Scrum = random?
A real life example, during a work interview:
“Me: So, Scrum is an empirical method of managing projects.
xpto: So, it’s something random, right?”
Way wrong. There is a huge difference between: random and empirical.
Let’s start with the first one: the empirical method which is in the base of Scrum is not random - far from it. If you prefer, substitute the term “empirical” by “adaptative” - because that’s what’s done in continuous feedback cycles in Scrum: Inspect, Adapt, Do, Repeat, etc.
In Scrum, you have 3 cycles of feedback:
- every 24 hours, at the Scrum Daily Meeting
- every Sprint (2 to 4 weeks, in average), at the Sprint Review
- every Release (several Sprints)
So, it’s far from random. In fact, is much more reliable than the Waterfall methodology. Waterfall is a predicitive model - i.e., you pretend you have a magic crystal ball, in which you predict everything which is going to happen during the project(!). That sounds a lot more like random wishful thinking, IMHO.
To sum it up, in Scrum, you have an empirical/adaptive methodology instead of a predicitive one.
Ricardo - great article - hits the nail on the head. I was just working on something similar and when I read this I allowed it to distract me and I’ve posted a detailed response back on my blog - and thanks for the link too!
http://blog.viocity.com/blog/_archives/2008/10/18/3935765.html
David McLean
18 Oct 08 at 14:10
Great post. I’m not sure why empirical would have the connotation of being random. But, I’m with you that it is considerably more reliable then waterfall (the magic crystal ball notion is terrific).
abby, the hacker chick blog
20 Oct 08 at 14:10
Hi Abby,
Thanks for your comment.
People tend to mess up the two terms, since anything which is not predictable is somewhat scary. A Gantt chart is much more conforting, but then we both know what happens next, right?
admin
22 Oct 08 at 23:10