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

Re: Iterations harmful?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.