(On relationships of Scrum,TOC, BPR, Systems’ Thinking, Knowledge Management, TQM, Complexity, Manufacturing, New Product Development, etc.)

Although there are great synergies between TOC and Scrum, there are also vast differences. Both provide patterns to resolve systemic problems akin to those described in Systems’ Thinking by Senge, but TOC resolves systemic problems that are more akin to process improvement ala TQM, rather than complete overhauls as in BPR, which I argue, is closer to what Scrum does – it reengineers the process from scratch, by implementing high performance patterns altogether.

For the most part, TOC, and The Goal, assume a somewhat repeatable business process, where the process of removing constraints, exploiting constraints, finding new ones, etc.; is an ongoing process in a somewhat stable, repeatable process.

Scrum, on the other hand, generalizes this technique in the absence of a repeatable process, it simply removes *any* constraints constantly, with no assurance that the constraints removed will remain so the next day, and that the particular constraint optimized
“has been removed”, and that we can move on to new ones at that point. It is usually the case, however.

Another important difference is that a Scrum team is already an organizational structure that avoids process anti-patterns like handoffs, iteration and re-work (among different organizational structures, between an “analysis” team and a “design team” for example, or between an organizational structure building component A, communicating with another one building component B, in a Conway’s Law configuration i.e. where Organization Follows Architecture.

In that sense, a Scrum team is a true “Case Team”, as termed in Michael Hammer’s BPR, i.e. an organization structure that is *completely responsible* for the success of a process or project, where the ScrumMaster is the “Case Manager* ala Hammer, that responds to the Product Owner.

From the Knowledge Management perspective, TOC optimizes the process and therefore, more knowledge of the processes themselves are more valued, while in the Scrum (Case Team) perspective, the individual contributor’s knowledge is more valued.

On the other, and to make things slightly more complicated, Scrum sits atop a number of processes, that as more applications of the same kind are built, tend to be more repeatable, like configuration management, testing of certain components, vertical slice development or new applications on top of reusable architectural services.

The interesting thing to note, is that in Scrum, smaller reusable processes develop underneath as a base of knowledge but they don’t drive development, while the Scrum process, acts as a “work generator/work management” “process envelope” (a superprocess, or meta-process, if you prefer), that drives the work. (In Complexity terms, it is the Maxwell Demon that provides the autocatalytic cycles to drive self-organization, ala Kaufman’s “Origins of Order”.

Curiously, manufacturing is turning more and more to the original BPR patterns to build things. However, New Product Development always requires one meta-level more of work organization to handle the variability of “building something new every time”. In software development this difference evolves into a more continuum spectrum. The first application in a domain is New Product development, but as new ones get added, only a percentage is New Product development, the other percentage is more like manufacturing, and therefore more repeatable.

But don’t worry – no one needs to understand all the above gibberish for Scrum to work. On the other hand, it is nice to understand these things to properly understand Scrum in the context of other management techniques,

– Mike Beedle

Affiliated Promotions:

Our effectiveness as creators depends greatly on our knowledge and our skills. Less obviously, our effectiveness as creators also depends on our emotional and mental state, and even what some would call our spiritual state. Finally, our ability to create can be greatly magnified or greatly reduced by our environment, particularly the other people who are around us. Which is interesting, because our creative nature affects our environment.

Affiliated Promotions:

Our senses and the devices we create to extend our senses, are filters through which we perceive reality. We don’t get to sense all of reality. Then, our minds take in the streams of information from our senses, and filter them further. Our attention or focus, our preconceptions, our mood, all determine the way we filter information from our senses. If we are feeling guilty, we may be more likely to hear other peoples’ conversation as criticism. If we are feeling proud, we may be more likely to hear those same conversations as praise.

If our perceptions are wrong then no amount of logical excellence will give the right answer. So it is a pity that almost the whole of our traditional intellectual effort has been directed at logic and so little at perception.

Logic will not change emotions and feelings. Perception will.” (Edward de Bono, Textbook of Wisdom, 1996)

Affiliated Promotions:

In “The Corporate Culture Survival Guide”, Edgar H. Schein describes a method for implementing culture change in corporations. He says:

As the change team works on the ideal state and the present state [of the corporate culture], it probably has to periodically redefine the change problem in terms of the gap or gaps identified. In other words, though the process is a set of steps undertaken in sequence, there are many feedback loops that force going back to earlier steps to guarantee clear thinking. . . .

As various gaps are identified in concrete form, it becomes apparent where cultural assumptions aid or hinder the change agenda. For example, having sales teams work together on big accounts may sound simple until it is discovered that the organization’s individualistic culture prevents changing the incentive system to a group-based compensation program. The change program then has to shift to examining how to change some of the individualistic assumptions; this might entail an entirely new change program not previously thought about at all.

In other words, expect and embrace changes in understanding brought about by learning from work performed. Deliver corporate culture change work iteratively. Plan corporate change adaptively.

Affiliated Promotions:

People are creators: we willfully change our environment, we imagine new things and through our actions, manifest those things in the world. All people do this. Human beings enjoy having an effect on their environment and seeing the results of that effect. We all have this ability. We all derive satisfaction from the exercise of this ability. And we can all learn to improve this ability.

In any endeavor we take on, we are attempting to create something new. A new system, a new object, a new pattern of behavior, or a new way of thinking. We are attempting to create change. This is one of three fundamental axioms of Agile Work.

Affiliated Promotions:

Waste can be of several different types. Independent of what the types of wastes are, they can also come from different sources. When attempting agile work, it is essential to identify the underlying causes or sources of waste. Once these sources are identified, efforts can be made to change them so that they cause less waste.

Continue reading Management and Business as Sources of Waste →

Affiliated Promotions: