Skip to main content

Types of Scrum Master; Do we need someone with IT background as a Scrum Master?


Generally there are 4 types of Scrum master

1.Technical - Battle hardened IT engineer who are promoted as SM

2.ProjectManager - SM : Traditional Project Manager who transitioned to SM ( really !!! ). This is a very tricky situation. The traditional PM has to do a lot of un-learning before he/she can become an SM. The PM shouldn’t be made an SM of the same team which he/she was managing.

3.Leader SM - The true leaders SM who love people and help them transform, They may or may not have technical or scrum knowledge. They help in the transition or improvement with their influence and leadership qualities. At any day I would like to work with such thought leaders

4.Scrum Process zealot - SM : Someone who has received a lot of SM training, who follows the rules very religiously to an extend that he/she never allows any innovation (Change) around these. We need such SM’s when the team is new or when going through a lot of volatility. I have personally seen one of my managers helping the team in chaos with his tough rules. Once the team stabilizes such zealots should be transitioned/influenced to exhibit other traits.

We need all these types of SM on different projects depending on their maturity. Over emphasizing any particular trait will not help. Generally I have seen that the best technical person in the team is promoted (transition will be a better word – in agile we cannot promote because all are at the same level ). I am personal example of this (Now you know that I am the best techie. I hate to break this news so openly). I have personally seen that initially it works but the team will still look upto these techie SM for solutions. It was very frustrating for me to hear the pleas for help for providing those simple solutions which anyone can find easily by googling ( or yahoo or bing – I am impartial). There was many ways I made my team think and self-organize. But I had to put additional efforts for this. My effort would have been much easier if I was not a techie SM. Even now sometimes I hear the SOS call for my technical skills. My technical skills made me understand many discussions which happened in the team &I was able to question/influence many decisions. The biggest challenge was to manage myself rather than the team. Whenever I hear the discussion about any technical topic which was dear to my heart, it starts pumping more blood & my brain emits the hormones to my tongue to produce the necessary noise with the information ( oops I have to learn my Bio again , which reminds me that I got 92 % in HSC for biology WOW). Like a project PM I also believe that a techie shouldn’t be made an SM of the same team (especially if he/she was a tech lead). Technical SM should be helping the team members with his suggestions only when they ask and not push his technical knowledge or ideas. Use your brain, don’t answer all the questions guide them so that they can find the answers themselves. Teach your team fishing; dont give them fish.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

PDCA & SCRUM (or Agile); Why is it important?

The PDCA (Plan DO Check Act) cycle was made popular by Dr. W. Edwards Deming. This is a scientific cyclic process which can be used to improve the process (or product). This is cyclic in nature and usually time boxed. Plan  This is the first stage of the process. During this step the team discusses the objectives, the process and the clear conditions of exit (conditions of acceptance). This stage sets the measurable and achievable goals for the team. DO Team works together to achieve the objective set in the planning phase. Team works with the set of agreed process. Check Once the implantation is done team regroups and verifies the output and compares it to the agreed conditions of acceptance decided during the planning phase. The deviation, if any, is noted down. ACT If any deviation in planned tasks is observed during the Check stage, a root cause analysis is conducted. Team brainstorms and identifies the changes required to prevent such deviations in future. Team also

SCRUM- Who should write a user story

Traditionally user stories (or requirements) were written by Business analysts. They used to prepare big documents after months of study. It was a herculean task. I used to get such UI/Functional specification documents. I have fixed a lot of bugs because I missed few text in such 1000 + pages document. This is not the only interesting part. Some of the requirements were so weird that I often wondered why I am creating the features which no one is going to use. If I had the option I would have recommended a better option. If the BA’s misunderstood some requirements & customers failed to correct those few words in the epic requirement then we will have a nice situation. In the agile world the story is different. Product Owners are primarily responsible for user stories. But can anyone else also contribute? Yes. Definitely yes In actual environment many users write user stories. The first requirement may come from end user. The PO, tech architect, scrum master, BA’s... anyone can up

Why is potentially shippable product quality important

Agile teams work in iterations. During this period, they are supposed to work on product increments which can be “delivered” at the end of iteration. But how you know that the correct product was delivered? Many teams have different kinds of acceptance criteria and Definition of Done (DoD). But in many cases, this “done” is not the real “done” there might be some testing pending, some integration or review pending or anything else which prevents the actual use of the product increment. Many of these teams will need additional iterations to finish hardening their products. Many teams will implement different types of “gates” or approval steps to move to next stage. The free flow of product will be interrupted. They might end up doing mini waterfall within their agile process. Many don’t even realize this. This results in poor quality and requires additional effort to “harden” the product. Potentially Shippable Product increment The acceptance criteria and DoD should be modified