I am getting much feedback where people debate about simplicity versus ease. They say it is still simple, but it is not easy. Whilst I respect and appreciate their comments, I disagree as I see it as WHAT versus HOW.
If it were simple versus easy, people would understand the problem and understand WHAT they need to do, but they may struggle to do HOW to do it. Thus simplicity is WHAT and ease is HOW.
Empirically looking in the market there is more a widespread misunderstanding is on WHAT to do, and that is because it is NOT simple. On top of that, the HOW is also hard. If it were truly simple, people will understand the WHAT and the reasoning behind the WHAT.
PS. On a tangent, I also believe the way the Scrum Guide is written is part of the problem. Ken and Jeff have obscured the WHAT to the point it is not simple.
I am getting much feedback where people debate about simplicity versus ease. They say it is still simple, but it is not easy. Whilst I respect and appreciate their comments, I disagree as I see it as WHAT versus HOW.
If it were simple versus easy, people would understand the problem and understand WHAT they need to do, but they may struggle to do HOW to do it. Thus simplicity is WHAT and ease is HOW.
Empirically looking in the market there is more a widespread misunderstanding is on WHAT to do, and that is because it is NOT simple. On top of that, the HOW is also hard. If it were truly simple, people will understand the WHAT and the reasoning behind the WHAT.
PS. On a tangent, I also believe the way the Scrum Guide is written is part of the problem. Ken and Jeff have obscured the WHAT to the point it is not simple.