Skip to main content

Initializing Scrum

Update: Just fixed some outgoing links.

After I began working at my new workplace, I've been gently pushing Agile here and there. We've been brainstorming how we can get agile working for our people, and so far we've adopted a few patterns and practices, but putting those plans into action has taken some time. Originally I hoped that things would go very quickly, but agile is about people, and people are hard to change.

Getting better, always.

We have a product that works really well, and pretty much all of the developers are happy. (Generally speaking, this state can be dangerous for a business. There is a danger of falling asleep, one day waking up to see that your competitors have gotten a good hold of your customers, with a better product and better marketing.) Having an environment that strives for improvement is a critical part of persisting success. And striving for improvement, well, that's what agile is.

Luckily, our team of developers do a lot of activities in the hunt for technological improvement. There is a team of architects (and by that I mean hands-on hard-core, coding Java gurus) that work across the other developers, singling out targets for refactoring and other improvements. Another practice I really dig is the weekly Java-team meeting, where one of the developer present a subject either on good programming practice, new tool/feature, or explaining a certain part of our domain model.

As well as pushing for technical excellence, we also want to push for process excellence. We want to give accurate estimates, we want to deliver fast, and we want to deliver the stuff that is most important first. This is where I (and the people who hired me) figured that Scrum would be a good try, but before I explain how the first week of scrumming has gone, I need to explain a little more about our team.

Who does what?

We've got nearly twenty developers working on our product (there are other teams in the company, but we're an independent gang for the most part). In this product there are many families of functionality, and there is no clear designation of which developer does which functionality. There is a lot of tacit knowledge on who does what: "Bob did a lot of work on the fizzerburpilator", or "Bill wrote the shackalock-editor, and occasionally does some maintenance on it" (features are given fantasy names for non-disclosure reasons).

Understandably, it is a bit fustrating for our customer-contacts to ask for new features, because often (a) they don't know which developer can do it, (b) the chief architect is too busy to spend time managing the tasks of every single developer, and (c) the developer who knows how to make the new feature is busy doing other critical stuff.

The solution to this frustration seems pretty clear: Organize into sub-teams, preferably by feature. However, we can't just jump right in and do a full-blown re-organization, we have to be careful about it, and we have been waiting for a fitting opportunity to try this out.

Taking Scrum for a spin

So, recently we had a big customer come to us with a feature request, let's call it "fizzburp hickup". It is a bit too big for one developer to do by himself, and there are some architectural challenges which would probably require a weighed consensus of developer opinions rather than the brilliant idea of a single programmer. The scope and definition of "fizzburp hickup" are pretty well described, and we have an ample time-frame, so we figured that this would be the perfect opportunity to try out Scrum with a small team of developers, called Team Espresso. If the experiment goes well, Team Espresso can continue existing after their feature has been developed, keep on maintaining it and adopting some other features as well.

The first sprint got scheduled to start this Monday. I knew that boiling up the backlog for the team would eat up alot of time, so I started the week before by chipping the requirement spec into user stories, using the customer-contact for verifying that I had gotten a good understanding of the domain, and also tried out User Story Mapping for the first time. I ran through the story cards with our chief architect and got a first-impression of estimates. Getting him to put estimates on user-features instead of architectural components was really hard, but in the end we came through with a rough estimate of the backlog-effort. We used 'tricky points' as our unit of estimation.

We then had half-a-day "kick-off" with the customer-contact and architects. First we went through the requirement spec and had the customer-contact (who unfortunately went on vacation and was represented by the, erm, chief architect) communicate the motivation for the new features. Naturally, the focus went technical early on, but I've been assured that there has already been so much communication with the customer on the "fizzburp hickup" already, that we shouldn't need any more input from them for the time being. Hmmm!

Sprint planning

After the kick-off, we gathered the team around the story map to do estimation and commitment to the first sprint (one week!). Naturally, the team zoomed down into technical discussion on every other story card (which is a good thing!). We discovered a good few open technical and functional questions that we would have to take back to the architects and customer-contacts. I thought this process was very fruitful, because we were finding challenges early that we would have to face sooner or later.

