Tag Archives: CALM

Using Narrative as an alternative to rules of Best Practice

In my last post, I spoke about the limitations of Best Practice.

I can imagine that some of you may be thinking:

“Well Mr Bennett, it’s all well and good to poke holes in rules of Best Practice, but what do you suggest we do instead!?  We can’t just have a free for all!  How will people know what to do?”

A free for all is not at all what I’m suggesting.  In fact far from it.  The deep and lasting irony about using Best Practice outside of its appropriate domain of use is that you get less actual control as people game the system to get around it.

Let’s use a concrete example to illustrate the point I’m talking about.

You might for example be using a process control framework (let’s call it Scrum) – and you can have a simple rule:

Rule A) “Only the Product Owner may abnormally terminate a Sprint”

OR

Rule B) “Only the Team may abnormally terminate a Sprint”

OR

Rule C) “Either the Team or the Product Owner may abnormally terminate a Sprint”

There have been passionate discussions (mostly online) as to which one of these rules is “right”, and evidence of one kind or another exists to support all of them.  Clearly, as written, they cannot all be right.

Which one is Best Practice?

Rules are used to guide behaviour and also provide an objective justification for punitive action towards rule breakers.

In our society we are all aware of the punitive actions associated with our criminal justice laws.

But terminating a sprint is a process rule, not a criminal justice law.  If a criminal justice law is broken, it is used in a court of law in order to provide guidance as to whether the rule was in fact broken and what the appropriate punishment should be.  When was the last time this happened on your project?

Process laws are therefore less about punishment and more about guidance.  But how suitable are rules for this purpose?

Rules like these unfortunately offer very little guidance for complex situations.   And the more general they are, the less guidance they seem to offer.  You could easily argue that Rule C could be replaced by “Anybody except the ScrumMaster may terminate a Sprint” – it may sound silly, but really, what is the effective difference between that statement and the rule as described?

The problem with rules is that to be clearly enforceable, they need to be pretty specific – which is OK when your rule genuinely is “Best Practice” because everything else apart from following the letter is going to be an undesirable outcome.  But if anything less than perfect is your aim, then simple statements such as “Only the Product Owner may terminate Sprints” begin to lose their utility and we instead direct people towards a “not terrible, but not great either outcome” – in many cases like these, the focus tends to be not on excellence but instead on preventing horrible failure.  The problem with this approach should be obvious, you drag down the great outcomes to protect yourself from the bad.  Maybe it’s me, but I don’t see a competitive advantage in that approach.

Narrative is a good option – in these series of narrative fragments I have provided an alternative to simple rules – and one in a very human form, one in which our race has been learning and passing on knowledge for centuries.

Instead of a single point, instead there is a rich tapestry of guidance and learning.  One in which the team and organisation can add to themselves over time as they share their successes and failures.

Rules & Narrative Fragments

Sprint Termination Narrative Fragments

NOTE: If you’ve arrived here directly this is a set of narrative fragments edited together to become a fable.  The purpose of which is to socialise desired behaviours within an organisation.  It is presented as an alternative to stating and enforcing simple rules along the lines of “Only the Product Owner may abnormally terminate the Sprint” and instead attempts to capture the richness and subtle involved in such decisions.  Like all good fables, it also contains several other minor lessons.

A LASTing Benefits Scrum Fable

Our Protagonists:

Bob – The ABC Corp Product Owner, recently married

Sally – The CEO of ABC Corp, & Bob’s boss

Gareth – The CEO of Company X

Jim, Gary & Peter (aka the Three Amigos) – schoolmates who now find themselves working on the same Scrum Team at ABC Corp. They all hold a large number of options in ABC Corp stock.

Betsy – the Scrum Mistress at ABC Corp, nobody’s boss

A Conscientious Product Owner

Bob the Product Owner being recently married is going on a long honeymoon. Knowing how important a Good Backlog is to the success of the ABC Corp Product, Bob grooms far ahead and spends quality time with his team ensuring that they have the information they need, and know what is expected of them whilst he’s away.

A Deal in the making

Sally (ABC Corp) and Gareth (Company X) having been working together on an exciting new joint venture for some time. They plan to build on the natural synergies between their company’s respective software suites and create an entirely new class of product which should take the market by storm.

Work needs to be done at both organisations. Their respective marketing departments have also requested that Gareth and Sally provide some kind of indication of when they think they can deliver it to the market.

