Scrum: Potential Applications in Flexible Manufacturing

...

3. How does Scrum compare or correlate to other management frameworks?

The most traditional approach for project management is known as the waterfall method, with sequential phases cascading down until project completion. It presupposes full knowledge of product requirements, as well of environment conditions and all needed steps before the project’s start. The most commonly used artifact for project management are the Gantt Charts (created by Henry Gantt in 1910). Several project management software and tools are based on them. A very detailed, time-consuming plan is prepared, and there is no much room for changes, as they represent re-work and project delays. A problem with this approach is that reality may become increasingly complex and fast changing, so it’s hard for a project manager to know, predict and control every single project variable. Sometimes, by insisting to follow the initial plan, a project team may deliver something that no longer makes sense nor brings value to the customers. In the traditional approach, individuals or departments usually work in specialized silos, so very often communication becomes an issue. Although frequency and duration may vary, 1- to 2hour communication meetings usually occur in a weekly to monthly basis. Lots of time and efforts are spent in reports and documentation that, bottom line, people don’t have time nor motivation to read, since it would cost precious development time, and there is a good chance of those documents to be obsolete. Another important aspect is that, usually, the product is presented or tested by users on a late development stage, so increasing the cost and time to make adjustments that could better satisfy the customers.

The cross-functional Scrum teams, in contrast, embrace uncertainty and welcome changes. They concentrate efforts in quickly developing, presenting and getting feedback from customers by the end of every iteration cycle (Sprint). They focus on what is most valuable and feasible in a very short timeframe (2 to 4 weeks), then develop, inspect and adapt their work every day, so correcting course as needed and keeping momentum.

[pic 2]

As suggested by Quality Function Deployment (QFD) researchers, the Voice of The Customer (VoC) is a key input for product development. It’s not only important to collect market data, but to deeply understand who the consumers are, what do they really want, where and when the product will be used, and what for. In Scrum, it is the Product Owner’s responsibility to understand and share the VoC with all Team Members, clearly defining priorities that are listed in the Product Backlog.

[pic 3]

A Scrum Master applies lean concepts by dedicating attention to the process flow, helping the team to identify and eliminate any type of waste or productivity impediments, so to keep continuously improving. All the project information is visible on a Scrum board, which eliminates the time spent on reporting, as well. As in Seru production systems, all Team Members have a clear vision of the product they are committed to finish by the end of each iteration cycle. They pursue high quality standards and perform checks accordingly, while collaborating in a common space and learning from each other.

4. Scrum: our own project experience

As we were learning about Scrum, we decided to try it out in our own Flexible Manufacturing Strategies’ classroom project, so we would feel more confident to present it. In our Product Backlog, we had clear requirements from our professor: a paper on an FMS related topic, maximum 12-page long, doublespaced, 1 inch margin, and a 20-minute presentation to our colleagues. We created a web-based collaborative workspace, and established a weekly face-to-face review routine. Instead of daily scrum meetings, we had phone calls twice a week, when we discussed our advances and difficulties, so to adapt and/or redistribute tasks. Although we cannot say we were able to fully apply the Scrum framework in our project, we think the overall experience was very good, and we were able to work in a flexible and easy-going mode.

Collaborative work space

G Drive (common repository)

One face to face meeting each week (review)

Scrum Calls (twice a week)

Our own FMS project[pic 4]

5. Scrum: a live experience of one of our group members

Accenture is a global professional services company, providing a broad range of services and solutions in strategy, consulting, digital, technology and operations. One of its clients was an American multinational bank with operations in over 70 countries, each of them with its own financial setup and modus operandi. There was a clear need for implementing global standards that would allow the bank to process large volume of data more efficiently, so to better track results and apply quality and regulatory checks. That would require the development of more than 400 software applications.

Initially, the software development team assigned by Accenture to address that need was working in a traditional, linear way. By doing that, the team was able to develop 55 software applications in 6 months, which was not fast enough to meet client’s expectations. In order to accelerate the development process, Accenture decided to apply the Scrum framework. The Product Owner was one of the vice presidents of the bank; the Scrum Master was a person with great knowledge and experience in setting data warehouses and with ability to facilitate processes; Team Members included people from different areas of the bank, like fraud detection, customer relationship, quality control and others. The original big team of 70 members was divided into smaller teams, each of them with a clear role and responsibility, as assigned in the Sprint Planning meetings. A member from each team represented it in Daily Scrum calls. Apart from being an update channel, the Scrum calls worked also as a forum where all the issues were discussed and, if possible, immediately resolved. Compared to the traditional approach, in which even a simple issue had to be raised through a proper, formal channel, probably taking a week to be addressed, the Daily Scrum calls were a far better and faster approach. The calls were summarized and kept for the records. By the end of each Sprint, one day was dedicated to review the good, bad and ugly experiences of the teams, which were also recorded, so to make sure the good aspects