More Compromises = Less Value
Accepting compromises often limits Scrum teams from creating more value
Accepting compromises often limits Scrum teams from creating more value
Whenever I hear the word compromise, I get uneasy. Sentences like the following raise a red flag in my mind:
Let’s meet in the middle.
I am sure we can find a suitable solution for both sides.
We must go to a win-win alternative.
For me, the more compromises you make, the less value you can create.
Let’s take a hypothetical situation. A couple wants to go out for dinner, and the woman asks the husband, “Should I wear high-heel or shoes?” the man wonders and replies, “I guess high-heels would look better as it’s a fancy dinner.” The woman actually thought about shoes as it’s more comfortable for her, but to avoid discussion, she says, “Let’s meet in the middle. I will wear both, one on the right foot and another on the left.” Compromise made! She would look ridiculous.
Although this hypothetical situation sounds impossible to happen, think about what happens with Scrum teams for a while. I’d be surprised if you cannot find any odd case where a pointless compromise was made.
Making decisions based on compromise is easy, but it doesn’t mean you get something meaningful out of it.
Allow me to elaborate on why making compromises sucks and where you can find opportunities to escape from this trap. I hope it helps you in your situation.
What’s a Compromise?
Out of curiosity, I decided to look at the dictionary and clarify the meaning of the word compromise, and here is what I got:
An agreement in an argument in which the people involved reduce their demands or change their opinion in order to agree.
For me, compromises represent a trap to Scrum teams. The definition of it clearly says both sides reduce their demands to agree. I’ve always heard that compromises help get to win-win options, but I disagree with that because it leads to an okay-okay outcome at best. Both sides pretend to be okay with the alternative, even though it’s not what they want.
Let’s take a common issue with Scrum teams. The Product Owner prioritizes a Product Backlog item, let’s say a wish-list feature. Then, developers estimate they need two Sprints to build it correctly. However, the Product Owner doesn’t want to invest more than a Sprint into it. The conflict is on the table; the desired investment doesn’t match the estimated time. A sequence of trade-offs will occur in a typical scenario, cut quality, reduce functionalities, and maybe increase investment. In the end, everyone pretends to be happy, and actually, no one is.
“A compromise is the art of dividing a cake in such a way that everyone believes he has the biggest piece.”
— Ludwig Erhard
Most Common Compromises
Over the last years, I faced many situations where I had a chance to compromise or go into conflicts. I confess I compromised more than I wanted, sometimes because I was afraid of confrontations. Unfortunately, it took me a while to realize compromises limited my teams and me to do our best.
My learning: Don’t compromise to please everyone. Take actions to create something meaningful, even if it means going into unpleasant conflicts.
Let me share the most common compromises I often face as a Product Owner.
Stakeholders: wherever you work, you will receive tons of requests from different layers of the organization. The easiest way to handle the pressure from stakeholders is to find alternatives to please all of them. These compromises ensure you have no direction, and you will become an order taker instead of a genuine Product Owner.
Roadmap: crafting roadmaps vary dramatically among organizations. Sometimes Product Owners have no involvement whatsoever; accepting that is a compromise to your job. When you do influence with roadmaps, conflicts are inevitable. Stakeholders will bombard you with conflicting requests. Unfortunately, I must say, you won’t find an easy way out of this without a compromise, and yet you’ve better solve this conflict instead of having a pointless direction to follow.
Development: developers are often trapped. They receive unprecedented pressure to create as many features as possible. Even though they claim the system needs urgent refactoring due to an extensive tech debt pile. Nobody cares. Developers accept the compromise and keep creating more output to keep the machine running. Inevitably, the system will crash, and this will be unsustainable.
Design: once the time is insufficient, design is often the first cut. Although designers may be angry with it, they accept the compromise and make a sub-optimal design that they don’t even believe in.
Fragmented Sprint: how do you plan your Sprint? Do you set a compelling Sprint Goal and let the team figure out how to achieve it? Or do you define which tickets fit your Sprint Backlog? Ideally, you do the first, but honestly, the second happens the most. A typical scenario is fragmented Sprints, e.g., 50% features, 20% tech debt, 20% bug fixes, and 10% slack time. That’s the perfect way of creating a lack of focus.
From my experience, compromises happen when people are afraid of conflicts or every option has the same weight. Both of them almost always yield sub-optimal results.
Don’t Focus on Compromises. Focus on Commitment.
If compromises generate poor results, what would the alternative to it be? Commitment is my answer to it.
You don’t need to agree with everyone, nor does everyone need to agree with you, but you need to commit to the best alternative. By best choice, I mean the one that makes more sense to what you want to achieve.
The best decisions are made when people can leave their egos at the door.
I believe the most qualified person on the matter should be heard and understood. For example, when a designer presents a solution, instead of trying to understand it, software engineers bring concerns on the implementation and why it would be complex to develop that, and Product Owners start challenging the effort for it. Such an attitude will limit the team. Instead, software engineers and Product Owners should strive to understand and ensure the designer’s solution addresses the right problem.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying we should blindly accept what the most qualified person suggests. Understanding is critical to commit to a decision while bringing opinions to the table is perfect for finding compromises. Pick your choice.
“When confronted with a challenge, the committed heart will search for a solution. The undecided heart searches for an escape.” — Andy Andrews
Did you like this post? What about becoming a Medium member to benefit from unlimed reading? By doing that, you also support writers like me and thousands of others 😊