Sally and Gareth get their respective software teams together to estimate how long the integration effort might take.

Both companies use Scrum for development. The estimates produced by the teams indicate that at the current rate of development, it’s most likely that the work will take between 4 & 6 “Sprints” to complete the integration. Marketing immediately calculates a calendar date from this information and starts working on Press Releases and Marketing Collateral.

Bob returns with a smile and a sunburn

The day after the deal is signed, Bob comes back to what appears to him to be a very different organisation to the one he left!

There is a note on his desk that he’s to see Sally the very instant that he gets into the office.

Swallowing back the fear that he’s going to be fired, Bob checks his grooming in the mens room before taking a deep breath and going to find Sally.

Sprint the First – Responding to Change over following a Plan

Sally briefly explains the deal she made with Gareth while he was away and directs him to start work immediately.

Bob explains patiently that he will most certainly prioritise the work in his “Product Backlog” but that “his” team cannot start on the work for a least another 10 days, as they’re currently “in Sprint”.

Sally explains to Bob, that time is of the essense, wheels are in motion and that 10 days is far too long to wait to get started.

“Bob, irrespective of what the team is currently doing, it cannot compare to how important producing the Joint Venture Software is. We need this.”

Bob stands firm.

“No!” he says, “I cannot break my promise to the team! As the PO I committed to not changing my mind about what the team is to deliver in each Sprint. If I break my commitment I’ll go to Scrum Hell! I’ve seen pictures in Betsy’s Scrum Bible, and it looks horrible!”

Sally considers firing Bob on the spot, but his mention of Betsy’s Scrum Bible reminds her of what’s in her bottom drawer. She opens it and takes out the gold plated plaque that Betsy gave her last Xmas. It is inscribed with something called “The Agile Manifesto for Sofware Development”, she scans it quickly to find the text she’d thought she remembered seeing.

She holds up the plaque and begins to read from it.

“We Value… Responding to Change over Following a Plan”

“Sounds to me Bob, like you’d rather follow your plan, than respond to the change I’ve just given you!”

“Um”, says Bob as he becomes increasingly fascinated with the top of his shoes.

“But wait, there’s more!” exclaims Sally

“We welcome change, even late in development, Agile processes harness change for the customer’s competitive advantage”

“Right Bob, I’m your bloody customer and I can see some obvious competitive advantage to hand here and I’m asking you to harness it for me!”

“But, Scrum Hell…” says Bob.

“You need to make a choice Bob, do you want to be Agile or do you want to follow the rules of Scrum to the letter? I had, until this point in time, thought that the entire point of doing Scrum was to become more Agile, not to be drowned in process and buracracy! It seems that I was mistaken!”

Bob is flummoxed. He thought he’d been such a good Product Owner, but now he felt himself torn between following the rules of Scrum and avoiding Scrum Hell or “being Agile”.

And then he thought of the solution.

Betsy. Betsy would know what to do. Afterall, this was a matter of process, why wasn’t she here?

Well Duh!

Sally called Betsy into her office, and they retold the story.

“No Prob” she said.

“Just Abnormally Terminate this sprint and then plan a new one. Bob avoids a painful eternity in Scrum Hell and you get your fancy new software built sooner rather than later. Just make you explain to the Team the reason as to why you’re doing this”

And so they did.

Sprint the Second – A series of unfortunate events

Jim, Gary & Peter have known each other since high school.

The news of the joint venture has delighted them as it means they now have a real chance to become squillionaires.

So when Bob announces the termination of the Sprint and the reasons underlying the change, they plan the new Sprint eagerly with the rest of the team.

And then they make a plan to celebrate…

And so they did.

Quite enthusiastically.

In fact they were so enthusiastic that they now can’t come into work for at least the next 6 days whilst their wives raise the bail money.

The rest of the Team optimistically soliders on for a few days, but after 3 days, all indications are pointing towards the cold hard fact that they’re on a Fool’s Errand. They can no longer deliver on their Sprint Commitment. Not a chance. Bail has been raised, but the three Amigo’s won’t be released from the county lock-up until the end of the Sprint at the earliest.

They ask Betsy what to do and she tells them that they need to tell Bob ASAP. She recommends that they agree to terminate this Sprint (as it’s no longer viable) and plan a new one, one that is achievable with the staff to hand but still progresses towards the overall project goal. Since Bob has just learned about abnormal sprint terminations, Betsy doesn’t forsee any problems and so lets the Team see Bob alone and heads off to her dentist appointment.

