Tue 17 Aug 2010
In Defense of the Half-Assed, part 1
This post will be split into two parts so that it, itself, will be half-assed with the suggestion of an additional half-ass to be delivered later :) And, in keeping with that spirit, the post mistakenly went live before it was ready for prime time. This time, I meant to push the ‘publish’ button…
Can you deploy Scrum to a test team?
Scrum is at its heart a product development process. How can you leave the part of the organization – development – that actually makes product out of any Scrum deployment? Does it even make sense for other parts of the organization to be “doing Scrum” if development is somehow doing something else? Wouldn’t you be working towards what would be, at best, a half-assed deployment of Scrum?
Craig Larman and Bas Vodde in their wonderful book Practices for Scaling Lean & Agile Development certainly agree: “…a so-called test team Scrum is a contradiction in terms.” Ken Schwaber in The Enterprise and Scrum doesn’t seem to admit the possibility of deploying to functional groups – it’s projects he’s envisioning deploying to. For example, consider this advice for early goers of an enterprise-wide adoption of Scrum: “Establish preconditions that must be met before a project can use Scrum.”
The last 10 or so years of my career have been spent in big companies with very traditional structures: functional organizations with clear separation between development, test, usability, product management, etc; running projects that are very much plan-driven. Lots of agile practices that seem relatively straight-forward in other contexts aren’t in companies like this. Consider Schwaber’s notion of organizational deployment of Scrum again – this from the introduction of The Enterprise and Scrum: “This book is for those who want to use Scrum throughout their enterprise for product development.” It’s an awfully lucky convergence of thought and opportunity that would make such a deployment possible in large, traditionally organized companies. These sets of wholly distinct sub-organizations need to be both willing and able at essentially the same time. You might get a chance like that, but I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for it.
You can start to see why that opportunity would be rare when you look at it from their perspective. In taking a project-by-project focus in deploying Scrum to organizations like these – and assuming you’re holding firm to deploying every part of Scrum straight away – you’re essentially asking them to:
- Reconfigure their teams
- Change how they define and manage product scope
- Empower a single person to make scope decisions on each project
- Change how they plan their work
- Change how they approach their work in areas like development and testing
- And so on …
The point is that, even if limited to the context of a small set of pilot projects, they have to do all of this stuff first before they can realize the benefits of Scrum.
To me, this is exactly the same argument that we, as agilists, are very much accustomed to facing from development teams: “We can do that feature but first we need to re-engineer the infrastructure to support it, which will take six months.” We encourage teams making that argument to find ways to do just a bit of the refactoring to allow just a bit of the value to become realizable, rather than predicating all of the value on all of the refactoring. Why can’t we make a similar argument in support of deploying Scrum to just a part of the organization?
What would Voltaire say?
One of my favorite lines – frequently quoted in optimization discussions but applicable equally well here – comes from Voltaire: “Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien” (the best is the enemy of the good). “Best” is hard to define in any complex system like a large company but “good” seems a little more tractable. We should not let an inability to approach some notion of perfection prevent us from getting better.
A colleague was presented with this exact scenario a while back. Representatives from a test group came to him asking if he would work with them to try Scrum. He and I spent some time talking it over.
Things like product owner, product backlog and potentially shippable product increment looked like a tough fit for a test team, to be sure. But still, we thought of goals like “verify feature X” where the challenge to the team is to find a way to work together to get that done within the time-box of the Sprint. That might be a liberating shift in thinking after heavy doses of planning of the form: “We have a bazillion manual tests to execute. At 5 per hour, that’s bazillion/5 staff hours. With 20 FTE, that’s a bazillion/(20*5*40) weeks of testing.” Looking ahead to subsequent Sprints, we envisioned helping the test team bring some of their development partners into their Scrums – perhaps through broadening the notion of the verification goals to include “hardening” – finding and fixing bugs as a cross-functional team. And from there to the odd small feature, slowly working our way towards aligning the work of the test and development organizations in cross-functional Scrums. Even with such an odd scope of initial deployment, we could see potential benefits, including improved productivity through the iterate and reflect cycle, better planning and estimation and higher morale. Not surprising, these are the same benefits we would suggest lay before any team looking to try Scrum.
Isn’t this the good that Voltaire would caution us against passing on?
Larman and Vodde have some great advice about how to go about ever more closely approaching the “potentially shippable product increment” goal of the Sprint through expanding the Definition of Done (DoD below):
“In general, these are the ways of expanding the DoD:
- Automate – for example, performance testing is automated
- Expand team cross-functionality – for example, a person with technical-writing skills joins the team”
That latter idea suggests a path to improvement that starts in development and then spreads over time to the remaining functions. If we view Scrum deployment as being something we do in the context of projects and products, this is both natural and reasonable. But, if we view deploying Scrum as something we do in the context of teams of people or if we view it simply as “transforming the world of work,” then why would we believe we have to start with any particular set of people? Why not start with testing and grow our way towards development?
Would that be a half-assed approach to deploying Scrum? Perhaps, but like Richard Dawkins’ half a wing or half an eye, maybe half an ass may prove a more useful incremental improvement than may be apparent at first glance.
So, can you deploy Scrum to a test team?
Sure, why not?
What do you think?
About the Author: Ed Willis has been a ScrumMaster, Product Owner, Scrum coach and trainer. He is currently a developer in the telecommunications industry.

I’ll split this post into two pieces so that it, itself, will be half-assed with the suggestion of an additional half-ass to be delivered later
One of my favorite lines – frequently quoted in optimization discussions but applicable equally well here – comes from Voltaire:
Larman and Vodde have some great advice about how to go about ever more closely approaching the “potentially shippable product increment” goal of the Sprint through expanding the Definition of Done (DoD below):
That latter idea suggests a path to improvement that starts in development and then spreads over time to the other functions.
Ah, Marketing. Enter a world of countless project requests, numerous stakeholders, limited resources and rapidly changing market conditions.
depending on which end of the letter your name appears. That letter puts a pretty hard stop to a relationship. It’s communicating detachment and finality. It can create a lot of pain whether intended or not. In contrast, a love letter is uplifting. The endorphins fly! Someone is revealing their attraction for you, and their hopes and wishes for a future with you.