Scrum is only an iterative approach

2 views
Skip to first unread message

andrej...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 19, 2010, 5:54:26 AM9/19/10
to Scrum Alliance - transforming the world of work.
Hi All,

Don't you think that Scrum is pretty much the same as RUP, XP and
other iterative software development approaches?

And the only difference among them is the number predefined rules to
follow. For example RUP has the most, Kanban has the least.

But no matter which iterative approach you are planning to use you
need to adapt it to your organization. In case of Scrum or Kanban each
team comes up to its own rules, but in case of RUP you can adjust/
change already predefined rules. So I think the main power is in
ITERATION and its CLEAR GOALS, but everything else depends on what you
prefer.


Andrej
www.agilemindstorm.com

Yves Hanoulle

unread,
Sep 19, 2010, 7:56:05 AM9/19/10
to scruma...@googlegroups.com



Hi All,

Don't you think that Scrum is pretty much the same as RUP, XP and
other iterative software development approaches?

 XP and scrum are more alike then RUP 
Important part of scrum and xp is the self-organizing part.
Calling them only "iterative development" might look technically correct, it is wrong.

 
And the only difference among them is the number predefined rules to
follow. For example RUP has the most, Kanban has the least.

I don't think the Kanban people would agree that Kanban is iterative.
 
But no matter which iterative approach you are planning to use you
need to adapt it to your organization. In case of Scrum or Kanban each
team comes up to its own rules, but in case of RUP you can adjust/
change already predefined rules.
which is why they are totally different.
 
So I think the main power is in
ITERATION and its CLEAR GOALS, but everything else depends on what you
prefer.
that is how these approaches differ for you. Not for me.
 
Andrej
www.agilemindstorm.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scrum Alliance - transforming the world of work." group.
To post to this group, send email to scruma...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to scrumallianc...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/scrumalliance?hl=en.




--
Yves Hanoulle
Agile Coach EMEA

FR  +33 6 03 40 38 00
BEL +32 9 277 91 99 (Arrives on France Cellphone)

Blog: www.Hanoulle.be
Agile Games: http://groups.google.com/group/agilegames/
See you at:

Agile 2010 www.agile2010.org What I learned from burning down my parents house.
WebExpo  (23,25 September 2010, Prague) http://webexpo.net/
Agile Eastern Europe (8-10 October 2010, Kiev) http://www.agileee.org/
XPDay Benelux (25-26 November 2010) www.xpday.be

Gustavo Cebrian Garcia

unread,
Sep 19, 2010, 7:56:44 AM9/19/10
to scruma...@googlegroups.com
Hello,

Yes, there is a few similarities, of course but, I would tell you that
you have to understand that the Scrum philosophy is much more:

Visual Management
Retrospectives
and what about all the books writen which advice you on very good practices?
When you say iterative process, you make it look very simple. But tell me, what practices do you do to succeed, and tell me if you can learn more   :-)
( not trying to be agressive at all !! )

A name and a concept are very abstract, and they do not define details
( good practices ) Scrum, is about people, experiences, good practices and sharing all that knowledge...

The Scrum knowledge tells you much more that RUP, in my opinion.

Hope you know what I mean.

Gustavo.


Bachan Anand

unread,
Sep 19, 2010, 12:20:28 PM9/19/10
to scruma...@googlegroups.com
Andrej,
Good question , got me thinking this morning.

On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 2:54 AM, andrej...@gmail.com <andrej...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,

Don't you think that Scrum is pretty much the same as RUP, XP and
other iterative software development approaches?

I do agree that Iterative approach to problem solving is part of Scrum framework and we can draw some parallels between RUP and Scrum in this regard.

And the only difference among them is the number predefined rules to
follow. For example RUP has the most, Kanban has the least.

I also  see as RUP as a  very defined process where as Scrum is a framework with lesser defined rules on how to approach the problem and focus is on values and principles. Most of the Scrum rules are backed up by the foundations like focus , empiricism, collaboration , self organization. So I believe the purpose behind Scrum rules are explicit and backed up by foundation and values and not just as best practices that worked in some other context . I have been able to effectively able to use those underlying foundations and values when adapting Scrum to different environment and use it as a general management and problem solving approach in different contexts.

