Transitioning From Scrum To Kanban

In today’s dynamic and fast-paced business environment, project management methodologies that promote flexibility, adaptability, and collaboration are essential for successful outcomes. Fifty years ago, the waterfall model was preferred because it provided for the sequential completion of tasks ensuring that every step was fulfilled before moving on to the next. However, this traditional approach came with multiple limitations, creating the need for innovation in project management. Agile methodologies were the next step in the evolution of project management. The Agile frameworks enable teams to respond effectively to changing requirements, mitigate risks, and optimize project delivery. As the name suggests, it is all about agility. Some prominent Agile frameworks in software development include Scrum and Kanban. These two have gained notoriety for their positive and immediate impact on productivity. Where Waterfall led to yearlong delays, Scrum and Kanban have made it possible to respond to project needs in real-time. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive overview of project management in the context of agile development, specifically focusing on the Scrum and Kanban frameworks.

Agile Development

Agile development is a project management concept that takes a collaborative approach to software development to ensure the delivery of top-of-the-line products that meet consumer and client expectations. It is essential to note that flexibility and adaptivity are key features in this framework. Agile acknowledges that product development, especially in the world of software, is not linear. It promotes frequent feedback, continuous improvement, and early and regular delivery of working software (Lei et al., 2017). Agile methodologies emphasize close collaboration between cross-functional teams, customer involvement, and the ability to respond quickly to changes.

Scrum

Scrum is an agile framework for managing and organizing complex projects. It breaks down the work into sections called sprints. These sprints are assigned limited periods within which they must be completed. Most organizations that take this approach limit the duration of each sprint to a max of four weeks. Each team in this framework has members with specified roles, such as product owner, scrum master, and development team efficiency (Alqudah & Razali, 2017). Like in any other setting, the team’s success depends on each member understanding and accepting their role. If one person drops the ball, it sabotages the completion of the project. The product owner is at the top of this scrum team hierarchy and decides the order of completion that must be followed within the sprint depending on the perceived priority and importance of the group objective. The development team executes the items on the priority list within the sprint (Lei et al., 2017). This team organizes within itself because everyone understands what needs to happen to achieve the required outcomes. Scrum provides transparency, regular inspection, and adaptation through ceremonies like daily stand-ups, sprint planning, sprint review, and sprint retrospectives.

Kanban

Kanban is another agile framework that visualizes and optimizes the workflow. It originated from lean manufacturing principles and is often represented as a board with columns representing stages of work. The objective of all these frameworks is to minimize waste and optimize productivity without compromising on the quality of output. Therefore, it is unsurprising that Kanban borrows some principles of lean manufacturing which emphasize optimal production levels. In Kanban, each work item is represented by a card, and the movement of cards across columns indicates progress. Kanban emphasizes limiting work in progress (WIP), continuous flow, and maximizing efficiency (Alqudah & Razali, 2017). It provides flexibility and enables teams to respond to changing priorities and minimize bottlenecks.

Transitioning from Scrum to Kanban

Although Kanban and Scrum are both under the Agile umbrella, transitioning from Scrum to Kanban involves a shift in mindset and practices. This is because they are not identical. Therefore, before making the change, it is important to ensure that everyone on the team is familiar with the Kanban principles. As mentioned above, some of these include minimizing WIP and visualizing the workflow. It will also be crucial to break down the current systems and processes under the Scrum approach. This will enable the team to identify the various areas where Kanban will be more suitable for better project outcomes. This analysis provides information that helps the team to understand the reason for the transition. It ensures that the members buy into the idea. Once this is done, a Kanban board will enable everyone to visualize the workflow (Zayat & Senvar, 2020). The workflow is then mapped as columns based on the different stages identified on the Kanban board. This provides a platform for continued visibility and visualization of the workflow.

Once the visualization is complete, the next step is setting the WIP limits for each column on the board mentioned above. The WIP limits provide focus boundaries so that the team members can work on specified tasks before moving on to new ones (Zayat & Senvar, 2020). This minimizes overburdening and improves the overall flow. After the project starts rolling, it will also require tracking flow metrics such as lead time and cycle time. Lead time refers to the time taken to complete an item, whereas cycle time is time spent actively working on an item. The lead time and cycle times can be integral in identifying bottlenecks, optimizing production, and consistently elevating the team’s performance.

