Comments on: A New Lean And Agile Picture

By: 3months » Illustrating Scrum – A new and improved Scrum Diagram

3months » Illustrating Scrum – A new and improved Scrum Diagram — Mon, 14 May 2012 03:22:00 +0000

[...] I will be posting mainly in response to these 3 blogs: David Harvey – The Scrum picture is wrong, Karl Scotland – A New Lean And Agile Picture , Andy Brandt – Scrum picture is quite right. I will be collating these ideas into this post [...]

By: Illustrating Scrum – A new and improved Scrum Diagram « 3months Blog

Illustrating Scrum – A new and improved Scrum Diagram « 3months Blog — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:54:43 +0000

By: David Harvey

David Harvey — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:21:21 +0000

Nice, Karl – I like the graphic simplicity (and what’s more, it works better as a tattoo than the Scrum Diagram). +1 for Glenn’s People-Team-Improvement (though “improvement” is a little weak, how about People-Team-Capability?).

By: Glenn Waters

Glenn Waters — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:35:45 +0000

I certainly like that the defacto Cohn picture is being discussed. I also love the fact that new ideas that are being discussed. However (you knew this was coming), I think that the simplicity of either the Cohn picture or the new figure 8 picture will be difficult to be both complete and simple. That means I believe this discussion needs to go on some more and we are going to see many more iterations of the new picture.

My first reaction, was the top ring resonated with me. The bottom ring didn’t. Before reading any of the comments my first reaction was to suggest that the labels on the bottom be “Reality, Team, Improvement”. I’m still thinking that is not bad, but would like the word people in there, as suggested by some of the comments. So perhaps “People, Team, Improvement”. I like team in the middle since “stuff” should revolve around the team.

Anyhow, my 2 cents (pence?) in a discussion that I think will continue for a while.

By: Karl Scotland

Karl Scotland — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:48:56 +0000

Hi Johannes,
Sure, feel free to use and adapt this as you like. Feel free to link back to this blog aswell
Karl

By: Johannes Link

Johannes Link — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:39:59 +0000

Very nice!
What about “deliver” and “reflect” as inside-circle titles?
Can I use it in my talks?

By: Robert Dempsey

Robert Dempsey — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:51:05 +0000

I agree with other Kerstin that people would be a better second input. I really like this model as it shows that by adding process and improvement to vision and (if changed) people then you get a product and a team. After all, what is Scrum about if not people?

By: Andrew Scotland

Andrew Scotland — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:39:20 +0000

Not sure process and improvement are the right things for inside the loops.

They feel like they should be activity type statements – perhaps Develop Product and Develop Potential.

The things at the end of the loops are outcome things – Product Increment and Capability Improvement.

The inputs should be Vision and Team/People.

Love the simplicity of this.

By: Rich Turner

Rich Turner — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:28:43 +0000

I like Karl’s modification. As a blast from the past, this looks a good deal like the Quality Improvement Paradigm (QIP) that Vic Basili and company came up with during the 25-year NASA Software Engineering Lab experience (one reference is: http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514265084/html/x287.html). Vic envisioned developing and using various models to support the improvement and this was before the lean/agile movement began in software. But the figure 8 and the interaction between the various pieces is still there.

By: Karl Scotland

Karl Scotland — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:58:52 +0000

I wasn’t totally happy with Reality, so maybe People is the better 2nd input, which also addresses Bob’s comment.

I’d also consider replacing Team with Capability to make it more general.