Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [agile-usability] Iterations harmful?

Expand Messages
  • Ron Jeffries
    ... Very nice paper, and it is well-described as a rant. I myself, as all here know, eschew controversy, so I might have gone a different way. ;- I
    Message 1 of 4 , Sep 10, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      On Saturday, September 10, 2005, at 1:42:22 AM, aacockburn wrote:

      > At the Northern Utah HCI meeting last night I got to perform a bit of
      > my rant against "iterations" (as opposed to "deliveries"). There seemed
      > to be some sympathy pains in the audience, as well as some discussion.

      > I wrote it up as an article, and posted it
      > and the URL itself is
      > http://alistair.cockburn.us/crystal/articles/aih/areiterationshazardous.
      > htm

      > If that URL wraps, as I expect it will, it'll be the top article at
      > http://alistair.cockburn.us/sitehistory.htm

      Very nice paper, and it is well-described as a rant. I myself, as
      all here know, eschew controversy, so I might have gone a different
      way. ;-> I particularly like the word "deliveries": vide infra.

      Interesting ... I might suggest references to Y.T.'s articles on ...
      "running, tested, features", at
      http://www.xprogramming.com/xpmag/AgileTopDown.htm and
      http://www.xprogramming.com/xpmag/jatRtsMetric.htm

      The latter may be the first "published" occurrence of the RTF term.
      Not that I'm looking for primacy: the point is to get the idea out
      there. I'm happy to see that we agree on its importance.

      Second, the article states that no self-respecting agilist will
      permit iterations longer than two weeks. I think that at least some
      of the Scrum people still have some remaining shreds of
      self-respect, and the standard in Scrum is still a month. It's true
      that some Scrum folks such as Mike Cohn are now recommending two
      weeks. Since he could lift me over his head, I'm not going to argue
      self respect with Mike.

      Third, the article suggests that short iterations are a matter of
      pride. That is not the case in my opinion. AYMR, the original XP
      project started with three-week iterations, tried one week, and went
      back to three, having found it better. The /XP Installed/ book, I
      believe, recommends three weeks. (ICBW).

      The one-week XP iteration was adopted as a good idea by the XP
      leadership, not because ours are bigger than yours, though of course
      that goes without saying, but because XP teams all over the place
      were using one week iterations to good effect. The short iterations
      were based on experience. One might say that we got in front of the
      parade.

      One of the interesting effects I've observed relates to this. I
      encounter clients who, over the course of a month, have trouble
      completing features. I tried recommending that they go to one week
      iterations (I like the term "deliveries" very much, by the way, and
      will start using it as soon as I step out of the thought here.)

      An interesting thing happens when a team shifts to a one-week
      iteration, with intention to deliver RTF: they have to focus. When
      there are only five days till lift-off, it's easier to keep your eye
      on the ball. I think that it's harder for Parkinson's Law to take
      effect inside the shorter iteration. Whatever the cause, going to a
      shorter iteration seems to help these teams learn to be DONE.

      Some teams find the pace too maddening: C3 did, and some of my
      current client teams have gone back to two week deliveries. That's
      absolutely cool with me. To me, what matters is helping teams learn
      to see and adjust the controls that help them do better projects. I
      don't win when they use one-week cycles: I win when they're happy
      and productive.

      Neat article, good rant, good points. Thanks!

      Ron Jeffries
      www.XProgramming.com
      If you don't have the courage to say what you think,
      there isn't much use in thinking it, is there?
      --Thomas Jay Peckish II
    • aacockburn
      ... My bad, thanks for the catch, it s already fixed. I had that reference in the Governance paper; didn t detect its absence here. I care about these things,
      Message 2 of 4 , Sep 10, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In agile-usability@yahoogroups.com, Ron Jeffries
        <ronjeffries@X...> wrote:
        >
        > Interesting ... I might suggest references to Y.T.'s articles on ...
        > "running, tested, features", at
        > http://www.xprogramming.com/xpmag/AgileTopDown.htm and
        > http://www.xprogramming.com/xpmag/jatRtsMetric.htm


        My bad, thanks for the catch, it's already fixed. I had that
        reference in the Governance paper; didn't detect its absence here. I
        care about these things, so thanks again.

