That was in reply to Simon, but honestly, I m not sure what he was replying to me in regards to to begin with, as it sounded like he was replying to meMessage 1 of 34 , Nov 4, 2007View SourceThat was in reply to Simon, but honestly, I'm not sure what he was replying to me in regards to to begin with, as it sounded like he was replying to me replying to him, which I don't think I had previously, at least not in this thread. I think there's some miscomm there. My response was purely in response to him, not to anything you did or didn't say.
And yes, I would like to work without planning/tracking software. So would our architect, who's getting his first taste of Scrum. Unfortunately as the future of the enterprise, as we move away from a two decade old legacy mainframe app, there are a lot of eyes on us, our team, our project, our budget, our timeline, all the way to the top. As much as we'd like to just engineer software all day long, write code, solve problems, be innovative, there are, realistically, outside considerations we have to address.
That said, I continue to emphasize, planning/tracking software can have value -- if nothing else, then, as described, a hub for maintaining and publishing requirements. Yes, mileage may vary, depending on team, company, any other number of variables. However the Agile Manifesto, like anything else, should be open to interpretation, and openly interpreted. If a tool enables interaction, or facilitates what the people in question are doing, then there's nothing wrong with the tool. But no, not everything's a nail, you don't need a sledgehammer of a software suite to get the job done. And yes, sometimes you don't need that kind of software at all.On 11/4/07, Ilja Preuss <it@...> wrote:
Andrew Badera wrote:
> I'm sorry poor assumptions were made on the part of those with a
> different outlook. I don't think any additional qualification is
> required however on my part however. Perhaps people should simply make
> fewer assumptions next time? "Hey, this guy and I disagree. He must
> obviously not have any qualifying experience, because he doesn't think
> the same way I do." Seems kind of flat reasoning to me.
I don't understand where *that* interpretation (assumption?) is coming
from. It was certainly not what I meant to write, and skimming through
what I've written, I have a hard time seeing what could be interpreted
I would be interested where that impression is coming from. I always
like to hone my communication skills.
> how do you maintain and
> communicate the details of requirements easily and fluidly, without some
> central location to look to?
I still think a suite of automated acceptance tests would be unbeatable.
> Does every developer ping the PO every time
> they need to verify some minute detail of a requirement or spec?
Doesn't sound like the worst idea. Should be quite effective, assuming
that the PO is in the room.
> happens when the PO is in a meeting, or out for the day, or week, and a
> developer is working through a tough problem that needs detailed
> requirement info? When you're in the heat of developing, it's pretty
> demoralizing and de-energizing to have to say, "OK, I'm 100% committed
> and in the middle of this, but I'm going to drop it until the PO is
Yes, having the PO is probably key to having an effective team. I don't
think that can fully be mitigated by having a software tool. It's, in my
experience, quite unlikely that the tool knows all the answers.
> Requirements evolve, and in my admittedly not especially humble opinion,
> I think it's nigh impossible for any one person, experienced or not,
> genius or not, short of being an outright super hero, to handle all
> communication regarding every detail of all requirements effectively.
That probably depends on the size of the project.
I'm not sure, but I thought PO was a role, not a person. Perhaps some
projects need more than one person in that role.
FWIW, I think many modern software tools suffer from advanced featuritis, in the same way that MS Word does. 80 percent of the users never need more than 20Message 34 of 34 , Nov 4, 2007View SourceFWIW, I think many modern software tools suffer from advanced
featuritis, in the same way that MS Word does. 80 percent of the
users never need more than 20 percent of the features. To me, that
indicates that these instances of electronic tools are bad, not that
electronic tools are categorically bad. We tend to use a lot of tools
developed in-house, many of them having gone unchanged for years.
If it ain't broke... :-)
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Henrik Kniberg" <h@...> wrote:
> On 11/4/07, Scott Preece <sepreece@...> wrote:
> > OK - why? I confess I've never used cards on a wall (never had a
> > environment where it was feasible), but I can't say I've ever
> > either.
> [... snip ....]
> > Does anybody have quantitative data suggesting one way is
> > better?
> These are terribly rough estimates so bear with me.
> I think I've met and talked about this specific matter with at least
> 30 different Scrum teams over the past 4 months. People from
> completely different companies, countries, and application areas. And
> about the same number of product owners.
> About 50 - 70% of them were using physical taskboards. Every one of
> them (both PO and team member) who had actually tried using a physical
> taskboard considered that format to be far better than any electronic
> format they had seen or tried, mainly because it promotes direct
> collaboration and is "in your face" all day, not hidden behind umpteen
> windows on your PC.
> The only people I've met (so far) that don't like physical taskboards
> are people that haven't actually tried it. Some are forced to abandon
> it because the team is geographically distributed, but even then they
> most often seem to look for electronic tools that provide a
> taskboard-like interface.
> I've directly helped at least a dozen teams move from complex
> electronic tools to trivially simple physical taskboards and none has
> ever gone back (as far as I know).
> Not hard evidence, not quantative data, just indicators. But fairly
> strong indicators to me :o)
> Henrik Kniberg
> +46 (0)70 492 5284