The Team meet with Bob. Bob goes ballistic. He tells them that he kept their commitment to them, and that they therefore need to keep their commitment to him.

The Team try to explain that the basis on which they made their commitment no longer exists. After all, if they could still deliver, why would they ever have originally needed 7 people to accomplish the goal?

Bob won’t hear a word of it. As far as he’s concerned, what the team is working on is “Super Duper Best Lucky Priority #1 Urgent Stuff” and he’s already terminated one Sprint already, surely terminating two in a row can’t be allowed. He decides it isn’t and tells the team so. Betsy said he could abnormally terminate a Sprint, not Sprints and anyway, he wants it done.

So Bob draws on his previous experience in “motivating” people and threatens the team: “If you don’t make your Sprint Commitment I’ll take the espresso machine out of the kitchen and dock all your bonuses by 20%”

The Team, horrified, nod acquiecense.

Dejected and feeling hopeless, they settle on a plan.

“Well, we could create the appearance of delivering this work, if we seriously compromised on quality and developed againt the current Alpha of Windows 9 – after all, it has a lot of what we need to do already built in”

“That’s hardly ‘Potentially Shippable’ though is it?” somebody asks.

“Who cares, he asked for something completely unreasonable, so let’s give it to him”

“Just make sure Betsy doesn’t find out about what we’re doing. She’ll go mental

And so they do.

Sprint Review

As per the plan, the Team develop a plausible facimile of the features requested. It only works on the latest Alpha Version of Windows 9 of course, but this is not at all apparent at Sprint Review.

Bob and Sally are both delighted. Bob secretly compliments himself on his management prowess.

Jim, Gary and Peter, recently released from the lock-up, sit at the back of the room, nursing their wounds and wondering how the team pulled off this miraculous achievement. But the mood in the room is so positive, that they say nothing.

Unintended Consequences

As part of the arrangement between ABC Corp and Company X, at the end of each ABC Sprint, ABC delivers the latest codebase to the Company X team. All this happens without the knowledge of the ABC Corp Scrum Team.

When the Company X team get their delivery, they are unsurprisingly less than pleased. The code is effectively useless, there are no tests, it’s full of bugs and it ONLY runs on a version of Windows that’s not expected to ship for 3 years.

They immediately tell Gareth, who turns a deep shade of beetroot red and immediately leaves to meet with Sally in person.

After her meeting with with Gareth, Sally considers taking a leaf out of Don Drapers book, but thinks better of it and settles for a deep breath and a walk around the block before going to see Bob. This time she remembers to make sure Betsy’s there too.

After some spirited discussion and finger pointing, Betsy soon uncovers the the root cause of the issue. She patiently explains to Bob and Sally that if the Team thinks the Sprint is no longer viable, and they can point to clear reasons why they think this is so, it’s probably better to listen to them than rely on wishful thinking and threats.

Sprint the Third – Life is hard and then you die

After a few false starts, and the addition of three new members to Alcoholics Anonymous, ABC Corp is ready to start work on the deal of the century.

With a full team, and an adjusted release plan, and under the watchful eye of Betsy, the Team plan to fix up the mess they made last sprint and then start on some entirely new functionality.

The Sprint Plan looks good, and they get to it.

However, halfway in, they discover that the map is not the territory. Design information that they had been given by Company X, information on which they’d based their initial estimates has turned out to be completely incorrect. To make matters worse they’ve also discovered areas of the Company X codebase riddled with technical debt. This is going to take a lot longer than first expected. So long in fact, that the seemingly perfect Sprint plan now seems impossible.

The mood is dark, most of the team would rather quit than ask Bob to terminate the Sprint again, but Betsy is adament and the three Amigos are game.

Bob discovers calm rational thinking

Bob, somewhat a changed man from his experiences to date, listens patiently. Bob and the Team discuss what the problem is, and what the impact is likely to be. They identify work that clearly cannot be done this Sprint, and descope it from the Sprint. Bob agrees to communicate this upwards to both Sally and Gareth. Sally should be pleased at least that this time it’s Company X at fault.

However, the team is concerned that this is still not enough and push to terminate the Sprint again.

Bob furrows his brow in deep concentration and asks them “So tell me why you want to do that?”

The Team stares at Bob blankly for a moment before replying

“Well it’s obvious isn’t it? We are no longer certain that we can meet our commitment, so we have no choice but to terminate the Sprint!”

