing sprints and managed to bring some real value to bear for the business. But why did the conflict happen?

I struggled with giving up the command and control mentality.

Scrum masters who transition from a traditional project manager role must initially cope with the fact that they are not in control of the team. Scrum masters have no direct authority. We are a servant to our team. Our role calls us to help the team get better at playing the game of scrum.

As coaches, we must be careful to not turn adopting scrum in to people being coerced to follow new practices. People can typically handle change given enough support, but they are universally defensive in the face of coercion.

The developer – who rightly challenged the way I was behaving – embodied the scrum values of respect, commitment, focus, openness, and courage. He had the courage to speak up, the commitment to the team to want to do things better, the openness to air a grievance, the respect to keep things civil, and the desire to focus the team on valuable work.

If you find yourself on a team where the scrum master has become an impediment you have a number of choices:

  1. Do Nothing: Allowing the behavior of an errant scrum master to continue undermines the scrum adoption and disrespects the entire scrum team. This option isn’t really an option.
  2. Address the Issue Privately:  The advantage of this approach is that you give the scrum master the opportunity to realize their mistake without an audience. I appreciated this approach when I had lost my way. If it’s difficult for you to address the issue 1:1 then the next venue is the sprint retrospective meeting.
  3. Address the Issue During the Sprint Retrospective: If the 1:1 approach did not work, the team can bring up the behavior of the scrum master as an impediment during the sprint retrospective meeting. When the team discusses what did not go well or what made them mad/sad the scrum master should be brought up. Done respectfully, this conversation could lead to a positive outcome.
  4. Self-Organize/Self-Manage: The scrum team is a self-organizing/self-managing entity. If the scrum master is not getting the message after multiple attempts, the scrum team does have the right to select a new scrum master. It would be an unfortunate turn of events, but in some cases this drastic step is necessary.

I’m thankful for the developer who challenged me to be a better scrum master. He made me confront my fear of giving up control and helped me become the servant leader that I needed to become for the scrum team to be successful.

Question: Have you ever been on a scrum team where the scrum master was an impediment to the team? How did you handle it personally? How did you handle it as a team? You can leave a comment by clicking here.

[QUESTION] Can a Scrum Master Force an Increase in Velocity?

The Scrum Master is demanding a higher velocity during the next sprint. Does the scrum development team have to listen or has the scrum master overstepped?

Beat Kung | Emc2 | Flickr.com

Beat Kung | Emc2 | Flickr.com

No, the scrum master has overstepped.  The scrum master is a member of the scrum team – not its manager. The Scrum Master can ask the development team to increase velocity, but cannot force it.

The Scrum Master can only ask because increasing velocity means adding more work to the sprint backlog. The development team owns the estimates and they also decide how much work they can take on during a sprint. Any increase in work – even to increase velocity – must be approved by the scrum development team.

Yes, the development team could deflate their estimates to achieve the same thing. But let’s assume that the scrum master would catch on to that scheme pretty quickly. Let’s also eliminate the possibility of increasing the length of the sprint to increase velocity. The math works, but it’s also an easy gimmick to spot.

Scrum teams are self-managing and self-organizing. The concept of force does not play well in this context.

Let’s pretend for a moment that a scrum master could demand a higher velocity from the development team. Here are possible outcomes:

  1. Decrease in quality:  A team that has an imposed metric is forced to cut corners to meet the new demands. Quality is the first thing to go in these types of situations. It becomes very easy for a team to decide that in order to meet an unrealistic date they must stop writing unit test. Or even worse, that they should stop testing all together.
  2. Increased technical debt:  A scrum team that is under the gun is not likely to make the right decisions. Over time, a series of compromises in quality and architecture will lead to increased technical debt. Ironically, additional technical debt will reduce velocity in the future as the system becomes too fragile and complex to change easily.
  3. Demoralized Team:  Scrum is a developer play. At its core is the empowerment of the development team. Self-organization and self-management remove the traditional command and control levers from software development. Add those back in by forcing an arbitrary velocity and you’ve taken away the scrum development team’s ability to own their work. And along with that their morale.

The scrum master in this example was not acting as a servant leader. Remnants of a command and control structure are still present in this situation. More likely, this is a case where the development cannot do their best work due to impediments that still exist in their organization.

If the scrum master believes that a higher velocity is possible, he/she should ask the team: What can I do to help you be faster?

Question: Have you worked on a scrum team with a “command and control” scrum master? How did that impact you? You can leave a comment by clicking here.