There is no shortage of improvisation in business. The challenge is doing it well. If you improvise well, you will be consistently productive, generate wealth over time, and have the ability to maintain your independence. Improvise poorly and you are a drain on productivity, dependent on wealth generated by others, and develop habits that conceal your shortcomings instead of displaying your skills.
In the Networked World businesspeople not only need the ability to improvise well, the environment demands systems and processes to replace the tired and increasingly ineffective methodologies of the Industrial Age, systems and processes that bring discipline, structure and consistent performance to the googly dynamics of networks.
One such process, which GameChangers is currently using in a modified version to help a client develop new applications for the healthcare industry, is Scrum Methodology. It is a framework designed for the rapid iteration and agile development made possible by the cloud computing environment.
One of my improv teachers, Scot Robinson, a thoughtful, insightful instructor as well as a legend in the world of improv, posed this question to our class one day: “Do you prefer starting with no structure and discovering structure within a performance, or do you like to begin with structure so that you’re liberated to perform freely within it?” This was a Socratic question on Scott’s part, designed to provoke conversation. When it comes to performing in the theater, there is no right answer. Either approach is valid, and can be productive.
In business, it’s a different story. Business needs structure. Structure defines roles, sets standards of performance, and produces the consistent results that provide financial stability. For the improvisational company, structure also, as Scott Robinson pointed out, liberates players to perform freely within it. This ‘liberated performance’ is the upside to the formal process. It is where growth comes from, and innovation, and how an agile organization pounces on and profits from serendipity.
Scrum Methodology is named after the ’scrum’ in rugby, where teammates lock arms in tight formation and butt heads with the opposition in an attempt to gain control of the ball and move it downfield toward the goal. The process came into use during the dotcom era, 1995-2000, and has since gained many converts in application development and other business scenarios where products are designed, developed and/or brought to market.
Scrum Methodology serves the same purpose in application development as the ‘Harold’ form does in improv theater. A Harold is a structure for long-form improvisations that can run anywhere from 25 minutes to an hour. The structure of a Harold goes like this:
- Opening
- Act One: Scene 1, Scene 2, Scene 3
- Game #1
- Act Two: Scene 1, Scene 2, Scene 3
- Game #2
- Act Three: Scene 1, Scene 2, Scene 3
Scrum Methodology has a structure that involves two-week ‘Sprints’ by a team of developers. These Sprints are the equivalent of ‘Acts’ in the Harold form.
The beginning of a Sprint cycle is marked by a Planning Meeting, which has many of the characteristics of an Opening in longform improv.
Every working day of a Scrum project begins with the ‘Daily Stand-Up’ meeting, which lasts a maximum of fifteen minutes and allows the team to make any mid-Sprint adjustments. These Daily Stand-Ups and the work that gets done on a given day correspond to ‘Scenes’ in improvisation. You could say that Scrums consist of two-week Acts, each with a dozen or so Scenes.
A Scrum team typically consists of five to nine developers. This is also the ideal size for a Harold team.
The Scrum allows players to choose the role they want to play. Improvisers, likewise, define their roles during a performance, not before.
Scrum participants are classified as either ‘Pigs’ or ‘Chickens’. Pigs are the people doing the work. Chickens are stakeholders (investors, managers, et al), who can observe the process but cannot comment on it during the Sprints. In improvisation, Pigs are the performers; the Chickens equate to an ‘internal audience.’ In terms of improv, think theater managers, friends, publicists, mentors, et al. They have a rooting interest in the outcome, but they themselves are not responsible for the outcome.
A ‘Scrummaster,’ what you might call a ‘Pig of Pigs’ is the equivalent of the Coach every improv team has.
A ‘Product Owner’ represents the customer, or ‘paying audience’ for the performance.
At the end of a Sprint, all the players take time to re-align in meetings called Reviews and Retrospectives. These equates to the Games in improvisation, which are designed to ‘restate the themes’ of a performance.
Scrums are a totally transparent process. So is improvisation. If you know improvisation, you can see the techniques being used (and opportunities seized or missed) by performers up on the stage. It might surprise you that knowing how improvisation works doesn’t detract from the audience experience, in fact it adds to it. There are no bigger appreciators and fans of improvisation than other improvisers. Transparency fosters a deep appreciation for the skill of the players and their performance. True in theater, just as true in business.
Tags: Agile Development, Chicken, Harold, Improvisation, Innovation, Pig, Product Owner, Rapid Iteration, Scott Robinson, Scrum Methodology, Scrummaster, Scrumprovisation, Sprints, Stakeholders, Theater, Transparency