Sydney Scrum In Depth (SID) training

Just came across this interesting update of your new direction. It is odd to me to imagine running a course using someone else's training materials. I guess it is an okay thing to do if we are teaching procedure, or prescribed process, but surely not in teaching Scrum. I strongly believe each trainer of Scrum needs to understand Scrum at a level where he/she can create his/her own experience for participants. This is, after all, anything but formulaic.

> "I realised that there is another level of fun … and that is being able to show participants the possibilities of a different world."

Rather than considering this "another level", isn't it rather the core of what is important about Scrum?

Tobias,

>Just came across this interesting update of your new direction.

You have an overactive imagination. I'm actively looking for a product as the "new" direction. This is the same "new" direction that you and I discussed about 2 years ago.

>It is odd to me to imagine running a course using someone else's training
> materials. I guess it is an okay thing to do if we are teaching procedure, or
> prescribed process, but surely not in teaching Scrum. I strongly believe each
> trainer of Scrum needs to understand Scrum at a level where he/she can create
> his/her own experience for participants. This is, after all, anything but
> formulaic.

It seems to me that you've read what you wanted to read in my article without considering the context. I have two points to make:

1. Many (if not most) CST's got their start with Ken's original CSM course materials. This is not about understanding Scrum, or it's practice ... it's about how to structure a good course and present the materials in a way that's digestible to the audience. When I first became a CST I had much experience with Scrum (and XP) but little experience as a trainer. So, running someone else's course was (and arguably, still is) very common.

2. After learning what works for me and how I learn and understand the world, I moved significantly way from Ken's lecture-exercise style to create the immersion style of training (with Michael James). This was in 2006, and was the first departure from traditional CSM courses, that I'm aware of. Having had the opportunity to start with Ken's materials, and then develop my own materials ... I'm still open to learning new approaches, ideas and course structures. So, when I was given the opportunity to work with some of Ken's new materials I jumped at it. It was an opportunity to learn about Ken's new ideas and at the same time a melancholy trip into my own past as a trainer.

>Rather than considering this "another level", isn't it rather the core of what is
> important about Scrum?

Show the participants that Scrum is a different world is absolutely core to Scrum, but conveying that in a fun way is not. This "different world" has the potential to impact peoples livelihood, emotions, and how they view themselves and their contributions. I have paid the price of organizational change on a number of occasions, and so I feel that this is something that needs to be done carefully and with deliberately thought. As a consequence, my discussions around this tend to be very open and earnest. What I got out of the SID course is that it doesn't have to be all serious. It's also possible to deliver the same message in a format that's fun.

Okay, that's all I really want to say here. I have to admit that your comment feels more like point scoring rather than the supportive free exchange of ideas that we use to have several years ago ... and that saddens me. If you'd like to continue this discussion please do so directly via email.