Scrum Purists vs Scrum Realists

 

There has been a lot of discussion about whether or not Scrum is still Scrum if it's not used exactly as prescribed in the Scrum Guide. The two protagonists in this drama are the purists and the realists. Purists fall into two main categories:

1. If any part of Scrum is diluted or altered in any way, then it is not Scrum.
2. Even if nothing is diluted or altered, if any part of Scrum is left out (ceremony, artifact, rule or role) then it is not Scrum.

Scrum purists (like myself for most of my Scrum life) love the fact that Scrum is so simple yet produces fantastic result for Agile delivery. Although Scrum is simple, it can also be difficult to master or implement 100%. Then we start getting into philosophical wars such as: "you only followed 99% of Scrum, so it isn't Scrum!" I was one of those people not too long ago, but not anymore.

Seeing how effective Scrum is in organizations justifies its presence on the Agile stage. But when things just don't make sense, do we blindly follow the system? I often use the following example:

Let's say we have a large air liner carrying hundreds or passengers. When the plane takes off, the pilots guides the plane to a safe altitude. When it reaches a certain altitude and everything checks out fine, the Flight Management System is often engaged to set the flight path to autopilot for a large portion of the flight. The system is perfect and has worked well for many years. However, when the pilots look out the window, even though it's dark and foggy, one pilot swears they can faintly see a mountain directly ahead. The other pilot cannot see anything. They check the system, and the system is telling them everything is fine. There is a disconnect between what the perfect system is telling them, and what one of the pilot is experiencing. What would a purist do? What would a realist do? Thankfully, the pilot who thought they could see a mountain ahead lifted the plane's altitude and avoided a disaster. Later on, an investigation revealed that there was indeed a fault in the system, and while that system was working perfectly fine in nearly all situations, it wasn't appropriate 100% of the time. And so, the system was upgraded to suit all situations. The cycle begins again until there are signs that another change is needed.

No system is perfect; there is always some way to improve or refine it. Purists of any system, framework or methodology follow it blindly because they believe it is faultless, extremely useful, or out of respect to the creators of that system. However, when it comes to skill mastery, even the most loyal proponents of any system can never progress past the "Ha" level in Shu Ha Ri, or "Proficient" level in the Dreyfus model. To truly achieve Ri or Expert level in both models, one needs to be intuitive, innovative, and break the shackles of the status quo.

Scrum is no different. The fact that there are multiple versions of the Scrum Guide is verification that the original framework required changes, or else why bother updating the guide? For example, in the previous guide, we know that the Daily Scrum required each person to answer three basic questions: What did I do yesterday that helped the Development Team meet the Sprint Goal? What will I do today to help the Development Team meet the Sprint Goal? Do I see any impediments that prevent the Development Team from meeting the Sprint Goal? Anyone who dared to suggest that these questions can be totally left out of the Daily Scrum would have been ridiculed. Would any of us have even thought of such a thing 12 months ago? And yet, in the latest Scrum guide, the option to totally leave out these questions is there. The Development Team sets the structure of these meetings, which may or may not have questions at all, and in fact can be discussion based only.

What do the purists have to say about this? Aren't they now using a framework that is different from the last version? Different, better, continuously improving? Can they therefore call themselves purists, or are they purists of the new version? I have since gone to the dark side, where no Scrum purist dares to venture. However, I see myself as having one foot firmly planted in the Scrum doctrine, while the other foot remains available for whatever direction Scrum should and will take in the future. Some call it a cop out. I call it realism, pragmatism, Scrumian!

If Scrum is to survive, it has to practice what it preaches. It has to be transparent, inspected, and adaptive.
 

Thank you for your interest in the Scrumptious blog. If you have any ideas for Scrum topics, please message me here. Until next time, remember, projects can be Scrumptious!