Challenges of Transitioning from Scrum to Kanban

  • Mindset shift: Moving from a time-boxed and structured framework like Scrum to a more flexible and flow-based approach like Kanban requires changing mindset and team dynamics. This is often not easy to achieve, especially if people have been working with Scrum for an extended period.
  • Lack of defined roles: Kanban does not have predefined roles like Scrum, which can create confusion initially (Zayat & Senvar, 2020). Clear communication and a shared understanding of responsibilities are crucial. In the absence of communication, there will be an overlap of tasks and roles.
  • Team buy-in: Transitioning to Kanban requires the whole team’s buy-in and understanding of the principles and benefits. It may take time for team members to adapt and embrace the change. Human beings are wired to resist changes away from the status quo due to the uncertainty that comes with it.

Best Practices for a Successful Transition

It is important to start with minor changes and roll out Kanban gradually as the team warms up to the idea (Kniberg & Skarin, 2010). This provides time for the team to adapt to the new realities. Furthermore, this time can be invested in training the employees in Kanban principles to minimize interruptions to company operations. Additionally, this transition only works if the team members can collaborate and work together. Thus, it requires transparency through communication so everyone knows their role and how it impacts the team’s success. Furthermore, the management should employ change management strategies to ensure the changes go down well with the rest of the team. Finally, it is crucial to install a culture of continuous improvement. The management should regularly review and analyze flow metrics to identify areas for improvement and experiment with changes to optimize the process.

Benefits:

Scrum benefits:

  • Clear roles and responsibilities
  • Time-boxed iterations for predictable delivery
  • Frequent inspection and adaptation through ceremonies
  • Improved collaboration and transparency

Kanban benefits:

  • Flexibility to accommodate changing priorities
  • Visual representation of work and flow
  • WIP limits to prevent overburdening and improve focus
  • Continuous flow and reduced waste

Project Types

Scrum is well-suited for projects with evolving requirements, where customer feedback and collaboration play a significant role (Ahmad et al., 2016). It works best with a clear product vision and a dedicated Product Owner.

On the other hand, Kanban is suitable for projects with a continuous flow of work or projects where priorities change frequently. It is effective for maintenance tasks, support teams, or projects that require a steady and predictable workflow.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Scrum

Scrum is more predictable because of its time-boxed structure. One can easily estimate the delivery timelines at the start of the project. Furthermore, it provides a clear definition of the roles and responsibilities of each team member. This makes managing the team and maintaining accountability easier (Ahmad et al., 2016). Furthermore, Scrum offers regular windows for inspection and adaptation based on the required improvements. Finally, it emphasizes collaboration and customer involvement. On the downside, Scrum is rigid regarding fixed iterations and scope. It also required dedicated team roles such as product owner and scrum master. This makes it challenging to estimate and plan for long-term projects.

Kanban

Kanban offers more flexibility, enabling the team to adapt the project process to differing priorities. The visual representation of the work and flow also facilitates clear communication to the team on the roles and steps to execution (Kniberg & Skarin, 2010). This enables efficient utilization of resources through the predetermined WIP limits. The flexibility of Kanban makes it suitable for both predictable and unpredictable workloads. On the downside, the undefined roles open the team to confusion and miscommunication. Thus, it requires a higher level of discipline and self-organization.

References

Ahmad, M. O., Kuvaja, P., Oivo, M., & Markkula, J. (2016, January). Transition of software maintenance teams from Scrum to Kanban. In 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 5427-5436). IEEE.

Alqudah, M., & Razali, R. (2017, November). A comparison of Scrum and Kanban for identifying their selection factors. In 2017 6th International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics (ICEEI) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.

Kniberg, H., & Skarin, M. (2010). Kanban and Scrum-making the most of both. Lulu. com.

Lei, H., Ganjeizadeh, F., Jayachandran, P. K., & Ozcan, P. (2017). A statistical analysis of the effects of Scrum and Kanban on software development projects. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing43, 59-67.

Zayat, W., & Senvar, O. (2020). Framework study for agile software development via Scrum and Kanban. International journal of innovation and technology management17(04), 2030002.

