Support the Scrum Guide with evidence#22
We all hold our subjective world views, shaped by our experiences, education, environment, values, friends, family, and others. Confirmation bias is a tendency to search for, interpret, recall and favor information that supports what we already believe and value.
In my opinion, most of what we write and talk about Scrum are expert opinions and case reports. The best Scrum studies I’ve seen are based on surveys that do not meet the criteria of objectivity and properly selected random groups (e.g., questioning people who agree to participate in the experiment about their views and experiences).
12 years after the first version of the Scrum Guide was published (2010), we could be talking about randomized control trials, revised scientific papers, and meta-analyzes. Instead, we use common logic, keep exchanging opinions end experiences and, as a result, struggle with ideas like “SAFe”.
For each hyphothesis it would be great to:
- Test the hypothesis and the opposite hypothesis simultaneously
- Be mindful of the quality of the evidence we get. Randomized control trial would be a much beter evidence than survey, expert opinion or case report
- Define under what conditions it is true. It should correlate with the conditions under which we experiment (e.g. one small team vs. many teams working on the same product)
This is not a one-time task, but at least we could start.
Very good point. I like to see references to evidence as well.
One more thought. I would like to see some Gartner / Forrester report as well. Certification is a great engine of growth, but it’s not the way to persuade C-Level executives.
Here are some case studies: https://www.scrum.org/resources?type=69
The OP is referring to Scrum Guide changes being backed up with evidence. Not case studies on Scrum.
I thought it was about everything. Scrum AND alternatives
Who benefits from such evidence? Are these the early and late majority adopters? How does the evidence bolster support from innovators and early adopters?