Interestingly, I also saw a cool column in Better Software magazine, called "Scrumdamentalism" on the same basic question.
In my conversation, I referred them to the Agile Manifesto. My first point was that process often gets in the way of actual progress. Too much process focus lifts up "activity" in place of "accomplishment".
My second point, however, was that the Agile Manifesto and the Scrum method are responses to a larger problem. Looking for a process isn't an appropriate response to the problem.
The One True Scrum Quest
Claiming that there's one true Scrum method and everything else is "not scrum" is an easy mental habit. The question gets asked on Stack Overflow all the time. The questions are usually one of two kinds.
- What's the "official" or "best practice" Scrum method and how do I define a process that rigidly enforces this for my entire team of 20?
- We are doing our design/code/test/integration/release in a way that diverges from the "official" form in the Ken Schwaber and Mike Beedle book. Or it diverges from the Eclipse version. Or it diverges from the Control Chaos overview. Or the Mountain Goat version. Or the C2 Wiki version. Or this version. Is it okay to diverge from the "standard"?
Sigh. The point of Agile is that we should value "Individuals and interactions over processes and tools". The quest for "One True Scrum" specifically elevates the process above the people.
In The Real World
The biggest issue is that the Agile Manifesto is really a response to some fundamental truths about software development.
In management fantasy world, a "project" as a fixed, definite, limited, clearly articulated scope. From this fixed scope, we can then document "all" the requirements (business and technical). This requirements document is (a) testable against the scope, (b) necessary for all further work and (c) sufficient for design, code, test and transition to production. That's not all. And -- in order to make a point later on -- I'll continue to enumerate the fantasies. The fantasy continues that someone can create a "high-level design" or "specification" that is (a) testable against the requirements, (b) necessary for all further work and (c) sufficient to code, test and transition to production. We can then throw this specification over the transom into another room where a "coder" will "cut code" that matches the specification. The code production happens at a fixed, knowable rate with only small random variation based on risk of illness. The testing, similarly, can be meticulously scheduled and will happen precisely as planned. Most "real-world" (management fantasy) projects do not leave any time for rework after testing -- because rework won't happen. If it won't happen, why test? Finally, there will be no technology transfer issues because putting a freshly-written program into production is the same as installing a game from a DVD.
Managers like to preface things with "In The Real World". As in "In The Real World we need to know how long it will take you to write this."
The "in the real world" speech always means "In My Management Fantasy Land." The reason it's always a fantastic speech is because software development involves the unknowable. I'm not talking about some variable in a formula with a value that's currently unknown. I'm talking about predicting the unknowable future.
The Agile Response to Reality
In the Real real world, software development is extraordinarily hard.
Consider this: the computer clock runs in 100-nanosecond increments (1.0E-7). We expect an application to run 24x7x0.999 = 6.04E5 seconds. That's from 100-nano to half-million: about 12 orders of magnitude to keep in one's head.
Consider this: storage in a largish application may span almost a terabyte, (1.0E12). From bytes to terabytes: about 12 orders of magnitude to keep in one's head.
Consider this: the users can't easily articulate their problem. The business analyst is trying to capture enough information to characterize the problem. The users, the analyst, the project manager (and others outside the team) all have recommendations for a solution, polluting the problem description with "solution speak" that's only adds confusion.
In the Management Fantasy "Real World", this is all knowable and simple. In the Real Real World, this is rather hard.
Adapting to Reality
Once we've recognized that software development is hard, we have several responses.
- Deny. Claim that software developers are either lazy or stupid (or both). Give them pep-talks that begin "in the real world" and hope that they cough up the required estimates because they're motivated by being told that software development "in the real world" isn't all that hard.
- Processize(tm). Claim that software development is a process that can be specified to a level where even lazy, stupid programmers can step through the process and create consistent results.
- Adapt. Adapting to the complexity of software development requires asking, "what -- if anything -- expedites software development?"
What Do We Need to Succeed?
There are essentially two domains of knowledge required to create software: the problem domain and the solution domain.
- Problem Domain. This is the "business rules", the "scope", the "requirements", the "purpose", etc. We have the features and functions. What the software does. The value it creates. The "what", "who", "where", "when" and "why".
- Solution Domain. This is the technology that makes it go. The time and space dimensions (all 12 orders of magnitude in each dimension), all the languages and all the frameworks. The "how".
The issue is this:
We don't start out with complete knowledge of problem and solution.
At the start of the project -- when we're asked to predict the future -- we can never know the whole problem, nor can we ever know the whole solution we're about to try and build.
What we need is this:
Put Problem Domain and Solution Domain knowledge into one person's head.
The question then becomes "Who's head?"
We have two choices:
- Non-Programmers. We can try to teach the various non-programmers all the solution domain stuff. We can make the project manager, business analyst, end-users, executive sponsor -- everyone -- into programmers so that they have problem domain and solution domain knowledge.
- Programmers. We can try to impart the problem domain knowledge on the programmers. If we're seriously going to do this, we need to remove the space between programmer and problem.
That's the core of the Agile Response: Close the gap between Problem Domain and Solution Domain by letting programmers understand the problem.
The Bowl of Bananas Solution(tm)
"But wait", managers like to say, "in the real world, we can't just let you play around until you claim you're done. We have to monitor your activity to make sure that you're making 'progress' toward a 'solution'."
In the Real real world, you can't define the "problem", much less test whether anything is -- or is not -- a solution. I could hand most managers a bowl of bananas and they would not be able to point to any test procedure that would determine if the bowl of bananas solves or fails to solve the user's problems.
Most project scope documents, requirements documents, specifications, designs, etc., require extensive tacit problem domain knowledge to interpret them. Given a bowl of bananas, the best that we can do is say "we still have the problem, so this isn't a solution." Our scope statements and requirements and test procedures all make so many assumptions about the problem and the solution that we can't even figure out how evaluate an out-of-the-box response -- like a bowl of bananas.
In the Real real world, management in organization A demands that information be kept in a one database. Management organization B has a separate database for reasons mired in historical animosity and territorial scent-marking. Management in yet another organization wants them "unified" or "reconciled" and demands that someone manually put the data into spreadsheets. This morphs into requirements for a new application "system" to unify this data, making the results look like poorly-design spreadsheets. This morphs into a multi-year project to create a "framework" for data integration that maintains the poorly-designed spreadsheet as part of the "solution".
A quick SQL script to move data from A to B (or B to A) is the bowl-0f-bananas solution. It cannot be evaluated (or even considered) because it isn't a framework, system or application as specified in the scope document for the data integration framework.
This is the problem domain knowledge issue. It's so hard to define the problem, that we can't trust the executive sponsor, the program office, the project managers, the business analysts or anyone to characterize the problem for the developers.
The problem domain knowledge is so important that we need to allow programmers to interact with users so that both the problem and the solution wind up in the programmer's head.