Re: [agile-usability] Re: Iterations harmful?
- On Saturday, September 10, 2005, at 11:38:10 AM, aacockburn wrote:
>> Third, the article suggests that short iterations are a matter ofWell, that makes you a wuss, more than fuddy-duddy. Use of the term
>> 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
fuddy-duddy is self-incriminating, I suspect.
>> One of the interesting effects I've observed relates to this. IYes. I like delivery for that reason. When you say "deliver" to you
>> 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.
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?
Hope is not a strategy. -- Michael Henos