“And then plan a new one…” says Bob.

“Yes, of course and plan a new one” chimes the Team.

“A Sprint Plan to do what exactly?” asks Bob.

“Turn the Product Backlog Items of Highest Priority into Software of Potentially Shippable Quality” the Team parrots back.

“Which are?” asks Bob

“Whichever ones you say are the highest priority, Product Owner, Sir! Yes Sir!” the team says in unison.

“Well I say the ones remaining in the current Sprint are the highest priority” said Bob.

The Team goes quiet until somebody mutters “But the code is a mess, we don’t know how long it’s going to take to do this…”

“But it can be done?” asks Bob?

“Well yeah, we’re pretty sure about that, just not how long”

“Do you think that there is a chance that you can pull it off in the time remaining in the current Sprint?”

“Well yeah, sure, there is a chance” says the Team “And even if we don’t get it all done, by then we’ll probably have a clear idea of how much longer it’s going to take, because we’ll have come to terms with it”

“Well, then get out of my office and go to it! We’ve agreed to descope the work that there is no chance of getting, and I’ll set expectations upwards about that. We’ll use the Sprint Time Box as a safety net. Try as hard as you can to solve the problem and we’ll see where we stand at the end of the Sprint.

“You know what to do so I’ll leave you alone for the rest of the Sprint to get on with it. Go wild, be creative, do whatever you need to do to figure this out and get this project back in control, if not moving forward”

And so they did.

Sprint the Fourth – Plain sailing

Sprint 4 proceeds without incident. Now aware of the technical issues and having fixed many of them this time around the team commits to a comfortable amount of work, and produces it all to the pre agreed definition of Done.

At the end of the Sprint it all integrates perfectly.

Jim, Gary and Peter start to peruse boat catalogues…

 

Creative Commons License
Sprint Termination Narrative Fragments by Simon Bennett is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://lasting-benefits.com/contact-us/.

Best Practice is not a panacea

Best Practice is a term that’s bandied around a lot these days.

It ascribes to wishful thinking, and speaks to our fundamental human fear of the true nature of reality.

The very idea that there is “one right solution” helps provide the illusion that the world is a well ordered place.  Or at the very least could be, if we just tried hard enough.

However, as students of complexity are well aware, the only legitimate domain to apply “Best Practice” is in the Simple Domain.  This is a domain where Cause and Effect are obvious to all, and also endlessly repeatable. (And as such prime candidates for codification)

607px Cynefin framework Feb 2011

But most of life, especially knowledge work, does not fall into this appealingly controllable space, as much as we might like it to.

To increase our feeling of control, we often like to codify our notions of Best Practice into rules.  After all, if something is truly “best” then all other options are inferior and should therefore be avoided.

We then distribute these rules out to the population of humans whose behaviour we wish to control and sleep soundly knowing that our job is done and the world will be a better place from now on.

Because of course, everybody will follow the rules, and thus both their behaviour and the outcomes that they produce will therefore be “optimal”.

But what if we don’t trust people to follow our rules?

Why then, for the people’s own good (remember we we’re talking about the one best way here) we select some people that we do trust and have them enforce both our rules and their precious Best Practice payloads.

In the average corporation we might call these Best Practices by other names such as “policies”, “rules” or “procedures” and we call our trusted caste “managers” which we can then arrange in a hierarchy so that spatial position corresponds to the level of trust we place in each of them.  Everything is now ship shape and Bristol Fashion!

However, as I’m sure we’ve all experienced first hand.  The human mind likes to game the system.  We do so for all manner of reason: for fun, for malice, for personal gain and oftentimes just to get our job done.

The map does not always match the territory.  Maybe the rule is outdated, inapplicable to our current circumstance or simply badly or meanly written. Regardless, if it conflicts with our superordinate purpose then it gets in the way of the creation of value and betterment.

Regardless of the motivation, the instant a rule is created, people will be looking for ways to get around it, but without risking censure.

The unspoken mandate then becomes to follow the letter, but not the spirit of the rule, and therefore the same applies to the application of the “best” practice it was designed to engender.

This can lead to an arms race between the rule makers and the rule breakers. And so, rather than simply having one rule to follow, we have many.  Each describing the “Best Practice” version of the events that our incoveniently highly variable universe has chosen to throw at us.  Each created in retrospect for a situation which may never arise again.

Which brings us all the way back to the concept of attribution error that I spoke about here.