Analysis- The World Is Waking Up

Summary

Greta Thunberg, a climate change activist, gave her famous speech, claiming she had a message for world leaders. She accused them of stealing young people’s dreams with empty words, leading to the ecosystems suffering. She emphasized that the world is in the middle of extinction, and all leaders can talk about is money and false stories about how they will grow the economy. She quotes the idea of cutting emissions in half to increase the possibility of maintaining temperatures under 1.5 degrees Celsius. Thunberg disagrees, arguing that, while leaders may find that percentage agreeable, it fails to consider factors such as equity and justice for the climate, tipping points, and more temperature rises from toxic air pollution. Based on her argument, Thunberg concludes that cutting the percentage by half is a significant risk, and the younger generation would face the consequences. She explains that the current budget to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere will be gone in less than a decade due to today’s emission levels. She concludes by saying that the world leaders have failed, and the youth has started understanding their betrayal, adding that the world is no longer in slumber and change is inevitable. This essay aims to elaborate on Thunberg’s speech through analysis, further illustrating her use of logos, ethos and pathos.

Close reading Analysis

Thunberg’s speech is directed at world leaders because it reveals that the world is damaged and collapsing due to leaders’ neglect and ignorance. While Greta seems angry in her speech, she hopes to change people’s minds and convince them to act accordingly to make the world better and healthier. She shows people that, as a community, they have not been taking care of the world as they should. Primarily, leaders have been money-hungry and used their power for the wrong reasons, which is why she does her speech to the leaders of the United Nations. She explains that their ignorance and actions have damaged the world and negatively affected future generations. Her speech explains that since leaders have not considered the environment, it is time for the youth and the rest of the community to act. She also demandingly and menacingly appeals to people who do not care for the ecosystem to stop ignoring what is going on around them.

While Thunberg’s speech is significantly condensed, it comprises intriguing points, one being hope. While the world is changing due to world leaders’ ignorance, she communicates hope by showing them, the young generation and people with minimal interest in the ecosystem, that if they change their actions, it is possible to change the world. She also presents solutions to the current effects of climate change. Thunberg estimates that the current technology leaders have set aside for climate change can only last eight and a half years due to the continuous carbon dioxide emissions in the environment (Thunberg, 2021). This information helps leaders and those interested in caring for the environment acquire more knowledge on their role in preventing more climate change and global warming. At the end of her speech, she passes hope to the younger generation, telling them that the world is waking up and that climate change will no longer be a problem. Although leaders have taken ecosystem conservation for granted, the youth understand the betrayal and, being future leaders, have the opportunity to prevent further damage.

Greta’s speech is in the second person to make the audience feel included in her message. Although her speech aims to address leaders at the United Nations and people with the same authority, she speaks in a way that makes everyone directly involved in the climate change crisis. Generalizing helps the listener understand that leaders’ ignorance damages the ecosystem and ruins the younger generation’s future. She elaborates on the negative effect that the leaders’ irresponsibility has on the youth by claiming that she should be in school studying. Instead, she has to be there as a wake-up call about how they are not doing enough to conserve the environment. Her speech has an impact not only on the target audience but on every listener.

Rhetorical Analysis

The speech indicates Thunberg’s power because she utilizes pathos, logos, and ethos. First, logos are presented using statistics, facts and numbers to strengthen her speech.”To increase the chance of lowering the temperatures below 1.5 degrees by 67% … in 2018, there were 420 gigatons of carbon dioxide remaining for emission, but today, 350 gigatons remain.” The facts that Greta includes in her story are the current climate change crisis and the less adequate effort that world leaders have made to prevent it. “Populations are suffering and dying, and ecosystems are failing. We are facing a significant risk of extinction, and all you want to take about are stories about economic growth.” These are facts because climate change is a global issue, with global warming leading to wildfires, floods, and rising sea levels. The current state of the global climate justifies the logos in her speech.

Secondly, Greta shows pathos by emotionally blaming the older generation and its representatives for the younger generation’s suffering due to their failure to address climate change. Most of Greta’s speech appeals to the audience’s emotions due to the current state that the ecosystem is in. She tells the leaders they are responsible for stealing her dreams and childhood with meaningless words.” You say you hear us and understand the urgency.” “no matter how sad I am”,…”How dare you pretend that this can be solved with business as usual and technical solutions?” Her opening statement that she should be at school on the other side of the ocean but is compelled to be at the summit to make a speech is disheartening because it shows the poor state that the climate is in. Greta’s speech evokes sympathy and guilt in the audience. She makes the leaders and older people feel guilty for being money-hungry, making empty promises, and focusing on economic growth instead of the urgency of mitigating climate change. She accuses them of failing the younger generation and asking them for help while they are the ones who have the power and finances to change the environment (Zhanda, Dzvimbo & Chitongo, 2021). She evokes sympathy from the listeners who have witnessed leaders’ claim to manage climate change but failed to do so. She says that children have developed an understanding of how leaders have betrayed them, and their eyes are on them.

