The Shape Of Things

As a Scrum Master, I am often challenged to get teams to understand why the framework is designed as it is. One of the best examples of this is the Daily Scrum. This event is almost universally interpreted as a daily status update.

It's understandable: status reporting has traditionally been a component of professional life, including software development. However, the Daily Scrum is not meant to follow this pattern. Instead, it is meant for the team to collaboratively inspect the work it has done and adapt the work it will do based on that inspection.

The best way I've found to address this misconception is to help teams visualize what they are doing in comparison to what they are meant to do. Visualization can bring clarity to the most complex topics. This is probably because development of language lagged far behind our ability to comprehend things visually. In fact, language can often keep us from understanding something that is obvious when we visualize it.

I often begin by describing the shape of communication within different types of settings. For example, a theater is designed to largely limit communication in one direction. Some theaters encourage audience participation, but even this mostly supplements what is being presented.

In a classroom, the shape of communication is similar to that of the theater: the teacher instructs the class, traditionally from the front of the room. In this case, there is often a response given by the class, though this is typically to validate that the efforts of communication were successful, and it too is in a single direction. While the method might have changed over time - and teachers can certainly learn things from their students - education tends to be undertaken in one direction.

Traditional corporate structures found this approach useful for communication. As a result, one directional status reports and progress updates became the means of keeping management informed. In this model, information is communicated by teams to managers, a shape similar to the classroom with the direction of communication reversed. While this shape has the advantage of enabling communication, it does not easily facilitate collaboration.

It is in this context that Scrum was introduced. With a goal toward empirical processes and collaboration, Scrum was meant as an alternative to the traditional method. As a result, the shape of communication would need to change to better accommodate collaboration. In a Daily Scrum, the team gathers around the scrum or task board, discussing what work was completed and how that informs the work next to be done.

If, however, we continue to report status in scrum, we've changed the shape without changing the direction. For example, if the Scrum Master runs the Scrum, one directional communication becomes more likely; team members find themselves reporting to the Scrum Master rather than collaborating across the team.

The Daily Scrum becomes most effective if it is run by those who benefit from it: the Development Team.

If their attendance is required in the Daily Scrum, the Scrum Master and Product Owner should attend this meeting to support the process, not become the focus of it. By stepping outside the circle, they enable open communication across all members of the Development Team, improving collaboration, increasing innovation, removing bottlenecks, and better leveraging the power of empiricism.

If we see our interactions in these shapes, we can visualize how to improve our process. If we think in terms of better collaboration, we can improve our outcomes.

Rich Brents