The first version is the one that says that “Scrum is not a methodology, a defined process or set of procedures. it's an open development framework.” (Jeff Sutherland) and “Scrum is a values-based framework; it is not a methodology, not a process, not a tool.” (Tobias Mayer)
Scrum version 1 is the Agile version of Scrum. It is the one that values people over process, and principles over tools. It says Scrum is a framework that is open to change, and it can even change itself.
The second version is the one that talks about “the dangers of customizing Scrum inappropriately and the problems that arise from an incomplete Scrum implementation” (Ken Schwaber) and “A Scrum checklist as a simple tool to assess your current implementation of Scrum” (Henrik Kniberg)
Scrum version 2 is the Defined version of Scrum. It is the one that says your implementation and customization of Scrum can be good or bad, based on a small number of best practices, as defined by its founders.
But the practices that Scrum version 2 claims to be essential (like having a Scrum Master, daily stand-up meetings, and weekly sprints) are usually process-based, not value-based. People tick off best practices, not values and principles.
So my question then is, if I do Kanban, while still adhering to the values and principles of Scrum (but with my own replacements for its defined practices), am I then still doing Scrum?
If you answer 'No,' then apparently part of the Scrum framework is still about process, not about values.
If you answer 'Yes,' then apparently you think it's possible to do Scrum without anyone being able to recognize it as such.
I fear that I'm on both sides, and I'm feeling quite schizophrenic...
(image by Victor Bezrukov)
|Latest, greatest and favoritest posts:
In Defense of Scrum (Please Stop Pissing on It)
Self-Organization vs. Emergence
ScrumButs Are the Best Part of Scrum