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

RE: [XP] value of splitting stories (was: My first trial run at the Planning Game)

Expand Messages
  • Steve Bate
    ... I agree that keeping real objectives in mind during planning is very beneficial. Taking stories and breaking them apart is also a good strategy when it can
    Message 1 of 242 , Jan 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      > From: Ron Jeffries [mailto:ronjeffries@...]
      >..
      > When people make up stories, especially small ones, they get more and more
      > focused on solution, and less and less on problems. When we're in a
      > situation where we need to get creative with our use of time, taking an
      > overall look back at the real objectives, taking high-level stories and
      > teasing them apart, we often get the effect you describe.

      I agree that keeping real objectives in mind during planning is very
      beneficial. Taking stories and breaking them apart is also a good strategy
      when it can be done in an value-effective way. Of course, there is a
      practical limit. At some point one decides that stories are small enough
      and they start working instead of planning.

      >...
      > The release plan gives us an opportunity to look at the big
      > picture, observe where we're in trouble, and schedule time to come up with
      > something creative to do.

      I agree that the release plan (as you define it) can provide that
      opportunity although it doesn't guarantee that the needed discussions
      will actually happen. There are alternatives that are more lightweight and
      serve the same purpose ("release plans" as longer term project milestones)
      when doing short releases.

      > We have now seen a number of ways in which the overview provided
      > by release planning provides for a better solution to a tight-resource
      > situation -- and even a better use of resources when we have all the time
      and
      > money we need -- than just doing what seems like the next most important
      > thing.

      If "importance" is defined as a function of the probability of
      providing the fastest, sustainable stream of revenue for the business,
      how would doing the "next most important thing" be a suboptimal strategy?
      For the purposes of the question, assume the stories have already been
      broken down according to the 80/20 heuristic or some similar analysis.

      The "sustainable" part of the definition does imply evaluation within
      a broader business context (intentions, expectations, constraints)
      but it does not imply the necessity of relatively heavyweight long term
      release planning.

      I could be wrong, but your arguments seem to rely on the assumption that
      a team cannot discuss, estimate, and evaluate stories in the context of
      broader business objectives without the heavier version of release
      planning (the only kind of release planning, by your definition). If
      so, it's not a generally valid assumption because I've seen it done.
    • Ilja Preuss
      ... It probably also results in stories of different priorities. So you might happen to only implement part of the original story in those three months. Take
      Message 242 of 242 , Jan 19, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        J. B. Rainsberger wrote:

        > Split the stories. The usual effect is that our fear-based estimates
        > are replaced with shorter, more realistic ones. This gets us more
        > features, because we reduce the effect of our tendency to
        > over-estimate.

        It probably also results in stories of different priorities. So you
        might happen to only implement part of the original story in those three
        months.

        Take care, Ilja
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.