I got into a discussion recently about what make Scrumban, Scrumban. I was discussing the concept with two other Scrum Masters whose teams were using Scrumban. The problem? The two implementations looked nothing like each other. One had two week sprints and the other had no sprints, but rather featured continuous delivery. Both of my friends are convinced they are doing Scrumban. And they both are correct.
Scrumban is a hybrid creation that combines Scrum and Kanban. There are very few rules that say that which attributes of each technique must be present to be one or the other. Any combination of the two techniques can be called Scrumban.
Here are some the of similarities and differences between Scrum and Kanban:
Scrum |
Scrumban |
Kanban |
Partial Visualization (Input, Output and In Process) |
Full visualization |
Full Visualization (Granular Process) |
Backlog |
Backlog |
Backlog |
Time boxed Iterations |
Depends on Iteration Decision |
Continuous Flow |
Sprint Planning |
Depends on Iteration Decision |
Dynamic Planning |
Work Sized To Sprint |
Depends on Iteration Decision |
Work Minimally Size |
Board Reset After Sprint |
Depends on Iteration Decision |
Board Persistent |
Burn-down (Burn-up) Charts |
Depends on Iteration Decision |
Cumulative Flow |
Management As Outsiders |
Depends on Iteration Decision |
Management As Insiders |
The one (huge) requirement for any Scrumban implementation is the need to fully visualize the steps in the workflow. The biggest hybridization decision is reflected in the decision of whether to leverage sprints or continuous flow as the central mechanism to control work. A decision to use iterations will cause the team to leverage a number of other techniques from Scrum – making the version of Scrumban more Scrum like. For example, if you choose iterations, then some form of sprint planning will be required and work will need to be sized so that it can be completed within the sprint. On the other hand, focusing on a continuous flow of sprints will require the team plan dynamically so that work can be added as capacity dictates and to use cumulative flow diagrams to monitor progress rather than burn-down charts. The choice of sprints or continuous flow becomes a decision of how you are using process to influence behavior.
Scrum has an expectation of bounded, well-formed teams. Scrum teams are cross-functional with members playing many roles depending on the need. Teams are also expected to be self-organizing and self-managing. Some organizations either can’t commit to this this type of structure or need time to transition. Hybridizing Scrum by de-empathizing use of well-formed, cross-functional teams for specialists may make it easier to begin the transition towards a more Agile structure. Is this an optimal solution? No. However it isn’t an equilibrium solution; left to its own devices no organization be able to hold this solution for long. In my experience, as teams learn how to interact within an Agile environment they will find innovative ways to embrace the Agile values and principles. Embracing these ALWAYS leads to an environment with stronger teams.
September 25, 2013 at 11:55 pm
[…] noted in the Daily Process Thoughts from September 24th, not all instantiations of Scrumban look alike. Teams hybridize either Kanban or Scrum to address […]
February 14, 2019 at 11:55 pm
[…] is the synthesis of Scrum and Kanban ideas and ceremonies. There are very few rules that say which attributes of each technique must be present to be one […]