Critical Comparison of Agile Methods1

Critical Comparison of Agile Methods

Name

Course

Date
 Critical Comparison of Agile Methods2

Critical review

Project management is essential when people are working together towards a common

goal. This essay will provide an analysis of an agile project management approach known as

Kanban. It is a popular project management system. Project management has played a role in the

technological and industrial revolutions that have occurred over the years. Project management

can be applied to a variety of contexts. It does not matter even in the case where the project has

simple goals and use fewer resources (Brechner & Waletzky, 2015). Essentially, the approach of

agile provides a means of completing tasks in complex projects.

The agile project management approach is an iterative approach. The approach involves

breaking down the project into smaller projects. These smaller projects are then shipped

individually as steps towards the achievement of the overall goals of the project. The overall

objectives of the project are initially determined. They are then divided up, designed, build and

tested individually. It allows the project to be shipped faster and makes it possible to

accommodate updated needs before shipping the final project. Agile is an idea of how projects

should be managed (Anderson, 2010). Furthermore, Kanban emerges from agile and provides a

more structured approach to project management.

Kanban can be compared to a factory floor. It means that a part could begin as a piece of

metal. This part is then turned into a finished product through several steps. Essentially, in the

case of Kanban, several activities occur that intend to achieve a particular goal. A specific task is

done towards a project, and it is then shipped down the line to the next station where something

different occurs (Lassenius, et al., 2015). In Kanban, instead of going ahead to ship a complete

project, the various tasks are left at each stage until they are required.
 Critical Comparison of Agile Methods3

In Kanban, each stage of the workflow is first defined. They are then set up in a way that

each task is moved from one stage to another. For instance, a factor can have different shelves or

boxes for each phase. The raw materials are in the first. The half-made materials are then placed

in the second. The completed parts are then placed in the third. On the other hand, other projects

can have a card. The card can contain a note of a program, or a physical price of paper placed on

the board (Tanner & Mackinnon, 2015). The card lists information about a given task, and the

card is moved to different lists as the task progresses.

The Kanban system is very flexible. It acts as a means to visualize the Agile idea.

Kanban is characterized by four philosophies.

Continuous flow It entails moving down the list of backlogs based on the ranking of

importance, and ensures that activities or tasks or always being dealt with.

Cards This visual card details the task. It contains all the information necessary for the

task. It ensures that the task is completed.

Cap on activities in progress It creates a limitation of how many activities or cards that

are at play in any given instance. It prevents the teams from over-committing.

Constant improvements This is an analysis of the flow to ascertain the efficiency and

how to make improvements.

Comparison

Scrum is also an approach to project management. It is the most structured framework

among the Agile methods. Scrum provides a basis where teams work together towards a single

goal. Scrum is influenced by both Agile and traditional project management ideas. It then

combines them into a flexible and structured process in the management of projects. Scrum
 Critical Comparison of Agile Methods4

breaks up projects into simpler tasks that can be accomplished individually. It then assigns each

task a sprint (Stellman & Greene, 2014). Specifically, it is a time slot dedicated to the

accomplishment of a project, and it takes between seven to twenty-eight days. It is the period in

which the project is expected to be finished. Moreover, daily sprints occur when some parts of

the phase are completed. Essentially, it creates more structure in project management.

Figure 1: Scrum

Scrum differs significantly from Kanban due to a greater focus on team performance. In

Scrum, performance is often determined by reassessment. It ensures that the project is

progressing as required and adapts to the changes suggested along the way. The assessment

occurs at the end of every sprint (Bass, et al., 2013). The responsibilities are also divided into

three. These are the Product Owner (PO), Team and Scrum Master.

The PO is the individual who is completely aware of all aspects of the development.

Specifically, they ensure that all activities concur with customer needs and business goals. They

have a keen understanding of the progress of the project. On the other hand, the Scrum master

acts as a link between the PO and the rest of the team. This individual is involved in encouraging
 Critical Comparison of Agile Methods5

the team to work together, and ensure that their performance is at the expected level.

Furthermore, the Scrum Master ensures that the team is progressing well in each part of the

individual sprint. Finally, the team is comprised of the individuals who are working on the

project (Brechner & Waletzky, 2015). They are involved in dividing the tasks and ensuring that

all the requirements of the project have been met.

Scrums primary strategy entails several activities. The first is a backlog grooming. It is

an event that occurs during the first day of every sprint. It involves looking at the tasks not

completed in the project and what the focus of the project. The PO details how the tasks will be

allocated, and determines the efficiency of the sprints. The second activity involves sprint

planning. It occurs after the PO has established what to focus on. It is an opportunity to

determine what the teams are building and the reason behind it. Moreover, the individuals would

share past experiences, detailing features from the customers particular needs (Kniberg &

Skarin, 2010). It can also entail dividing tasks for each team to deal with during the sprint. In

Kanban, no roles are prescribed. Primarily, it does not mean that roles cannot be specified. In this

regard, roles are not necessary for Kanban.

The team members also attend daily scrum meetings. These are simple meetings that last

for a few minutes. It provides an opportunity for the team members to update each other on the

current progress of the project. The team member is not expected to air out their problems and

issues during the meeting (Tanner & Mackinnon, 2015). Instead, it is an opportunity to ensure

that the project is continuous. The issues and problems arising can be directed to the Scrum

master at any other moment and not during the meetings.

 Critical Comparison of Agile Methods6

The team members also meet for sprint reviews. It is important to examine the sprint

since it is expected that the team produces a shippable item at the end. The team members will

detail what they have done to the stakeholders. Even though the review meeting encourages

accountability, its goal is to ensure that the completed item in the sprint concurs with the user

and business goals. A sprint retrospective also occurs after the sprint review meeting. It is where

the team members share information and collaborate. Specifically, they look at the limitations

and successes (Brechner & Waletzky, 2015). Moreover, the individuals can then make a

resolution on what they should continue doing and what they should avoid. The sprint

retrospective will inspire the focus of the next sprint.

Scrum seems for complicated than Kanban. While Kanban tries to simplify projects and

make them manageable, Scrum can at the first instant look complex. Scrum is characterized by

more meetings, and responsibilities have to be delegated. It ensures that the projects stay on

track, and are successful. Specifically, Scrum is a structured technique to ensure that everything

gets accomplished. Furthermore, Scrum prescribes cross-functional teams. It is not the case with

Kanban. Instead, specialist teams are allowed. Moreover, only a single team owns the sprint

backlog in Scrum (Anderson, 2010). On the other hand, multiple teams or individuals share the

Kanban board. The Scrum board is also reset at the end of each sprint. On the other hand, the

Kanban board is persistent during the entire project.

Advantages for team members

Scrum is beneficial for projects that require smaller parts of the projects to be shipped

quickly. It also makes it easier to respond to changes quickly. The numerous meetings and task

delegation make scrum the best alternative for team members who are not familiar with the
 Critical Comparison of Agile Methods7

context of the project. It can occur in cases where the team members are from varying industrial

backgrounds who are working on a system. There is always an individual who oversees the

project. In this regard, is a member of the team does not understand the project, then it is not a

problem. In the context of Scrum, the team members will implement changes or new

functionalities. The team members can make changes quickly, and this would prove beneficial to

the incremental process of project management. Kanban can also be a risk to teamwork in

comparison to Scrum (Stellman & Greene, 2014). For instance, if one of the team members lacks

the necessary skills, the entire project will be negatively affected. Kanban is often the best choice

for a team that have individuals with overlapping skills. It is essential so that everyone can make

an input and ensure that the backlog list is moved to zero. It is not the case with Scrum where the

team members can have differing skills. The lack of specific skills will not be a setback to the

achievement of the overall project goals.

In comparison, there are no assigned roles, time limits and focus on a single task in

Kanban. Meetings can be carried if the team members want it. Meetings are not compulsory is

the case with scrum. In this regard, Kanban is designed for team members that are self-

motivated. It does not require any deadlines or management, and would prove beneficial in cases

where the team members are highly skilled (Lassenius, et al., 2015). Kanban is the best in cases

where team members are leaning towards seeing the overall project at a glance.

Kanban does not follow the time rules like Scrum. Instead, it focuses on efficiency and

projects can occur however long that they intend. It is imperative to encourage efficiency as it

ensures that the resources are used well. If the Kanban rules are followed well, then it is possible

to assign the teams as much work as they can handle. Moreover, the team members will not be
 Critical Comparison of Agile Methods8

distracted, and the projects will not go beyond the deadline. The system also allows for

flexibility. It arises from the fact that the project owner can change tasks that are not being

currently worked on. Kanban is the best system where the time required to accomplish overall

project is not crucial (Bass, et al., 2013). It allows all team members to work at their pace.

However, Scrum is the best alternative in cases where the project must ship based on certain

deadlines.

Every team and project have unique attributes. The project management system that is

applicable to each team differs considerably. In many cases, many teams use their version of a

system in project management. Essentially, it entails using the best parts of different systems to

meet their needs. Kanban and Scrum are popular Agile project management systems. However,

they have the differing characteristic that would prove beneficial in various scenarios. Kanban

uses cards, and it is not time conscious. On the other hand, Scrum is time conscious, and projects

have to be shipped within the required timelines. Both systems use teams that have differing

attributes. It is important to consider the demand of a project before choosing the project

management system to be used.

 Critical Comparison of Agile Methods9

References

Anderson, D. J., 2010. Kanban: Successful Evolutionary Change for Your Technology Business.

1st ed. New York: Blue Hole Press.

Bass, J. M., Allison, I. K. & Banerjee, U., 2013. Agile Method Tailoring in a CMMI Level 5

Organization: Addressing the Paradox. Journal of International Technology and Information

Management, 22(4), pp. 77-98.

Brechner, E. & Waletzky, J., 2015. Agile project management with Kanban. 1st ed. Redmond,

WA: Microsoft Press.

Kniberg, H. & Skarin, M., 2010. Kanban and Scrum: making the most of both. 1st ed. New

York: C4Media, Inc.

Lassenius, C., Dingsyr, T. & Paasivaara, M., 2015. Agile processes, in software engineering,

and extreme programming: 16th International Conference, XP 2015, Helsinki, Finland, May 25-

29, 2015, Proceedings. 1st ed. Cham: Springer.

Stellman, A. & Greene, J., 2014. Learning Agile: Understanding Scrum, XP, Lean, and Kanban.

1st ed. New York: O'Reilly Media.

Tanner, M. & Mackinnon, A., 2015. Sources of Interruptions Experienced During a Scrum

Sprint. Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 18(1), pp. 3-18.