From Scrum to Scrumban: An Agile Journey

In June of 2012, I gave a presentation to the PMI Agile Interest Group in Atlanta about my team’s journey from using Scrum to more of a Scrumban process.

Already using the most popular process: Why move to scrumban?

The State of Agile Survey 2010 by VersionOne supports anecdotal evidence: Scrum is the most popular agile methodology.  It would be natural to ask why a team that started with that practice moved to Scrumban, or anything else for that matter.  Three items emerged in repeated retrospectives that led us to shift gears:
  • One of the issues was was the additional stress around completing open stories by the last day to avoid “failure.”  Along with the pressure of solving new problems in the course of true R&D style development, the team felt pressured to (1) take shortcuts to complete work early enough, and (2) shortcut testing to close the story and claim the points.  Regardless of the percentage of stories completed by sprint’s end, we determined that the average velocity over most three-sprint periods remained roughly the same.
  • A second problem was the team spent a full day or more (out of 10) doing detailed tasking, in order to come up with estimates that led to incomplete stories and stress at the end.  We also recognized that when starting a new story mid-sprint, we’d have to revisit the initial conversations anyway, when details were invariably forgotten.  Also, based on the previous bullet, that the reliability of the projections wasn’t high to begin with.
  • A third problem was that with a group of stories to complete, each team member started on a different story at the same time, which prevented collaboration and led to lack of focus.

What was the result?

Based on all of the above, we decided to abandon the first-day tasking sessions and do the detailed planning for stories just-in-time.  Further, we decided to only start one story per pair, when the pair was ready to work on it.  This we determined was what many call “scrumban,” a blend of the timeboxed ritual of scrum with the flow management of kanban.  This meant we maintained the iteration barriers, biweekly demos, standups, and retrospectives that we conducted with scrum.  Because biweekly demos kept happening, the fact that the mindset was vastly different wasn’t immediately obvious to other stakeholders, but what we stressed was meeting deliverable dates.
The team responded well to a clearly painted vision and a target date, as long as it was reasonable.  The team did not respond well to being chastised for failing to complete specific stories in specific sprints which were not tied to a release.  Coincidentally I spent some time with another team in Q3 of 2012 and discovered they too were struggling with some of the same problems, primarily unnecessary frustration around the inability to complete every story within sprint boundaries.

Does Product Management Care about Scrum vs. Scrumban?

I argue that Product Management can handle Agile better under Scrumban, because there’s less intensity around the product owner’s need to be present in the room with engineering.

Here’s how it helped us:

With robust engineering practices around test-driven-development and especially behavioral-driven-development, the product owner’s information was captured during story elaboration when a feature is started.  The team thinks through all the scenarios and details one or more stories to support them, with all scenarios for each story captured in English-derived Gherkin.  The team then gets to work and calls the product owner when the software is able to pass those specifications–and obviously, when questions come up.

This process allows ample time for the product owner to engage in expectations management throughout the organization, requirements gathering, customer development, and all the other fun things a product manager is responsible for…..like meetings :)

Long term, velocity also improved by 20%.  That also makes Product Management happy!