Guided by a discussion on the Scrum Trainers list I just read Jeff Sutherland’s latest blog, Shock Therapy: Bootstrapping Hyperproductive Scrum, where he quotes the words of Scott Downey, the MySpace Scrum coach, describing his Scrum bootstrapping techniques.

There is something about the approach that disturbs me. Jeff uses terms like “forceful and mandatory” to describe his preferred Scrum implementations. He uses the term compliance. On the Scrum Trainers list he throws out the term “wishy-washy” to disregard current Scrum implementations. It is difficult to speak up in opposition to the founder of a movement, especially when the espoused ideas appear so compelling. Jeff Sutherland is smart, experienced and well respected, but on this issue I feel a sense of discomfort, so here goes… Is “hyper-productive” what we are seeking? What does that mean anyway? It sounds silver, and bullet-shaped.

What Jeff Sutherland and Scott Downey are describing is forced compliance to a process. Is that what Scrum is? I didn’t think so. It isn’t what I seek. It isn’t why I joined this gang. What happened to empowerment, to choice, to innovation, to collaboration? Is all of that now discarded as wishy-washy? Is it relegated to the dreaded realm of touchy-feely… or worse, reserved for the exclusive use of these “hyper-productive” teams endorsed by the Scrum elite? What does this mean?

I fear the concept of hyper-productivity, represented by Shock Therapy, will run rough-shod over the essential human values of enjoyment and passion, and the empowering feeling of self-organization, fueled by trust. And it concerns me.

I am not doing what I do for the sake of hyper-productivity, I am doing it for the sake of freedom, for the sake of advocacy, for a sense of ownership and a sense of self. I guess it could be argued that Scott’s approach leads to such empowerment, over time. I have heard that argument before, years and years ago: happy people don’t produce good software, the act of producing good software makes people happy. The idea has merit, on the surface, but I didn’t believe it then, and I don’t believe it now. I have not seen it bear fruit, and I think it is a temporary solution. A quick fix. People are worth more than compliance to solutions.

My feeling, my core belief, is that change has to begin within the individual for it to have any true meaning and long-term sustainability, for it to really matter. Trouble is, I have no metrics to prove this. Jeff and Scott have metrics. My gut tells me they are questionable, but I am hard pushed to find a coherent argument to sustain an opposing viewpoint. Process metrics are simple; people metrics (ones that represent the real truth of feeling) are harder to uncover.

I could be completely wrong here, but I don’t feel like standing by and letting “Shock Therapy” be the default way forward for Scrum. Empathy and compassion as agents of change need an advocate too. I’ll be that advocate.

Shock Therapy was used to “cure” drug addicts between the 1940’s and 1980’s. It had limited success. Today, a gentler, more spiritual approach is followed. It takes longer, but yields a more effective, and longer-term recovery. It is altogether kinder.

Based on what I have read, I would not hire Scott Downey to transform an organization. I would look to someone with a more human and less mechanical heart. Change is so vital to this industry, it cannot possibly be represented by process alone.

15 September 2008