Greta’s authority throughout the speech presents its ethos. She begins the speech with authority, stating,” My message is that we will be watching you.” Her authority is depicted by how she speaks with conviction and accuses leaders of failing the younger generation. She addresses them directly using the second person. “You continue to look away and the politics and solutions needed are nowhere in sight.” Greta’s authority also arises from analyzing how leaders misuse funds instead of prioritizing climate change. “There will not be any easy solutions… and you are still not mature enough to tell it like it is.” Her repetitive use of “how dare you” also represents her authority during the speech.

In summary, the world is waking up is part of Greta, a Swedish climate change activist’s speech, whereby she states her frustration on how world leaders have failed to mitigate climate change. She accuses the leaders of being money-hungry and failing to acknowledge that they are not doing enough to stop global warming. She states that caring and righteous leaders would care about the community and the ecosystem and find ways that work to protect it instead of speaking about economic growth. She uses the second-person approach to make the speech more inclusive and uses rhetorical analysis to emphasize her points. She concludes her speech with words of hope, explaining that the younger generation has begun understanding leaders’ betrayal due to the failure to take responsibility for the emissions, and adds that the world is waking up. This shows that the young generation is determined to make changes that will benefit the climate and stop global warming, an act that leaders have failed to accomplish.

References

Thunberg, G. (2021). The World Is Waking Up. The Seagull Book of Essays. Edited by Joseph Kelly. W.W Norton & Company, 273-275.

Zhanda, K., Dzvimbo, M. A., & Chitongo, L. (2021). Children climate change activism and protests in Africa: Reflections and lessons from Greta Thunberg. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society41(4), 87-98. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Munyaradzi-Dzvimbo/publication/355654885_Children_Climate_Change_Activism_and_Protests_in_Africa_Reflections_and_Lessons_From_Greta_Thunberg/links/6339bc2b9cb4fe44f3f5d1d6/Children-Climate-Change-Activism-and-Protests-in-Africa-Reflections-and-Lessons-From-Greta-Thunberg.pdf

Apple Vs. FBI: Balancing Privacy And Security In The Digital Age

Description

The Apple v. FBI case highlighted the moral conundrums associated with privacy and security in the digital era. The FBI’s request for Apple’s help unlocking a shooter’s iPhone sparked serious questions about whether technology companies should be forced to overcome encryption or construct backdoors for law enforcement, especially in the interest of national security.

The conflict between personal privacy and public safety is at the core of this ethical problem. Privacy is regarded as a fundamental right that protects people from unjustified government intrusion and promotes confidence in digital firms (Figar & Đorđević, 2016). It promotes independence and safeguards individual liberties. On the other hand, law enforcement needs data to investigate and prevent crime for public safety. Maintaining people’s rights and society’s well-being while balancing these competing objectives is ethically difficult.

The case compels us to consider challenging issues of how much privacy we are ready to give up in the name of security. It raises questions about the potential repercussions of adding backdoors or weakening encryption, as these actions could make user data vulnerable to misuse or unwanted access. It also makes one ponder the obligation of technology firms to safeguard user privacy and uphold openness and credibility.

Such situations call for the serious consideration of the possible outcomes and the development of alternative strategies in order to find ethical solutions. Technology companies, law enforcement, and policymakers must collaborate to establish clear privacy and security regulations. Innovative investigation methods that can help law enforcement without jeopardizing encryption must also be researched and developed.

In the end, resolving the ethical dilemma raised by the Apple v. FBI case necessitates taking a careful and reasonable approach that respects each person’s right to privacy while also considering legitimate public safety concerns. It necessitates thoroughly comprehending the complicated ethical context surrounding law enforcement, security, and privacy in the digital era.

Evidence Assessment

It is essential to examine the ethical concepts of privacy, security, openness, and trust in order to assess the moral difficulties raised by the Apple v. FBI case. A vital human right, privacy safeguards people from unauthorized interference and upholds their individuality, dignity, and independence. Maintaining a society that prioritizes individual rights and restricts the possibility of government overreach requires respecting privacy. Apple opposed a backdoor because it would have risked the security and privacy of iPhone customers (Mishra, 2020).

