It always seemed funny that people who are on the hook to pay for the work are chickens and those who are paid whether or not the product succeeds are pigs. Still, I appreciate calling out the idea of advisors and stakeholders v. material participants.
I wonder sometimes about those roles for people who are not primary stakeholders, yet are somewhat involved in the development, but primarily act to give permission or to grant or withhold resources.
Are those chickens with a pig complex? Pigs with chicken complex? Porklucken?
- Non-coding architects who must approve designs
- Sysadmin/IT who controls the team's computing resources
- External UX designers who control the look-and-feel of the application
- Stakeholders who micromanage or create back-channels to push conflicting goals on development teams
Do you deal with odd semi-participants? Have any stories or tricks you'd like to share?
It's the predispositions you mention above (and others) that led Schwaber & Sutherland to remove the Pigs & Chickens references from the latest iteration of the Scrum Guide.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scrum.org/storage/scrumguides/Scrum_Guide.pdf
Chris:
ReplyDeleteYes, and Jeff and I have also campaigned against the pigs/chickens terminology. See http://www.langrsoft.com/blog/2008/08/pigs-chickens-and-asses.html
In all fairness, it was a convenient hook for the more interesting question about people having approval or the ability to stop progress in other ways without really "having skin in the game."