I’ve finally come to the realization that the terminology is divisive and needs to be deprecated.
Take the chicken & pig story used in many introductory paragraphs to Scrum:
A chicken and a pig are together when the chicken says, “Let’s start a restaurant!”.
The pig thinks it over and says, “What would we call this restaurant?”
The chicken says, “Ham n’ Eggs!”
The pig says, “No thanks, I’d be committed, but you’d only be involved!”
I shudder to think of the newly trained ScrumMasters or Product Owners that return from their courses to label their fellow coworkers as chickens or pigs. How is that in any way going to help foster adoption? You can try to dismiss the scenario, and I’ve listened to CST’s reason through how their trainees could never be that dense. I’ve heard the argument “Well we only use it as an introduction…” however I’m growing tired of us introducing the framework using a joke.
It is as if we’ve taken a 4 line parody and turned it into a world view. I honestly cannot understand why it has stuck with us for so long and it is time to let it go, as the labels do nothing to help promote our cause.
Another Scrum phrase I still see thrown about in a derogatory manner is the infamous Single Wringable Neck, or One Throat to Choke.
Being a Product Owner is a tough job, but as Mike Cohn wrote last December the Product Owners are not solely responsible for the success of a project.
Scrum teams succeed or fail as a, well, a team.
If the Product Owner is confused about the role or not living up to expectations, it is the ScrumMaster who should be helping them along the way. If the ScrumMaster is failing at coaching up the Product Owner on the framework, then wouldn’t the ScrumMaster be to blame? But wait, since the team has appointed the ScrumMaster, would they not have failed by choosing one who is incompetent?
We’ll just run in circles pointing fingers because there is no easy answer, and using the Product Owner as the scape goat does nothing to help resolve the situation.

I’m as guilty as any at poking fun at Scrum terminology, there comes a time when we need to grow up and recognize that it is no longer where we need to be as a community. It is becoming a hindrance to adoption as the Scrum framework rises in popularity.
By striking these terms and phrases from our professional vocabulary, it is a small step towards breaking down adoption barriers and promoting Scrum as a positive force in the community.


#1 by Ben Mathews on July 6, 2010 - 3:10 pm
I agree. In fact, Scrum, ScrumMaster (why no space!) etc sound a bit gimmicky which can actually hinder getting buy in.
I particularly dislike 'Backlog' since that has some really negative connotations, particularly since we should be looking at it more as a set of options than a clogged pipe of stuff we're trying to clear.
#2 by David J Bland on July 6, 2010 - 4:40 pm
I found that ScrumMaster (sans-space) & Scrum Master (with space) are used interchangeably. In fact in doing my SM salary research the sans-space one made 3$k less a year
My business card is sans-space, however I'm less worked up over the names and more about the divisive terms we use for introducing people to Scrum.
Not everyone will agree with me on that, in fact I'm quite certain Ken Schwaber will take the opposite view! (That's ok, as i do not speak for the SA or Scrum.org here)
I'm not lobbying that we throw away all of the terminology, but merely deprecate the bits that I feel work against self organizing, cross functional teams.
#3 by Scott Ambler on July 7, 2010 - 11:32 am
Deprecating the questionable rhetoric (chicken & pig and wringable necks are rhetoric issues, not terminology issues) would be a good start.
Dealing with the mounting integrity debt resulting from the certification scheme would be an even better thing to do, but I suspect too many people are making too much money for this to be a viable consideration. Meaningless certification is causing significant harm to this community.
#4 by David J Bland on July 7, 2010 - 2:10 pm
Agreed on rhetoric.
Disagree on certification, or at least some of it.
I think we can do a better job as a community in not pushing people off a cliff after certification or building them up in such a way where they have unrealistic expectations.
I feel as though this especially rings true with Distributed Scrum. The courses I've seen / been to have only scratched the surface on it . It's as if you are expected you to make the leap between learning Scrum concepts as applied to collocated teams and just making them work for Distributed Scrum.
Quite the undertaking in my opinion.
#5 by Chuck_vdL on July 7, 2010 - 2:56 pm
Can we add “Sprint” to the list of terms to depricate. A sprint is not a pace which is sustainable, no-runner can do sprint after sprint after sprint with no rests inbetween. This seems to be a phrase that was designed to convence managment that the team would be 'working as hard as they possibly can' which frankly if you are going to have a sustained pace, cannot be the case.
Call it Iteration, or Cycle, but not Sprint.
#6 by David J Bland on July 7, 2010 - 3:02 pm
Funny that you mention this, as I was dinged only last week on this exact topic.
Old habits die hard, and instead of Iteration I said Sprint during our Stand Up. One of the team members stated that a Sprint was not sustainable.
I agree with your comments, and it's a term that I plan on using less & less going forward.
#7 by Angie on July 8, 2010 - 1:28 am
Right on David. I have always hated the chicken and pig joke.
#8 by Tonyaskew1 on July 9, 2010 - 5:54 pm
I've never been a fan of the pig and chicken labels. As it's been stated it lacks professionalism. IMO the last thing you need to be challenged with when implementing scrum in a new and skeptical environment is explaining that symbolism. Glad to know I’m not the only one who thinks it needs changing…
#9 by Nigel Shaw on July 10, 2010 - 12:12 am
I couldn't agree more.
#10 by Nigel shaw. on July 10, 2010 - 12:14 am
I agree. Sprint is ridiculous. The sooner we go back to iteration the better.
#11 by Coheocha on July 12, 2010 - 10:11 pm
I think a sprint is reasonable – a period when the team can look straight ahead a focus on acheiving a defined stable goal. Trouble is, scrum calls for the end of each sprint to be followed immediatly by another. In a FTE position, there is far too much 'off-project stuff' going on to focus just on the project all the time. company communication meetings, security training, mentoring, performance appraisel, etc, etc. Wouldn't it be better to sprint for a while, then stop and do all this other stuff, then sprint again. Has anyone experienced an approach like this – I've found it hard to justify to senior management baying for features – ….
#12 by Gagnesh Kumar on July 13, 2010 - 8:18 am
As long as the team is mature and understands the real purpose behind using these terms, it should be OK. We should not take these terms literally but try to understand the gist. 'Single Wringable Neck, or One Throat to Choke' means that buck needs to stop somewhere and someone has to take the bottomline or we will end up building something that noone wants. All stakeholders in agile have to contribute but Product Owner has to dictate on what he'she really wants and hence he/she has to be 'committed'.