The Product Backlog is the Confidence of Transparency of the Future – Since we have a backlog that has been ordered by the Product Owner, who is accountable for maximizing the value delivered I can be confident that what we have Done represents the most valuable things that we could have done.If that is true, then we can have 100% confidence that we can deliver the output from the last Sprint. The Increment is the Confidence of Transparency of the Future – If we have a Scrum Team then I should be confident in saying that we will have a usable increment at the end of every Sprint. In the empirical world where more is unknown than known, we don’t plan all of the work (it will change) and we cant tell you when things will be done. How sure are you that you will be able to deliver? No really! what is your statistical level of confidence? Confidence in the dace of uncertainty We need confidence! Confidence Through TransparencyĬonfidence is gained by truly understanding the uncertainty of delivery and factoring it into our projections. Scrum Teams have been basing their confidence to stakeholders on an agreed consensus that cant be compared and is susceptible to any change from the makeup of the team from the estimation room. Do you re-estimate and stick it on the backlog, does it move to the next sprint? This was such a wholly improbable assumption that the vast majority of Scrum Teams talk about “carry-over” points and quiz me about how to represent that. Velocity was a way to assert that confidence with a plot of our delivered story points, and along with some clever calculations we asserted that we were likely to deliver about 20 story points. We need concrete data to build trust with stakeholders that we know what we are talking about. While they have gained an understanding of the goals, they still don’t have an understanding of the predictability and thus no confidence in their predictions. Indeed as the Scrum Team using Story Points really has no consistent reference they are just shooting in the dark the same as they were before. What I mean is that they just don’t understand their work or its nature This is what I mean by immaturity, and not that something else is a sign of maturity! While I would be OK with a team using it for a while, if an Agile Team is still using Velocity and Story Points after they have 5 or 10 sprints under their belt then I would have serious concerns about their ability to adapt to change and their sincerity towards that change. However, agile teams try to use Story Points and Velocity for future predictability and this is a fallacy. The shared understanding that the participants get by having some way to know when they don’t understand the same things. It’s the conversation that is a valuable thing. Story Points use rough sizing as a way to analyze the work and break it down.īecause really, the scores are made up and the points don’t matter. We often start from typical traditional practices and Planning Poker becomes a good learning point. When a team is just starting out they need to keep things simple and iterate towards better outcomes. I am not saying that there is no value in Story Points or Planning Poker.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |