“Scrum Users Group” Controversy

The Scrum methodology of agile software development marks a dramatic departure from waterfall management. In fact, Scrum and other agile processes were inspired by its shortcomings. The Scrum methodology emphasizes communication and collaboration, functioning software, and the flexibility to adapt to emerging business realities — all attributes that suffer in the rigidly ordered waterfall paradigm.

19th
MAY

“Scrum Users Group” Controversy

Posted by admin under Scrum Discussion

As discussed here previously, the Scrum Alliance plays an important role in helping to preserve the Scrum framework through its certification process. Because it has standardized the experience required for various “certified” positions in Scrum, the terminology used to describe Scrum, and, of course, the framework itself, the Alliance has armed thousands of software professionals with the practical knowledge they need to advance in a career in Scrum. I’ve always considered their work to be obviously valuable for individuals seeking training, but also an important reason why Scrum has flourished in recent years.

But I just saw this peculiar story on InfoQ: http://www.infoq.com/news/2009/04/scrum-alliance-user-group According to the post, Scrum user groups—informal groups in which Scrum users get together to share best practices and other strategies—have been receiving notifications that the Scrum Alliance now lays claim to the term “Scrum users group.” What this means for the many users groups that have been contacted in the last month is still fairly unclear. Many groups have reported that the Alliance simply asked them to sign a licensing agreement and branding image. A statement from the Scrum Alliance’s managing director Jim Cundiff explained that user groups must sign the agreement only if they’d like to use the Scrum Alliance’s name and logo. Cundiff also goes on to say that there are no fees associated with using the Scrum Alliance’s name or logo.

So what do you make of this? Is this just another step toward standardizing Scrum, as the Alliance would have some degree of involvement in the branding (and perhaps more) of the group? Or is the Alliance overstepping its bounds, attempting to build publicity for its brand through these grass-roots groups? Do the groups have that much to gain from an affiliation with the Alliance? Some of you may know more about this than I do, in which case please let us know your thoughts in the comments section.

Share and Enjoy:

Comments Feed

Reader's Comments

Cory Foy | May 20th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Hi,

My name is Cory Foy. I was quoted in the InfoQ article. I had some great conversations with the Scrum Alliance about the issue, and there are several updates:

- The Scrum Alliance sent out an email with a retraction stating that no one has to sign any agreements (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scrumdevelopment/message/38338)
- I was brought on board as the Scrum Community Liaison (http://www.cornetdesign.com/2009/05/scrum-alliance-community-liaison.html)

I’m now working closely with Jim Cundiff at the Scrum Alliance to make sure that there is a lot more transparency in how we operate, and to provide a central point of contact to help allow the community to know who to contact with things like this come up.

If you have any questions, feel free to shoot me an email - cfoy at scrumalliance dot org.

- Cory
Doug | May 22nd, 2009 at 8:57 am
Scrum user groups, Agile user groups, XP users groups many of these I have seen come and go. I have tried and been unsuccessful at sustaining these groups and have seen similar patterns from others. However, I have followed others who were experienced and they have taught me.

It is my experience that these groups are driven by people who are not use to some necessary deliberate (self included) structure. Deliberate structure includes officers, organizing boards, keeping it interesting, volunteering, stimulating vibrancy and “marks (like SCRUMUSERGROUP)” from International organizations that help with credibility. These structures help groups sustain their existence. SPIN Groups have years of history, PMI groups have years of history, APLN has better success (different make up of people on avaerage)Agile groups often seem to pop and die like grapes on the vine.

The Scrum Alliance is offering help by holding these marks and building brand value. Structure / value so that the group adopts some deliberate structure to stay organized enough to sustain it’s existence. We (agile community) need to learn from other groups that have a history and stop being so scared when something looks restrictive.

Doug Shimp
http://www.3back.com
admin | June 4th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Hi Cory,

Thanks for posting here to clarify this for our readers. Your comment clears up a lot of confusion I’m sure many readers were experiencing, so thanks for that. Glad to hear the user group controversy isn’t so controversial, after all.
admin | June 4th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Hi Doug,

Good point. You’re right that for group or community to grow in a constructive way, it does require some structure. And since the likelihood of that structure naturally materializing out of chaos is pretty much nil, the Scrum Alliance has emerged to help protect and promote the framework. I can understand how some Scrum users groups might have felt a little threatened or encroached upon by the Scrum Alliance’s announcement, but, in the end, you’re right—somebody had to do it.

Newsletter Sign Up:

Loading ...

Polls Archive

Scrum Methodology