But no matter which iterative approach you are planning to use you
need to adapt it to your organization. In case of Scrum or Kanban each
team comes up to its own rules, but in case of RUP you can adjust/
change already predefined rules. So I think the main power is in
ITERATION and its CLEAR GOALS, but everything else depends on what you
prefer.

I totally agree that adapting any process to your organization is key for the success of any way of working .What Scrum provides is a set of rules( simple for some , not so simple for other based on your outlook towards some of the Scrum values and how much you can stand behind them) . For me the beauty of Scrum lies in the autonomy (self organization ) ,  ownership ( commitment )  and importance Scrum  places on people interaction between people . I have not seen that being explicitly stated by other frameworks, I am hoping that more and more frameworks value people over processes.

Explicit reference to  transparency and courage in believe is a great way of surfacing impediments and dysfunctions and effectively resolving them.  Finally it all depends on the people involved and how much they can internalize the values and foundation to achieve success with Scrum rules.

Great question again.

Bachan
http://agile.conscires.com/

Gustavo Cebrian Garcia

unread,
Sep 20, 2010, 8:04:56 AM9/20/10
to scruma...@googlegroups.com
Hello,


"For me the beauty of Scrum lies in the autonomy (self organization ) ,  ownership ( commitment )  and importance Scrum  places on people interaction between people . I have not seen that being explicitly stated by other frameworks, I am hoping that more and more frameworks value people over processes."

Excellent !!

But, again, I would say that the Scrum philosophy ( probably I would say Agile Philosophy speaks more about best practices which are very effective ( from my point of view, I just do not see RUP to do this )

Gustavo.

Sameh Zeid

unread,
Sep 20, 2010, 9:09:01 AM9/20/10
to scruma...@googlegroups.com
Autonomy and self-organization are great! What I believe that the Scrum Master/Prodouct-Owner should also balance this with productive integration with the rest of the organization.

IMO

Sam
Sameh Zeid
Email: sameh...@gmail.com, Phone: (226)444-1794
Twitter: @sameh_zeid
http://www.linkedin.com/in/samehzeid

Steven Mak

unread,
Sep 22, 2010, 2:31:45 AM9/22/10
to Scrum Alliance - transforming the world of work.
I think there are still some missing pieces between Scrum and
"iterative development"... at least the followings:

- Scrum and Agile values and thinking
- Learning (as in Sprint Review and Retrospective) and strive for
improvement

On Sep 19, 5:54 pm, "andrej.ruc...@gmail.com"

Alan Dayley

unread,
Sep 22, 2010, 2:38:15 AM9/22/10
to scruma...@googlegroups.com
I disagree pretty strongly.

I have seen Scrum implementations with varying degrees of all the
pieces or half or just some of the pieces. Every part of the Scrum
framework is there for a reason. In general, the work suffers if all
of them are not there in practice.

Subtle differences are more important than can be imagined. Try them,
even if you don't think it will matter. Then reject a part if you
have data that shows you should.

Alan

On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 2:54 AM, andrej...@gmail.com
<andrej...@gmail.com> wrote:

Kurt Häusler

unread,
Sep 22, 2010, 2:51:47 AM9/22/10
to scruma...@googlegroups.com
Even if you do the complete framework, perfectly according to the
scrum guide, which is not that hard, it is no guarantee that you are
doing it well.

I get the feeling that most people are using it as a mere planning and
scheduling tool, rather than a tool to surface problems, and promote
organizational change. I suspect a lot of people are just using it
embedded in the development departments/phase within a waterfall
process rather than as a replacement for waterfall at a higher level.
Both of which are hard to argue against if the scrum guide is being
used to defend them.

I would rather see the scrum guide take a bolder approach, and condemn
such a watered down approach to scrum.

Ron Jeffries

unread,
Sep 22, 2010, 7:17:57 AM9/22/10
to scruma...@googlegroups.com
Hello, Kurt. On Wednesday, September 22, 2010, at 2:51:47 AM, you
wrote:

> I get the feeling that most people are using it as a mere planning and
> scheduling tool, rather than a tool to surface problems, and promote
> organizational change. I suspect a lot of people are just using it
> embedded in the development departments/phase within a waterfall
> process rather than as a replacement for waterfall at a higher level.
> Both of which are hard to argue against if the scrum guide is being
> used to defend them.

