Home > technical > Bring Back The Old

Bring Back The Old


The figure below shows the phases of Scrum as defined in 1995 (Scrum Development Process) and 2011 (The 2011 Scrum Guide). By truncating the waterfall-like endpoints, especially the PSA segment, the development framework became less prescriptive with regard to the front and back ends of a new product development effort. Taken literally, there are no front or back ends in Scrum.

The well known Scrum Sprint-Sprint-Sprint-Sprint… work sequence is terrific for maintenance projects where the software architecture and development/build/test infrastructure is already established and “in-place“. However, for brand new developments where costly-to-change upfront architecture and infrastructure decisions must be made before starting to Sprint toward “done” product increments, Scrum no longer provides guidance. Scrum is mum!

The figure below shows a generic DRE system where raw “samples” continuously stream in from the left and value-added info streams out from the right. In order to minimize the downstream disaster of “we built the system but we discovered that the freakin’ architecture fails the latency and/or thruput tests!“, a bunch of critical “non-functional” decisions and must be made and prototyped/tested before developing and integrating App tier components into a potentially releasable product increment.

I think that the PSA segment in the original definition of Scrum may have been intended to mitigate the downstream  “we’re vucked” surprise. Maybe it’s just me, but I think it’s too bad that it was jettisoned from the framework.

The time’s gone, the money’s gone, and the damn thing don’t work!

  1. September 11, 2012 at 9:23 am

    hmmm…having start and end sprints favors new development while not having them favors maintenance work. Perhaps having the option might provide a more flexible toolkit?

    • September 11, 2012 at 9:33 am

      Hi Gene,

      Sounds good to me. Like you said yesterday, the removal of the bookend phases doesn’t mean they don’t have to be performed – especially the PSA phase. Explicitly including them as first-class, but optional, citizens (like the 1995 definition did) at least clearly points out their existence.

      • September 11, 2012 at 9:53 am

        Indeed. Taking a toolbox approach and encouraging configuration of the process to individual contexts (perhaps with some generic samples as guidance) seems most likely to succeed as far as I can see.

  1. October 5, 2012 at 1:02 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 474 other followers

%d bloggers like this: