Much needed; great timing; thanks Ken!

Ken Schwaber's Blog: Telling It Like It Is

Organizations usually don’t adopt Scrum because they like its name. Instead, they have heard that software development is better if they use Scrum – quicker, cheaper, higher quality, more satisfied customers and employees. Sometimes things are so bad in software development that they try Scrum just because it wasn’t what they were doing before.

However, adopting Scrum, becoming more agile and improving software development, costs money. It requires training, tooling, coaching. These are all investments. Scrum does not come with a set of tools for managing these investments, measuring the resultant benefits, and optimizing return on investment.

For the last several years, I’ve been developing a framework for managing this investment. It is called the Continuous Improvement Framework (CIF, yes, another acronym). CIF provides a set of management tools for continuously improving an organization and becoming more agile. Your agility is measured by metrics that reflect business value. The value…

View original post 140 more words

Defend the Scrum Master role

Polling all Scrum apologists: Can you help me defend the value of the Scrum Master / Iteration Manager role?

Maybe it’s their [bad] experiences, or maybe it’s their culture, but I’ve been confronted on several occasions by developers who are convinced the Scrum Master doesn’t add value to the team. After all, they say, the SM doesn’t actually do anything. Really?? Where does this particular mindset come from? I just hope this doesn’t go viral, but I have been seeing this attitude in more and more places. Help!? Looking for a collaborative defense here, before I spout all my thoughts on the value the SM adds to solution development and delivery.