Jaydeep ParabIT Project Manager| Tata Power SEDThane, Maharashtra, India
In SCRUM, the Team takes most of the project management work. The Team decides the best way to work & makes continuous self-improvements. In such scenario, do we need a Project Manager? Saving Changes...
Absolutely. One of the gaps I often see in the scrum model if left to the scum master and team, is proper critical path analysis. Whilst a scrum team can self manage to a certain degree, I have found that planning around dependencies and predecessors, critical path, cross workstream dependencies etc is often not done. i.e. the more complex side of Project Management. So personally I think there is a place for detailed project management to compliment the scrum method. Maybe more so on larger projects, not sure if this is still valid on small projects. Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
First of all, agile is not a method, agile is not software or IT related only, agile did not start in the manifesto, so project/program/portfolio management practices are needed in agile environments. Second, agile software development did not end in SCRUM. If you take a look to DSDM or other methods you will see the project manager role explicit defined. And here come the last: you have the role but the role could have a different name. I am working with agile from the very begining and I am performing conferences inside the PMI World Tour talking about this type of things from 2010 up to day around the world. You question always arrives and it is logical because, unfortunatelly, agile becomes a buzzwords and lot of people are talking about that sometimes without the needed knwoledge.
...
1 reply by Anupam
Nov 17, 2016 11:31 PM
Anupam
...
I agree with Sergio
Saving Changes...
Ram SrinivasanAgile Coach and Certified Scrum Trainer| http://InnovAgility.comChennai, Tamil Nadu, India
One of the exercises that I do in my CSM workshop is how a traditional Project Manager responsibilities get divided between Scrum roles - SM, PO and team. I have 5 columns for distributing the traditional PM responsibilities - SM, PO, Team, Leadership, Waste (I got this version of the exercise from Jeff Sutherland, the co-creator of Scrum)
Usually participants self-discover (and are shocked) that most of the PM responsibilities go to Team and PO, SM is almost empty and there are a few things in Leadership and Waste.
So in a traditional sense, the responsibilities do get distributed. But the challenge is that in most organizations, a "role" is tied to a "person". There is a lot of tacit knowledge with traditional managers, and if organizations move from "projects to products" and if "PM role" is not tied to a "person", people can get creative in delivering value to the organization.
...
1 reply by Phil Hanson
Nov 18, 2016 3:16 AM
Phil Hanson
...
the model Ram describes presumably doesn't scale? I mean it assumes the relative skills and interests, influence etc of the combined scrum team extend past their own stream which I am not sure is often the case? It goes back to the old adage - a good technician does not necessarily make a good manager. This is not to say all technical people are not capable of thinking past their own role, far from it, just that Project Management is something you either get, or you don't. If you don't "get it" that doesn't mean you're not good at your job, it just means you're good at doing whatever it is your skills lie in. I am no good at programming or business analysis so I leave those things to folk who know what they are doing and I stick to what I am good at, Project Management. Relying on a combined scrum team of technicians, business folk and scrum masters to lead and deliver an enterprise level project with multiple teams, multiple phases, complex solutions, multiple 3rd parties and all manner of stakeholders and globally diverse teams of people, will most likely not end in a successfully delivered project. There still needs to be a Project Manager involved to hold it all together and think about the big picture as well as the detail. Sprints can continue in this model and be part of the overall plan working on iterations of detail, regular product deliveries to show and maintain progress, but in the context of an overall plan. hence, the 2 methods should work complimentary to one another in my view, not separate. i.e. the hybrid waterfall / agile approach to project management. There are lots of disciplines like risk and issue management, critical path analysis, dependency management, earned value analysis etc, that all lose their value and benefit if not done correctly. This is the benefit of keeping a PM involved in my view. The more teams that exist in a project the more cross team dependencies could arise, the more complex the project, the more a Project Manager is justified to manage these things, but keep the scrum team as well for the activities they can add value to and run with on their own at a detailed level.
First of all, agile is not a method, agile is not software or IT related only, agile did not start in the manifesto, so project/program/portfolio management practices are needed in agile environments. Second, agile software development did not end in SCRUM. If you take a look to DSDM or other methods you will see the project manager role explicit defined. And here come the last: you have the role but the role could have a different name. I am working with agile from the very begining and I am performing conferences inside the PMI World Tour talking about this type of things from 2010 up to day around the world. You question always arrives and it is logical because, unfortunatelly, agile becomes a buzzwords and lot of people are talking about that sometimes without the needed knwoledge.
One of the exercises that I do in my CSM workshop is how a traditional Project Manager responsibilities get divided between Scrum roles - SM, PO and team. I have 5 columns for distributing the traditional PM responsibilities - SM, PO, Team, Leadership, Waste (I got this version of the exercise from Jeff Sutherland, the co-creator of Scrum)
Usually participants self-discover (and are shocked) that most of the PM responsibilities go to Team and PO, SM is almost empty and there are a few things in Leadership and Waste.