> I would rather see the scrum guide take a bolder approach, and condemn
> such a watered down approach to scrum.

+1, with "many" substituted for "most".

Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
www.xprogramming.com/blog
Talent determines how fast you get good, not how good you get.
-- Richard Gabriel

Gustavo Cebrian Garcia

unread,
Sep 22, 2010, 7:35:53 AM9/22/10
to scruma...@googlegroups.com
> I get the feeling that most people are using it as a mere planning and
> scheduling tool, rather than a tool to surface problems, and promote
> organizational change. I suspect a lot of people are just using it
> embedded in the development departments/phase within a waterfall
> process rather than as a replacement for waterfall at a higher level.
> Both of which are hard to argue against if the scrum guide is being
> used to defend them.


At development level, this really depends on the Scrum Master and PO, do not you think? Well,
is not this the Scrum Master mission, to make change the way managers
think. The managers can have their vision and tell me managers to start implementing
many features in a waterfall mode. It is down to the Scrum Master and PO to educate them and try to create value.
Well, at anohter level, we have the lean practices where you will have to fight with the managers even more.  :-)
So, I agree, but I would say that there are two levels.
1-Development processes ( Scrum )
2-Product processes           ( Lean )

Gustavo.




--

andrej...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 27, 2010, 2:58:36 PM9/27/10
to Scrum Alliance - transforming the world of work.
Hi All,

thank you very much for you answers. It helped me to clarify/highlight
some things for myself. The reason to formulate the question this way
was to initiate a discussion and form a better understanding of why
Scrum is more than just an iterative approach for myself.

"For me the beauty of Scrum lies in the autonomy (self
organization ) ,
ownership ( commitment ) and importance Scrum places on people
interaction
between people . I have not seen that being explicitly stated by
other
frameworks, I am hoping that more and more frameworks value people
over
processes."
Bachan, thanx for this statement :)

And i tend to agree that there is a trend to use Scrum ( and other)
only as planning/scheduling tool.
What should be done in your opinion to avoid this?

On Sep 22, 2:35 pm, Gustavo Cebrian Garcia
<g.cebrian.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I get the feeling that most people are using it as a mere planning and
> > scheduling tool, rather than a tool to surface problems, and promote
> > organizational change. I suspect a lot of people are just using it
> > embedded in the development departments/phase within a waterfall
> > process rather than as a replacement for waterfall at a higher level.
> > Both of which are hard to argue against if the scrum guide is being
> > used to defend them.
>
> At development level, this really depends on the Scrum Master and PO, do not
> you think? Well,
> is not this the Scrum Master mission, to make change the way managers
> think. The managers can have their vision and tell me managers to start
> implementing
> many features in a waterfall mode. It is down to the Scrum Master and PO to
> educate them and try to create value.
> Well, at anohter level, we have the lean practices where you will have to
> fight with the managers even more.  :-)
> So, I agree, but I would say that there are two levels.
> 1-Development processes ( Scrum )
> 2-Product processes           ( Lean )
>
> Gustavo.
>
> On 22 September 2010 13:17, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffr...@acm.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hello, Kurt.  On Wednesday, September 22, 2010, at 2:51:47 AM, you
> > wrote:
>
> > > I get the feeling that most people are using it as a mere planning and
> > > scheduling tool, rather than a tool to surface problems, and promote
> > > organizational change. I suspect a lot of people are just using it
> > > embedded in the development departments/phase within a waterfall
> > > process rather than as a replacement for waterfall at a higher level.
> > > Both of which are hard to argue against if the scrum guide is being
> > > used to defend them.
>
> > > I would rather see the scrum guide take a bolder approach, and condemn
> > > such a watered down approach to scrum.
>
> > +1, with "many" substituted for "most".
>
> > Ron Jeffries
> >www.XProgramming.com
> >www.xprogramming.com/blog
> > Talent determines how fast you get good, not how good you get.
> >  -- Richard Gabriel
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Scrum Alliance - transforming the world of work." group.
> > To post to this group, send email to scruma...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > scrumallianc...@googlegroups.com<scrumalliance%2Bunsubscribe@goog legroups.com>
> > .
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages