Combining Kanban with Scrum: A Practical Approach

In the past there have been many debates on whether or not Kanban or Scrum is more powerful. Although both make their own solid points; points so different that it would seem rather impossible for one to dovetail them, there is, in fact, a way to combine both Kanban and Scrum. Let us examine how these two methodologies can work together with a practical approach.

When it comes to both practices, you can sum it up as such: perceivability & restricting work in advancement. Kanban is light to the point that it doesn’t give sufficient direction to groups embracing something else such as fell improvement. There have been groups that have not been equipped to adapt to the entire procedure themselves. Because of this, groups need a method for social occasion necessities, as well as a way to solve issues with group development while conveying business esteem and handling money issues.

Scrum, on the other hand, works really well for software development. It is a great process for building fantastic groups, especially when it is accomplished in the correct manner. Unfortunately, it is not often done so. But, because of it its potential, it is worth trying to integrate it with something such as Kanban.

Finding a way to integrate the greater part of this would take immense measure of time andexertion, whichcould often be squandered under ill care. This is, naturally, not the desired effect of the combined Kanban and Scrum.

What would work, then? The answer now lies in the work of analysts.

In the first test, analysts took the basic theories behind each approach to test out a way to make both of them work together. In order to do this, Scrum and Kanban had to be consolidated. In the test, they took both a Windows sysadmins that upheld lab system and Linux sysadmins that backed working system, as well as associations between destinations. There were even 1700 clients that were taken into the study to figure out how the consolidation of each was to effect workers. This was necessary for this test, but made it exceptionally harder for the analysts to track specially appointed work, which was later assessed for half of the aggregate limit.

To do (Windows Team)(notes posted on wall) To Do (Linux Team)(notes posted on wall)
On Hold Person A Person D On Hold
Person E Person F Person B Person C
Done Rejected

(A representation of how work was divided on the board with the first test)

There was an organized board in the space where the combined theory was truly tested out. There were lines that separated the work that the Windows team was to do, and the work that the Linux team was to do. This was called the queue. People were to then place their note, or job, in their square while it was in the process. Essentially, this is the influence of Kanban.

In the test, the problem laid in the integration of Scrum. This is because Scrum handles maintenance in a poor way. Even when they try to provide a solution, it often results in unpredictability for the team. As such, analysts had to switch to a new method.

This new method dealt with three teams instead. This dynamic would include two teams that worked using Scrum, and one that worked with Kanban. Instead of what was done above, these members were rotated every sprint. The developer was a part of the Kanban team every third sprint, and the Scrum teams, instead of honing in on the support pot, put their attention on user stories. At the same time, Kanban handled support and maintenance, taking that job away from the Scrum team. As a result, the developers better understood the work they were putting out there, and why it is being created. It created a high responsiveness that yielded to happy users, which ended up with more profit in the end. By continuously working, the sprint backlog was improved. All in all, this method proved to be much more practical in the long run.

repeated sprint cycle

(Illustrates the sprint cycles of the second test)

Still, even the most practical methods have a downside.Unfortunately; this method disallows members of the Kanban team from being able to depend on the task being completed by the other team.

Conclusion:

By having a two Scrum teams and one Kanban team, with developers overlooking Kanban progress in every third sprint, users eliminated such hindering processes such as failure demand and support pot found in Scrum. As a result, the teams were able to hold an objective outlook and were allowed to use which ever method they believed to be most effective at the time, whether it be whiteboard architecture, pair programming, or other methods, making the work group more agile than ever. Even with the downfall of both teams not being able to depend on the task of the other, this second test proves that there is, in fact, a practical approach to combining Kanban with Scrum for everyone to benefit from.