So in a traditional sense, the responsibilities do get distributed. But the challenge is that in most organizations, a "role" is tied to a "person". There is a lot of tacit knowledge with traditional managers, and if organizations move from "projects to products" and if "PM role" is not tied to a "person", people can get creative in delivering value to the organization.
the model Ram describes presumably doesn't scale? I mean it assumes the relative skills and interests, influence etc of the combined scrum team extend past their own stream which I am not sure is often the case? It goes back to the old adage - a good technician does not necessarily make a good manager. This is not to say all technical people are not capable of thinking past their own role, far from it, just that Project Management is something you either get, or you don't. If you don't "get it" that doesn't mean you're not good at your job, it just means you're good at doing whatever it is your skills lie in. I am no good at programming or business analysis so I leave those things to folk who know what they are doing and I stick to what I am good at, Project Management. Relying on a combined scrum team of technicians, business folk and scrum masters to lead and deliver an enterprise level project with multiple teams, multiple phases, complex solutions, multiple 3rd parties and all manner of stakeholders and globally diverse teams of people, will most likely not end in a successfully delivered project. There still needs to be a Project Manager involved to hold it all together and think about the big picture as well as the detail. Sprints can continue in this model and be part of the overall plan working on iterations of detail, regular product deliveries to show and maintain progress, but in the context of an overall plan. hence, the 2 methods should work complimentary to one another in my view, not separate. i.e. the hybrid waterfall / agile approach to project management. There are lots of disciplines like risk and issue management, critical path analysis, dependency management, earned value analysis etc, that all lose their value and benefit if not done correctly. This is the benefit of keeping a PM involved in my view. The more teams that exist in a project the more cross team dependencies could arise, the more complex the project, the more a Project Manager is justified to manage these things, but keep the scrum team as well for the activities they can add value to and run with on their own at a detailed level. Saving Changes...
Ram SrinivasanAgile Coach and Certified Scrum Trainer| http://InnovAgility.comChennai, Tamil Nadu, India
Hi Phil -
Scrum eliminates a lot of waste and overhead from a process perspective + encourages the teams to be self managing, and that is exactly what a Scrum Master teaches the team.
And management is different from being a "manager".
"Relying on a combined scrum team of technicians, business folk and scrum masters to lead and deliver an enterprise level project with multiple teams, multiple phases, complex solutions, multiple 3rd parties and all manner of stakeholders and globally diverse teams of people, will most likely not end in a successfully delivered project. "
Yes, there are dependencies, Scrum tries to minimize them. And there are scaling approaches which addresss many of your concerns - multiple teams, complex products, etc. And depending on the nature of the organization, there will always be work for some "managers".
If you still refuse to believe it, ask yourself these questions
1. Why does an experienced cross functional developer / full stack developer gets paid more than a senior project manager with PMP certification?
2. When an organization is transforming to Agile, why are people in the "middle" (middle level managers, and project managers) let go?
Unfortunately, I see a lot of resistance from traditional PMs in accepting that their nature of role is changing today (does not mean that the role becomes obsolete). This is also true with leadership teams, the nature of their role is also changing. Saving Changes...
Stéphane ParentSelf Employed / Semi-retired| Leader MakerPrince Edward Island, Canada
Given that the SM is full-time on the iteration/sprint, how can the same person also be PM and PO? This gets even more complicated if you have parallel sprints. Saving Changes...
Ram SrinivasanAgile Coach and Certified Scrum Trainer| http://InnovAgility.comChennai, Tamil Nadu, India
Hi Stephane -
The SM cannot be a PM or a PO. They are different roles, requiring different type of thinking.
One SM can be a SM for 1 - 3 teams (depending on organizational context, team maturity, etc). And if sprints are parallel, it actually makes it easy.
ram
...
1 reply by Stéphane Parent
Nov 18, 2016 8:53 AM
Stéphane Parent
...
Everything I know about agile says you have to be dedicated to one, and only one, sprint.
Are we now saying that it's OK to be fully only partially assigned to a sprint? How would a SM manage multiple sprints?
Saving Changes...
Stéphane ParentSelf Employed / Semi-retired| Leader MakerPrince Edward Island, Canada
Nov 18, 2016 8:31 AM
Replying to Ram Srinivasan
...
Hi Stephane -
The SM cannot be a PM or a PO. They are different roles, requiring different type of thinking.
One SM can be a SM for 1 - 3 teams (depending on organizational context, team maturity, etc). And if sprints are parallel, it actually makes it easy.
ram
Everything I know about agile says you have to be dedicated to one, and only one, sprint.
Are we now saying that it's OK to be fully only partially assigned to a sprint? How would a SM manage multiple sprints? Saving Changes...
Ram SrinivasanAgile Coach and Certified Scrum Trainer| http://InnovAgility.comChennai, Tamil Nadu, India
It is still 1 sprint, dedicated teams are synchronized within the sprint i.e. they may have a joint sprint planning meeting to start the sprint and end with 1 review, an individual team retro and a joint -cross team retro. It is still 1 sprint. And the SM may work with multiple teams. I prefer to say SM "serves" than "manages"
...
1 reply by Stéphane Parent
Nov 18, 2016 9:56 AM
Stéphane Parent
...
I'm reminded of the Bible quote:
"No one can serve two masters: Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other." Matthew 6:24
I can easily see how serving two teams could lead to a similar situation. Either you will serve the one that struggles the most, or you will serve the one that gives you the most joy the most.
