Type III Scrumban: A Journey
"Success is a journey, not a destination. The doing is often more important than the outcome." – Arthur Ashe
From Scrum to Kanban
In the first post in this series, we considered the term “Scrumban” and how it has been misapplied. Originally framed by Corey Ladas to describe an evolution from Scrum towards a more pull-driven delivery capability, in practice, Scrumban is more often used as a "sugar-term" to disguise an organization’s failure to implement either Scrum or Kanban well. Instead of sponsoring the journey from Scrum to Kanban which Corey Ladas outlined – and achieving the rigorous understanding of both which this requires – organizations pretend towards implementing a hybrid that amounts to neither. By requisitioning the term "Scrumban,” they try to ratify their broken working practices. They wrap it all in an Agile name and thereby try to justify the overloading of teams with poorly managed and inchoate demands. Essentially, the status-quo is given a respectable-sounding moniker, and organizations hope to obtain some sort of Agile blessing through this unholy baptism.
Such posturing and fakery are very common. Due to its prevalence, we have grudgingly categorized it as "Type I Scrumban," even though it bears little or no resemblance to Scrumban proper. Yet in its mitigation, we’ve also seen how “Type I Scrumban” can provide value as a forensic tool when treating a fake Agile transformation as a "crime scene."
via DZone.com Feed https://dzone.com
May 25, 2017 at 10:30AM