        >
        > Second, the article states that no self-respecting agilist will
        > permit iterations longer than two weeks. I think that at least some
        > of the Scrum people still have some remaining shreds of
        > self-respect, and the standard in Scrum is still a month.

        True, accepted, and still, I watch people's face as they take on
        board the idea that Scrum goes for a month ... so the song still
        holds.

        > Since he could lift me over his head, I'm not going to argue
        > self respect with Mike.

        I'm going to assume that Mike has self-restraint as well as self
        respect, so I'm happy to argue with him :-)
        (maybe not arm-wrestle for a beer)


        >
        > Third, the article suggests that short iterations are a matter of
        > pride. That is not the case in my opinion. AYMR, the original XP
        > project started with three-week iterations, tried one week, and went
        > back to three, having found it better. The /XP Installed/ book, I
        > believe, recommends three weeks. (ICBW).

        True about C3, but that was back in the mid-90s, recall. Note that
        the new XP calls for one week. You are now a fuddy-duddy like me
        (well, maybe not quite as fuddy duddy, because my default iteration
        length is still probably longer (for some definition of "iteration";
        and you are not really /like/ me; but the song under the lyrics still
        applies)


        > One of the interesting effects I've observed relates to this. I
        > encounter clients who, over the course of a month, have trouble
        > completing features. I tried recommending that they go to one week
        > iterations (I like the term "deliveries" very much, by the way, and
        > will start using it as soon as I step out of the thought here.)

        Please, only if they really deliver. If word-inflation moves
        into "deliveries", then I'm running out of words to use.

        >
        > An interesting thing happens when a team shifts to a one-week
        > iteration, with intention to deliver RTF: they have to focus. When
        > there are only five days till lift-off, it's easier to keep your eye
        > on the ball. I think that it's harder for Parkinson's Law to take
        > effect inside the shorter iteration. Whatever the cause, going to a
        > shorter iteration seems to help these teams learn to be DONE.

        ditto about actually delivering.
        Thanks
      • Ron Jeffries
        ... Well, that makes you a wuss, more than fuddy-duddy. Use of the term fuddy-duddy is self-incriminating, I suspect. ... Yes. I like delivery for that reason.
        Message 3 of 4 , Sep 10, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          On Saturday, September 10, 2005, at 11:38:10 AM, aacockburn wrote:

          >> Third, the article suggests that short iterations are a matter of
          >> pride. That is not the case in my opinion. AYMR, the original XP
          >> project started with three-week iterations, tried one week, and went
          >> back to three, having found it better. The /XP Installed/ book, I
          >> believe, recommends three weeks. (ICBW).

          > True about C3, but that was back in the mid-90s, recall. Note that
          > the new XP calls for one week. You are now a fuddy-duddy like me
          > (well, maybe not quite as fuddy duddy, because my default iteration
          > length is still probably longer (for some definition of "iteration";
          > and you are not really /like/ me; but the song under the lyrics still
          > applies)

          Well, that makes you a wuss, more than fuddy-duddy. Use of the term
          fuddy-duddy is self-incriminating, I suspect.

          >> One of the interesting effects I've observed relates to this. I
          >> encounter clients who, over the course of a month, have trouble
          >> completing features. I tried recommending that they go to one week
          >> iterations (I like the term "deliveries" very much, by the way, and
          >> will start using it as soon as I step out of the thought here.)

          > Please, only if they really deliver. If word-inflation moves
          > into "deliveries", then I'm running out of words to use.

          Yes. I like delivery for that reason. When you say "deliver" to you
          wish to limit the term to those cases where the customer actually
          puts the software into production, or is it sufficient that they can
          run it and use it if they want to?

          Ron Jeffries
          www.XProgramming.com
          Hope is not a strategy. -- Michael Henos
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.