expiricism and framework - existential questions
I had 2 BIG questions about in what sense (why) scrum fills the empiricism and why scrum is a framewok and I try to find some answers, I would like to share here and see other points of view.
1) scrum fills empiricism as it is a process control type founded on I know what I have done in the past so from my past experience and for the future I make decision on what I observe, so I would say: scrum is based on 3 pillars of transparency, inspection and adaptation, hence, I make all my things transparent so that I can observe clearly, then I make my decision and I inspect and adapt what I have done. inspection and adaptation bring to the feedback loop, that help me for future decision and I add to my past experience luggage. basically, the 3 pillars are the base for all scrum events and scrum artifacts. I only see the scrum pillars fundamental to build my empiricism, do I miss anyhting?
2)I recall the the meaning of framework to a supporting a structure based on rules, events, accontabilities and artifacts. That's all from my side.
Perhaps this forum thread will help with your understanding:
Also, The Professional Product Owner book has a nice chapter called "Why a framework?" which explains that its all about ownership. The Scrum framework allows the Scrum team to create their own Scrum process based on the framework, ensuring that they only add to the framework and do not remove any elements from the framework. Other Scrum Teams should not use that teams Scrum Process, but instead utilise the Scrum Framework to create their own Scrum Process.
thanks scott, yes I have understood framework is the base of, but then scrum team can employ their own processes, techniques and methods.
the 3 pillars are the base
It may be worth digging into this a bit more as this is foundational.
In what ways are Transparency, Inspection and Adaptation manifested in the Scrum Artifacts and Events?
for lot of senses.
if people aren't transparent they can't truly inspect what and how they are doing and adapt (i.e. in Sprint retrospective)
if the definition of done isn't transparent and clear to all, how the increment can be inspected and (maybe) adapted?
same for the product backlog and sprint backlog, items must be clear to be well-understood to work on them.
I'll say the same for the events, the 5 formal Sprint events must implement inspection and adaptation enabled by transparency.