However, in the rest of the team there was a feeling of "let's just go and get started it", while I was forcing them to put tricky points on the user stories, and again it proved difficult to get them estimating features instead of technical components. Their point (as I understood it) was that in the end, we would have to deliver the same functionality anyway, and thinking in user-stories instead of components would only disturb our estimation thinking and architecture plans. That actually was a good point. My reply was "do all the architectural consideration you want to, but leave the story cards", in other words: bear with me on this. Finally, we committed to our first sprint, choosing three stories summing up to 30 tricky points.

And off we go!

On the first day of the sprint, I tried to get the team breaking the three stories down into tasks with hourly estimates. This proved even more difficult. I was inflicting even more Scrum overhead on a team which wanted to get to work. The point of breaking backlog items into tasks is to get a picture of remaining hours for sprint burndown, as well as assigning tasks to point person. Does this need to be explicitly done in such a small team for such a small project? I think so, because for a practiced team this overhead is virtually nothing. For my team in this sprint, however, we let it go.

Halfway through the sprint, the team got a bit nervous about delivering/presenting the result to the customer. Showing off that little progress would only anger and confuse the customer, making them come up with a burdening set of detailed requirements to "speed us up". So we extended our sprint to last two weeks instead of one.

We also changed around the planned story items. The architects found the time to do some smart fixes that allowed us to grab and do some of the more important user stories off the backlog.

At the end of the sprint now on friday, we had completed only one of the three committed stories, plus one extra because of the architecture fix. We had made alot of progress on the other items, but not completed them.


So, in order to help us reflect on how we should continue in the next sprint, let us sum up what practices we have tried and given up:

* Daily standup - stopped this, because we are already doing daily standup with the rest of the developers (I might write a post about how it was to get people adopting daily standup later).
* Story planning, we will continue this, although we are aware that it doesn't give us that much value without an on-site customer.
* Task tracking - stop this, too much overhead for such a small scope.
* One week sprints - go over to two week sprints instead.

I hope that we will be able to resume some of these, the 1-week-sprint in particular. There is a big organizational challenge which is making it difficult for us, and that is a quite common one in organizations adopting Scrum: We are part of two teams: On the one hand, we are Team Espresso, an agile group dedicated to deliver the "fizzburp hickup" functionality. On the other hand, we are part of the larger developer team, supporting and maintaining all the bits and pieces of our software, getting ready for our coming release ("fizzburp" is scheduled to be released in the next one after this one). Juggling these two on an hourly basis is proving quite difficult for the team.

I'll try to post back with an update after the next sprint. It could be that my expectations for how smoothly this would go were a bit too high, but hopefully I will be able to post back with a bit more uplifting results by then.


  1. Isn't jumpstarting on a one-week sprint a very steep curve, all other things aside? Even with motivated developers I would think long and hard before doing that.

  2. Hi Knut. It might be a steep curve if you're coming from an environment where you roll out very seldom. These guys have a more complicated setup which includes deployment every second week. Along with the fact that I think a week is a really good Sprint-length (it's a quite atomical unit of time, with a clear seperation between sprints: weekends), I thought I would get away with it. I'm sure that if we were doing this full time, we would have been able to deliver something after one week. Not put into production, but atleast show the customer some basic new functionality.

  3. Great Post. Just find it while checking on Scrum :-)

  4. Håkon K. Olafsen16/9/10 14:18

    Kunne du oppdatert linkene som peker mot - det ser ut som om wikien har forandret seg siden du skrev dette.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Open source CMS evaluations

