... I think that Features should be normalized against each other so that you are really measuring work. XP style story points would be one such measure. --Message 1 of 64 , Apr 2, 2003View SourceMary Poppendieck wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, "David J. Anderson"I think that "Features" should be normalized against each other so that
> <netherby_uk@y...> wrote:
>>Can you clarify my understanding of your chart?
>>As I see it, it is showing the number of Features
>>completed against a target of the total Features in
>>the scope. Is this correct?
> The burn-up graph shows the velocity moving toward the work
> remaining. It seems to me it's a slightly different way of looking
> at the same numbers.
you are really measuring work. XP style story points would be one such
Phil Goodwin, Java Software, Sun Microsystems, 408.276.7090, or x17090
For a bowl of water give a goodly meal;
For a kindly greeting bow thou down with zeal;
For a simple penny pay thou back with gold;
If thy life be rescued, life do not withhold.
Thus the words and actions of the wise regard;
Every little service tenfold they reward.
But the truly noble know all men as one,
And return with gladness good for evil done.
- Shamal Bhatt
Mike, ... Agreed! ... I think we struggle with researching previous art because most of the leading agile thinkers are in the trenches, not in academia.Message 64 of 64 , Apr 12, 2003View SourceMike,
> I think it is fine to assume that it is "independentAgreed!
> thinking". This is a good thing because it confirms
> that at least 2 people can reach the same conclusions
> and can validate their experiences and explain
> the world the same way.
> (You could alwaysI think we struggle with researching "previous art" because most of the
> ask the question the other way: Is the stuff
> from "Growing Software" coming from somewhere else
> since our stuff was published 5-7 years ago
> i.e. PLOP3 proceedings, PLOPD4 book, etc. I think
> it is safe to assume "independent thinking" because
> our industry is famous for not researching
> "previous art". In hard Science this would actually
> be an embarrassment.)
leading agile thinkers are in the trenches, not in academia. This is why I was
excited when I saw the overlap between the Scrum book and "Growing
Software". I figured that both the Scrum folks and Roy had probably not had
the opportunity to find each other.
I look forward to the outcome of future collaborations between agile thinkers
who find complexity science applicable to software development.