The rule makers’ attribution error is almost certainly that they believe that every problem is Simple and that Best Practice is therefore universally applicable to every situation.

If that’s your belief, then when you discover that the rules are not in fact engendering your desired outcomes, your reaction to fixing the situation is almost certainly to add more rules, or find ways to enforce the ones you have.  It will keep you busy, that’s for sure, it might even keep you entertained.

But it’s not going to give you better results.

If it’s the wrong tool for the job, it’s irrelevant how skilled you are at using it.

You cannot fix a broken watch with a chainsaw.

But once you see the world for what it is.  That it can be complicated, complex and chaotic, then you can achieve success through applying methods appropriate for managing those domains and give your rulebook a much needed rest.

Attribution Errors and the Importance of Context

I recently read a fascinating study that was done in the 1950’s by a physchoanlyst named Allen Wheelis

What Wheelis observed during the 50’s was that classic Freudian Analysis techniques were no longer working as often as they used to.

Simply put: The number of people who were “cured” by these techniques was significantly lower than had previously been the case and it was getting worse.

Leaving aside, for the moment, the large portions of Freud’s work that have now been discredited, lets examine the core theory behind why something that had previously been empirically shown to work no longer did.

A Different Time

Freud’s work was anchored in the Victorian Era, an era and a culture strongly dominated by very strong wills, opinions and morals.  It was very much a culture of “character” and “self discipline”.

Freudian therapies reflected this situation as they focussed very heavily on ways in which one might  break through the mental barriers that these strongly opinionated and disciplined individuals had errected and thus reveal to themselves the cause of their neurosis.

Once the said cause was revealed, the Victorian ethos of self discipline would swing into action and work diligently towards correcting “the unsightly defects of their minds”.  And apparently (I wasn’t there) this worked, at least enough of the time to be regarded as a “reasonable approach to the problem” – “empirically proven in the field” if you will.

Oh noes!

By the 1950’s however, Freudian Analysis was beginning to fail, and fail and fail again.

Why?

We now know that the reason is most likely the fact that the personality of the average individual had changed quite markedly by the 1950’s.  People were (at least compared to the Victorians) far more relaxed, open and introspective.

As such they achieved insight into the source of their problems far more quickly than their Victorian predecessors ever did.

But once they had discovered the fundamental cause of their woes, unlike the Victorians, they did not have the self discipline and strength of character to follow through on their discoveries to improve their mental situation.  And Freudian techniques, which were effectively designed for a different personality type, were basically ineffective in strengthening self discipline and “building character”

Bummer.

Well there’s your problem…

So how did the majority of the professional community react to this?

In two really interesting ways.

First of all, they congratulated themselves for being so damn clever and talented!

Why?  Because the first phase of Freudian Psychoanalysis was positively rocketing along, that’s why.

They attributed this not to some fundamental shift in the character of their patients, but rather to a combination of the advancement that they and their contemporaries had made to the current body of knowledge and also, of course to their inherent natural talent and skill.

The second reaction, was keyed to and influenced by the first.

“Well, we know that we’re awesome, so the problem must be with Freud’s theories, they must be wrong”

Now, as it turns out they were right, at least partially; but they were led to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.  And every time that happens, your success is actually based more on luck than on good management.

So what does this mean for Agile? Lean? Complexity? CALM?

Context is important.  And knowing why something works is also important.  It’s not always enough to see that something seems to work in practice now, and thus assume it will always work in the future.  The world changes, people change and will (I hope) continue to change.

And if this is true, then so do our approaches need to change and evolve with us.

Just because something worked once or twice, maybe 5, 10 or 20 years ago; for somebody else in a similar set of circumstances to you does not mean that if doing the exact same thing doesn’t work for you in 2012 that the reason for your failure is that “you must be doing it wrong”

If you’re working solely at the practice level, then that could easily be an attribution error, and a potentially costly one at that.

What your apparent failure might mean is that your context is sufficiently different to the previous success story, that approach selected is never going to work, no matter how well you do it.

Which again is why I’m going to state again that theory informed practice is so vital.  If we understand the principles (or at least have usable models which we are willing to throw away once we have better ones) behind why certain practices succeed or fail, then we can operate at the principle level both to knowledgeably apply appropriate practices to our work as well as synthesise and create new ones in order to confidently and effectively solve our problems in our contexts.  And maybe even advance the state of the art.

Complexity: Justify, Explain or Apply?

Any idea, theory or science can be used to:

  1. Justify what you’re doing now, or would like to start doing
  2. Explain previous events, why some things fail and others succeeded
  3. Applied to create or synthesise new approaches to problems you have today

All are valid, and do not exist in isolation; rather they exist as overlapping zones in a continuum , and you can move between them at will.

Complexity Science’s oldest and most loyal cheerleaders are probably the Scrum Community; Complexity Science gets a mention in Ken’s landmark book “Agile Software Development with Scrum” – and the Stacey Matrix appears in the majority of Scrum courses today.  Scrum is touted as “a Framework for Product Development in the Complex Space” and the Stacy Matrix serves well to explain what the Complex Space is and why you need a new approach to dealing with it.

So this is useful, but ultimately it is simply using Complexity Science as a means to justify changing the approach used to manage Software Product Development (or anything else that Scrum is being applied to these days)

Nobody sane makes a change without some kind of Justification,  so this has been and still is a valid and useful technique.

Problems can occur however thanks to our friend Confirmation Bias.  If you like Scrum then you’ll want to use it all the time, and because of this you’ll be biased  towards seeing every problem as “Complex” so that you can use your favourite tool on it.  You have effectively created a tiny mental prison for yourself.

“So what!?”, you might ask…

in which case I would reply: Scrum has been around for 15 years or so, and we’ve been attaching the “Agile” label to things for the last 10, and the results have been rather varied.  Panacea it most certainly isn’t.

But why?

This sort of question has led myself (and others) to delve deeper into the techniques we’ve been using, the underlying theories (if any) they were based on, and to seek out the latest research in a quest to truly understand what is going on, and what expectations we should have.

This search led me through a personal journey beyond Stacey and into the wonderful (but hard to digest) world of the late Max Boisot and his I-Space model and then ultimately onto the current cool kid on the Complexity Block Dave Snowden’s Cynefin.  I then delved into works of Baumeister, Kahneman, Tversky et al to better understand the limits of our cognition, how we make decisions and effective mechanisms to overcome procrastination.

I used this research to understand what the Scrum practices were trying to achieve, and what effects they actually had. I then extended this knowledge to create a model to explain why Scrum (as interpreted solely by its practices) will thrive in certain situations and self immolate in others.   I presented these findings in a workshop I held at Agile 2011 called “Scrum as a Thinking Toolkit”

This is just one example of moving from Justification (where we know the right answer and seek information only to confirm our existing beliefs and desired actions) – towards explanation – the creation of models & theories which help us understand why things have historically gone the way they did and thus hopefully provides useful insights into dealing with the future.

Once you have begun to understand, you can then begin to Apply.  Once you know the “Why” you can begin to create your own “How” – and even better, you can  take advantage of the considerable advances that have been made in the area of human cognition and social complexity to enhance your work.  As such, among other things, I began to apply “SenseMaking” to the management of Backlogs and Ritual Dissent to Release Planning.

And you know what I found?

Hey this stuff works…

This is the philosophy that is at the root of CALM (Complexity Agile Lean Mashups) – that of “theory informed practice” – synthesise new practices based on well researched principles and then validate these practices in the field.  Loop back and continue.

It’s this level of understanding that will help you understand why in some projects removing the time boxes made things improve, whilst in others it led to anarchy and disaster.

So I can imagine what some of you are currently thinking:

“Hey! Complexity Science was originally applied to create Scrum in the first place!  It’s built in! I don’t need this!”

And that’s exactly my point.  Regardless of where we mark the Scrum epoch (somewhere between 1987 and 1994 I believe is the currently accepted range) – Science has moved on.  Many of the models used to originally describe (and thus by association define) Scrum are now dated at best and debunked at worst.  We know so much more now.  The heartening thing is that using our current best available knowledge the “old girl” actually stands up very well for her stated mission.

But there is still more to have – much of software today exists outside of the Complex realm, there are other containers than time boxes, there is knowledge out there that scales far beyond the methods we’re using today; and perhaps most importantly there are strategies and techniques which can help us address the wider organisational issues beyond just those we encounter in our teams and on our projects.

CALM is about making a move from using science to justify what we already want to do, towards a mindful application of theory; a cycle of evolution and synthesise where practice and theory co-evolve to help us realise our true potential.

The first CALM event, CALM Alpha will be held in the UK on the 16th and 17th of Feb 2012.