I have now seen three more or less serious open source CMS reviews. First guy to hit the field was Matt Raible ( 1 2 3 4 ), ending up with Drupal , Joomla , Magnolia , OpenCms and MeshCMS being runner-ups. Then there is OpenAdvantage that tries out a handful ( Drupal , Exponent CMS , Lenya , Mambo , and Silva ), including Plone which they use for their own site (funny/annoying that the entire site has no RSS-feeds, nor is it possible to comment on the articles), following Matt's approach by exluding many CMS that seem not to fit the criteria. It is somewhat strange that OpenAdvantage cuts away Magnolia because it "Requires J2EE server; difficult to install and configure; more of a framework than CMS", and proceed to include Apache Lenya in the full evaluation. Magnolia does not require a J2EE server. It runs on Tomcat just like Lenya does (maybe it's an idea to bundle Magnolia with Jetty to make it seem more lightweight). I'm still sure that OpenAdvant

Managing dot-files with vcsh and myrepos

Say I want to get my dot-files out on a new computer. Here's what I do: # install vcsh & myrepos via apt/brew/etc vcsh clone mr mr update Done! All dot-files are ready to use and in place. No deploy command, no linking up symlinks to the files . No checking/out in my entire home directory as a Git repository. Yet, all my dot-files are neatly kept in fine-grained repositories, and any changes I make are immediately ready to be committed: config-atom.git     -> ~/.atom/* config-mr.git     -> ~/.mrconfig     -> ~/.config/mr/* config-tmuxinator.git       -> ~/.tmuxinator/* config-vim.git     -> ~/.vimrc     -> ~/.vim/* config-bin.git        -> ~/bin/* config-git.git               -> ~/.gitconfig config-tmux.git       -> ~/.tmux.conf     config-zsh.git     -> ~/.zshrc How can this be? The key here is to use vcsh to keep track of your dot-files, and its partner myrepos/mr for o

Using Voice-Chat for Gamers in Distributed Teams

This is a post going into the usefulness of live voice-chat tools in distributed teams. If you've ever seen the Leeeeeroooooyy Jeeeenkiiins video of World of Warcraft fame, you've heard this kind of tool in action. It's how the participants in the video are speaking with each other - this is not a feature built into the World of Warcraft game - it's a separate team-oriented VoIP software, and it's all about letting gamers communicate orally while gaming.  Since these tools are for gamers, they have to be fast (low latency) light (as not to steal CPU-cycles from heavy games graphics)  moderate in bandwidth usage (as not to affect the game server connection) There are several options around: TeamSpeak , Ventrilo , more recently the massively grown Discord , and finally Mumble , which is the open-source alternative of the gang. A few years ago, when I joined eyeo (a distributed company), several of the operations team were avid gamers, and had a TeamSp

Joining eyeo: A Year in Review

It's been well over a year since I  joined eyeo . And 'tis the season for yearly reviews, so... It's been pretty wild. So many times I thought "this stuff really deserves a bloggin", but then it was too inviting to grab onto the next thing and get that rolling. Instead of taking a deep dive into some topic already, I want to scan through that year in review and think for myself, what were the big things, the important things, the things I achieved, and the things I learned. And then later on, if I ever get around to it, grab one of these topics and elaborate in a dedicated blog-post. Like a bucket-list of the blog posts that I should have written. Here goes: How given no other structures, silos will grow by themselves This was my initial shock after joining the company. Only a few years after taking off as a startup, the hedges began growing, seemingly almost by themselves, and against the will of the founders. I've worked in silos, and in companies wit

The End of GitMinutes (my podcast)

I'm just about ship GitMinutes episode 46, which is going to be the final episode. I'll just paste the outro script here, as it sums up the sentimental thoughts pretty well: I’m happy to have finally finished [publishing the last episodes from Git-Merge 2017], just in time before Git-Merge 2018 takes place in March. I won’t be going there myself, so I’m counting on someone else to pick up the mic there. It’s sad to be shipping this one as it is probably the last GitMinutes episode ever. To go a bit down memory lane, 6 years ago, my daughter was born, and as I used a little of that paternity leave to set up my podcasting infrastructure and produce the first few episodes. Initially it was just going to be 10 episodes and call the experiment finished. Instead, I got to 46 episodes, the last dozen or so lazily tailing the last few Git-Merge conferences. To every one of my guests, thank you so much again for coming on to share your passion in this little niche of computer s