Andy's Mind

A friend sent me a link to a posting on the official Google blog that says they are effectively killing Wave. The reason given is lack of user adoption.

I think what it shows is rather Google’s failure to properly position the product on the market – or even turn the technology they have developed into a product. What they had was a potential Exchange killer – a system that could have been a real game changer in corporate communications as I wrote when it was unveiled. Instead of trying to get general Internet user community to adopt it Google should have packaged Wave as a corporate messaging/integration/collaboration system and market it bundled with support services to large corporations.

Someone else can still do this if they will indeed release much of the technology behind Wave to the public as open source code. Heck, maybe even Microsoft will adopt some of the concepts (and maybe even protocols) into their next release of Exchange/Outlook pair.

Still, this shows us Google is not immune from the problem of many great tech companies: inability to market great inventions. This has happened before many times – companies developed brilliant technology, but then failed to turn it into a product or market it successfully. Some didn’t survive it (Commodore, DEC), some did, but just failed to grasp a great opportunity (like Xerox for example).

So far Google still has its huge revenue stream from their basic product – pay per click advertising driven by search results – so failure to market Wave won’t hurt them. However, some research suggests ppc ads are declining in value as people learn to mentally avoid them (even if they don’t use the great Ad Block plugin as I do). So, dear Big Brother Google, better think twice next time before you throw away some great product in the making.

Someone has asked if management or project management should come to the sprint retrospective ¹. Think the way this question was asked indicated that there was some confusion regarding sprint retrospectives versus sprint reviews which, I think, is worth clearing.

Sprint retrospective and Sprint review are two different things that shouldn’t be confused.

Sprint review is for everyone involved, especially stakeholders, to inspect where the project is and discuss how to adapt as needed. Sprint review revolves around what was built – the “shippable product increment” produced in the last sprint – and the overall product, not how it was produced.

It is good if Product Owner “represents” stakeholders, but it is even better if they come and see themselves what was accomplished, what runs etc. My advice is to welcome management of all kinds if they want to come to a sprint review, just being sure they know what the purpose of the meeting and their role in it is. Ensuring that and educating them is primarily Product Owner’s job, but of course the Scrum Master may assist him.

Sprint retrospective is primarily for the team to inspect their last sprint, concentrating less on what was done than on how it was done, and then adapt their way of work. I wouldn’t include anyone outside the team in those, besides maybe the Product Owner if he/she wants to join.

A common objection to bringing management of any kind into retrospective is that team may not be comfortable talking about their dirty laundry in front of them. It is indeed very valid – but it is also worth noting that from managements’ prospective this would be a waste of their time to, for example, listen to developers debating how to improve branching in their code repository. Even if the management knew what the heck the team is talking about this is not something they should waste their time on. Managers have lots of things to do (collectively called “bigger picture”) which no one will do for them – this is where their time will be better spent.

Having said that an overall retrospective on the project or on a longer chunk of it (like a quarter or half a year) that would include management may make sense, but it would not necessarily include all team members (if you have many teams that would make it even impossible to do). Such a retrospective would concentrate on “big picture” and could be very beneficial – if there is of course a right atmosphere within company for people to be honest enough in such a retrospective for results to be useful.

Speaking of retrospectives – definitely worth buying is “Agile Retrospectives” Esther Derby and Diana Larsen. There is not much to read there – just a couple of introductory chapters – but it is a great cookbook of various techniques to use in different phases of a retrospective based on how much time you have and what is the retrospective about. Each technique has a description of how much time to set aside for it, how to facilitate it and where its place is the overall sequence of a retrospective.

Great help, since classic “what we did well? what we didn’t do well?” etc. becomes boring pretty quickly. Anyone who facilitates retrospectives on a regular basis should have this book.

[1] – original question.

Jesse Fewell – a long time proponent of building bridges between the world of traditional project management and agile – has brought to my attention the newest initiative by Alistair Cockburn – “The Oath of Non-Allegiance”:

I promise not to exclude from consideration any idea based on its source, but to consider ideas across schools and heritages in order to find the ones that best suit the current situation.

This should be obvious in the context of looking for ways to better run projects, but clearly it is not. The world of agile is full of divisions, bickering and discussions that remind me of good old days of comp.os.advocacy. As Jesse points out, even the thought leaders of the agile community practice very little collaboration that is the cornerstone of this whole approach. Why?

I think there are two reasons for this.

First, for some agile – or, worse, just one flavor of it – has become something akin to a secular religion that gives their lives sense and meaning – the one and only true way to not only run software projects, but also “transform the world of work” and people’s lives worldwide. It doesn’t matter if this attitude is true or faked – believers will fight with each other over slightest details always defending their chosen flavor of agile. They will also savagely attack anyone who dares to suggest agile is just a tool.

Second, once money is added to the mix things are bound to get hot. People have built their livelihoods around teaching and promoting certain “labels” and, naturally, they will fight to protect what they consider to be their turf. This is exactly same reaction as the one we are getting from “traditional project managers” when promoting agile – they feel their jobs are at risk from methods with no room for someone that will tell workers what to do.

Both attitudes are normal and very human indeed, however they should not shape the world of agile. I think most of us – people involved in agile – want to get things done. I’m enthusiastic about Scrum not because I think it will put the whole world as we know it on its head – but because I know from first hand experience that Scrum simply works on software projects. I’m pretty sure there are projects where it would fail – and I would use other, more appropriate methods there.

I’m sure there are more pragmatists like me and it is a good thing that their voice is heard. I signed the Oath.

As some of you may know I have been on a committee led by Harvey Wheaton, that was tasked with selecting the candidates for the two vacant seats on the Scrum Alliance’s board. I was pretty surprised with the proposal to be a part of this group given some of my views, mostly about CST process etc., that I express also here, but I took this as an opportunity to help the Scrum Alliance.

It turned out to be an interesting experience. Since SA’s bylaws didn’t prescribe a process we should follow, so we had to self-organize and devise a process that would be – in our opinion – fair. It worked out better than – I think – anyone of us expected. We managed to come up with a pretty good selection pretty quickly with just e-mails and two confcalls.

The process was pretty simple – on the first call we decided we want to learn more about potential candidates who expressed interest, especially what they want to bring to Scrum Alliance, so we have created a simple questionnaire for them to respond to. Some obviously didn’t saving us work, but 17 people did submit responses varying in length. As it turned out on the last call all of us took time and read through those responses, some even more than once. Thus prepared we were able to reach a consensus during the second call and present a very balanced list of candidates.

Personally, when reading the submissions, I was looking for concrete vision and addressing SA’s real problems (damaging and unnecessary rift with Ken and Jeff, certification process in dire need of an overhaul – incl. the CST process, lack of vision and openness in what the board does, Scrum being pushed aside by the “Kanban camp’s” marketing efforts etc.) rather than general statements on promoting Scrum etc. I think a board member is responsible for steering the organization in a (hopefully) right direction, not for defining what is Scrum for example (“Scrum Guide” by Ken and Jeff does this well enough).

Overall, I’m pretty satisfied with the candidates that we selected – the list will be published on the SA site pretty soon.

Now it is up to members to vote and choose, keeping in mind that those two board members will have limited influence and can be outvoted by the incumbents anyway. However, at least they can probably influence the Scrum Alliance in the right way or tell the rest of the members how the board works or what it decides and why.

It is about time to reinvigorate the Alliance and save it from fading into irrelevance – which is what can happen if those pressing points I mentioned above are not addressed – so vote carefully.