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

Two questions from the agile survey discussed earlier.

Expand Messages
  • Ken Boucher
    I got mine via e-mail so I guess those people wanting one should contact the original poster. From the survey: Quote: Agile methods are suitable for small to
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 16, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I got mine via e-mail so I guess those people wanting one should
      contact the original poster.

      From the survey:

      Quote: "Agile methods are suitable for small to middle sized project,
      so normally the development team may have around 15 members"

      How is this working out for people? We've found that a project team
      (the team that does stand-up every morning together) seems to work
      nicely at about 9 people, including 6 developers (although I'd like
      to add one more tester per team some days, I feel we're low there).
      15 people seems like a heck of a lot of people to me nowadays.

      Quote: "In an agile process, normally there are several iterations.
      Every iteration includes many user stories and in one user story is
      divided into many tasks. Some user stories may cross iterations when
      they can not be finished in assigned iteration. But tasks can not
      across stories."

      This one caught me by surprise. Since the customer doesn't write
      tasks we often find that two stories have the same "task": something
      that needs to be done for either card. Sometimes we say things
      like "Well, both cards are about 4 gummi bears. 3 for the first, 1
      for the second. Or we can just split this task into it's own separate
      card (knowing full well there will be customer acceptance tests for
      the stories but probably not the stand alone task - which may not
      even involve code.)".

      So while I understand how we deal with the situation, I'm not sure I
      understand what's being said and figured I'd throw it out to the
      greater group to look at.

      As a side note, the survey I received was an XP data capture sheet.
      I'm not sure if their are other sheets for SCRUM, Crystal, XP.4.1 and
      other agile methodologies. YMMV.
    • Lasse Koskela
      ... 15 people is certainly a lot these days -- for me, that is. I ve been part of a project of which headcount peaked at somewhere close to 140 or 150 and that
      Message 2 of 4 , Aug 18, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 11:55:31 -0000, Ken Boucher <yahoo@...> wrote:
        > Quote: "Agile methods are suitable for small to middle sized project,
        > so normally the development team may have around 15 members"
        >
        > How is this working out for people? We've found that a project team
        > (the team that does stand-up every morning together) seems to work
        > nicely at about 9 people, including 6 developers (although I'd like
        > to add one more tester per team some days, I feel we're low there).
        > 15 people seems like a heck of a lot of people to me nowadays.

        15 people is certainly a lot these days -- for me, that is. I've been
        part of a project of which headcount peaked at somewhere close to 140
        or 150 and that sucked big time. Most such projects end up producing
        something that 1/10th of the headcount could achieve in the same time
        (assuming freedom from all the bureaucracy involved). It's a pretty
        good "traffic lights" level indicator to count the percentage of
        people dedicated to development versus management...

        -Lasse-
      • Ron Jeffries
        ... I was chatting with a fellow last night at the XPAU who reported that he was on a project that was cut from 20 to 6 people with NO loss of productivity.
        Message 3 of 4 , Aug 18, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          On Wednesday, August 18, 2004, at 9:34:30 AM, Lasse Koskela wrote:

          > 15 people is certainly a lot these days -- for me, that is. I've been
          > part of a project of which headcount peaked at somewhere close to 140
          > or 150 and that sucked big time. Most such projects end up producing
          > something that 1/10th of the headcount could achieve in the same time
          > (assuming freedom from all the bureaucracy involved). It's a pretty
          > good "traffic lights" level indicator to count the percentage of
          > people dedicated to development versus management...

          I was chatting with a fellow last night at the XPAU who reported that he
          was on a project that was cut from 20 to 6 people with NO loss of
          productivity. That was interesting ...

          Ron Jeffries
          www.XProgramming.com
          Do we learn more through cynicism, or through some other mental posture?
        • Luiz Esmiralha
          ... They cut the project manager, project leader and 12 people from QA? ;)
          Message 4 of 4 , Aug 18, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Ron Jeffries wrote:

            >I was chatting with a fellow last night at the XPAU who reported that he
            >was on a project that was cut from 20 to 6 people with NO loss of
            >productivity. That was interesting ...
            >
            >
            They cut the project manager, project leader and 12 people from QA? ;)
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.