On the other hand, security includes worries about personal data security and national security issues. It is crucial to strike a precise balance between privacy and security because leaning too far in either direction might have unfavorable effects (Armstrong & Gangemi, 2020). National security is unquestionably crucial, but putting it ahead of people’s privacy can lead to a precipice that erodes their civil freedoms and sets up harmful precedents.

Between technology businesses and users, transparency and trust are essential elements. Users trust these companies to handle their personal data responsibly. This confidence can be damaged if the FBI’s request to build a backdoor is granted. It would introduce holes in the system that might allow for illegal access and the misuse of personal data (Wolfson & Levy, 2020). In order to secure user privacy and ensure the long-term profitability of the technology sector, transparency, and trust must be maintained.

Apple might have complied with the FBI’s request in lieu of other options, placing national security above individual privacy. However, this choice would have created a bad precedent and allowed for possible power abuses. Making a backdoor for one case might have opened the door for future requests with a similar nature, jeopardizing the security and privacy of all users. Apple had to weigh the broader societal repercussions of its choices and adopt a moral stance to defend customer privacy (Tota & Shehu, 2012).

The FBI may have used several investigation methods to get access to the device’s data. It may have been investigated to work with outside cybersecurity specialists or to use other forensic methods (Lee & Tenenboim, 2020). The FBI could have proven its dedication to identifying solutions that strike a balance between privacy and security without jeopardizing encryption by exploring every option.

The Apple v. FBI case demonstrates the importance of thorough ethical analysis and careful evaluation of the possible outcomes (Spinello, 2021). Navigating ethical issues in the digital age requires, among other things, respecting privacy, balancing security, upholding transparency and trust, and considering alternate solutions. By considering these concepts, stakeholders can collaborate toward complete solutions that protect individual rights while preserving public safety.

Recommendations

A balanced strategy that considers both privacy and security is essential for resolving the ethical dilemma brought up by the Apple v. FBI case. Technology developments should be supported by reliable encryption techniques that safeguard user data while continuing to permit legal access in certain situations, as with a court order. To create explicit norms and procedures for authorized access while preserving privacy rights, technological businesses, law enforcement organizations, and policymakers must work together (Woiceshyn, 2011).

Law enforcement organizations can gain access to vital information without jeopardizing encryption by investing in the research and development of alternative investigative tools. This calls for cooperation between government organizations, business leaders, and academic institutions to investigate novel strategies that strike a balance between privacy and security (Figar & Đorđević, 2016). To create comprehensive solutions that balance individual rights while also addressing societal demands, policymakers must have conversations with technology businesses, privacy supporters, and security specialists.

These recommendations can help society manage the complex ethical issues related to digital era privacy, security, and law enforcement. This strategy protects privacy while enabling lawful access to information when needed and justified, fostering peaceful coexistence between individual rights and public safety.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Apple v. FBI case highlighted the ethical challenges that arise when privacy, security, openness, and trust are intertwined in the digital era. The complex challenge of juggling individual privacy rights with national security considerations necessitates carefully assessing the possible outcomes. Protecting individual autonomy and dignity requires upholding privacy as a fundamental human right while understanding the necessity for security precautions. To protect the integrity of the digital ecosystem, technology businesses, and users must maintain openness and trust. In order to find ethical answers that protect both individual privacy and public safety, society can work towards debate and alternate investigation channels.

References

Armstrong, R., & Gangemi, V. (2020). Apple Inc.: iPhone Data and Another FBI Investigation. The Eugene D. Fanning Center for Business Communication, Mendoza College of Business, University of Notre Dame.

Figar, N., & Đorđević, B. (2016). Managing an ethical dilemma. Economic Themes, 54(3), 345-362.

Lee, A. M., & Tenenboim, O. (2020). How did Americans Think About the Apple/FBI Dispute? A Mixed-method Study. Journalism Practice14(4), 483-498.

Mishra, A. (2020). The Intricacies of Trust in Technology: A Study of the Clash Between Apple and the FBI. Journal of Cases on Information Technology (JCIT)22(4), 31-43.

Spinello, R. A. (2021). The ethical consequences of “going dark.” Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility30(1), 116-126.

Tota, I., & Shehu, H. (2012). The dilemma of business ethics. Procedia Economics and Finance, 3, 555-559.

Woiceshyn, J. (2011). A model for ethical decision making in business: Reasoning, intuition, and rational moral principles. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(3), 311-323.

Wolfson, B., & Levy, L. (2020). Impenetrable: Should Apple Backdoor the iPhone?