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

Re: [XP] What's a good velocity?

Expand Messages
  • Kim Gräsman
    Hi Dave, Catching up on an old message marked for follow-up... ... Yes, that s what I meant. ... Right, I tried to mention this in the paragraph following the
    Message 1 of 55 , May 6 12:27 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Dave,

      Catching up on an old message marked for follow-up...

      On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:59, davenicolette <dnicolet@...> wrote:
      > --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Kim Gräsman <kim.grasman@...> wrote:
      >
      > This comment of yours caught my eye:
      >
      >> Another idea I had was to transpose the scale to, say, (10, 20, 40) --
      >> because the numbers don't matter -- and assume our velocity would be
      >> 70. Then work from that, and try to re-estimate the troublesome fours
      >> into somewhere between 20 and 40, some may be 25, some may be 35. This
      >> would have made the estimation scale more of a continuum.
      >>
      >
      > I think the notion that "the numbers don't matter" means that there's no absolute "good" or "bad" velocity value.

      Yes, that's what I meant.

      > The /scale/ might matter, though, because it can influence the team's behavior in a way that may be detrimental.
      > When teams use scales like these:
      >
      > 10, 20, 40
      >
      > [...]
      >
      > and so forth, there's a risk of falling into a "false precision" trap. I've seen people get tangled up trying to distinguish between story sizes like 18 vs 24, or 197 vs 202, or 1/4 vs 1/5, or 1.5 vs 1.75. IMHO that's a waste of time and doesn't help with problems like having a "cramped" scale.

      Right, I tried to mention this in the paragraph following the one you
      quoted. Thanks for expanding.

      > Instead of adding trailing zeroes, I'd suggest maybe spreading the scale out a bit. If you're finding that realistic
      > story sizes are 1 and 2, why not establish a scale like
      >
      > 1, 2, 4, 8, Too Big
      >
      > or
      >
      > 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, Too Big
      >
      > and then start calling the "old 2" the "new 4" or the "new 5". That gives you some breathing space without inviting
      > debates over falsely-precise sizes.

      "Too Big" is nice, I think working that one harder would yield better
      predictability.

      Thanks,
      - Kim
    • Kim Gräsman
      Hi Dave, Catching up on an old message marked for follow-up... ... Yes, that s what I meant. ... Right, I tried to mention this in the paragraph following the
      Message 55 of 55 , May 6 12:27 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Dave,

        Catching up on an old message marked for follow-up...

        On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:59, davenicolette <dnicolet@...> wrote:
        > --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Kim Gräsman <kim.grasman@...> wrote:
        >
        > This comment of yours caught my eye:
        >
        >> Another idea I had was to transpose the scale to, say, (10, 20, 40) --
        >> because the numbers don't matter -- and assume our velocity would be
        >> 70. Then work from that, and try to re-estimate the troublesome fours
        >> into somewhere between 20 and 40, some may be 25, some may be 35. This
        >> would have made the estimation scale more of a continuum.
        >>
        >
        > I think the notion that "the numbers don't matter" means that there's no absolute "good" or "bad" velocity value.

        Yes, that's what I meant.

        > The /scale/ might matter, though, because it can influence the team's behavior in a way that may be detrimental.
        > When teams use scales like these:
        >
        > 10, 20, 40
        >
        > [...]
        >
        > and so forth, there's a risk of falling into a "false precision" trap. I've seen people get tangled up trying to distinguish between story sizes like 18 vs 24, or 197 vs 202, or 1/4 vs 1/5, or 1.5 vs 1.75. IMHO that's a waste of time and doesn't help with problems like having a "cramped" scale.

        Right, I tried to mention this in the paragraph following the one you
        quoted. Thanks for expanding.

        > Instead of adding trailing zeroes, I'd suggest maybe spreading the scale out a bit. If you're finding that realistic
        > story sizes are 1 and 2, why not establish a scale like
        >
        > 1, 2, 4, 8, Too Big
        >
        > or
        >
        > 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, Too Big
        >
        > and then start calling the "old 2" the "new 4" or the "new 5". That gives you some breathing space without inviting
        > debates over falsely-precise sizes.

        "Too Big" is nice, I think working that one harder would yield better
        predictability.

        Thanks,
        - Kim
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.