24918Re: [scrumdevelopment] Potentially releasable software
- Nov 1, 2007Thanks Wolfgang, I agree. We might be ready to file if our sprints were 4 weeks and we can automate most of our tests. Our software is advanced visualization and so a few tests require a person to visually inspect the rendered images.There is more to discuss in this regard, but suffice me to say our test group has managers that are my peers, and we have a long way to go.I'm soliciting the forum to get experience and insight. When I start hearing talk about whether something does or does not measure up to Scrum or Agile, I get the willies envisioning it all ending up as yet another silver bullet sighting. While we're looking, time marches on."Reality is here and is what it is; it doesn't change instantly; and it neve reaches ideal."----- Original Message -----From: Wolfgang Schulze ZachauSent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 4:31 AMSubject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Potentially releasable softwareHi Mark,"potentially releasable" does not mean you should go and file for a Class II approval every 4 weeks (or whatever your sprint cycle is). It only means that if you wanted to, you could go and do it. Quite clearly there is no sense in actually doing it at that frequency.If you need a full week to run a complete cycle of tests, then I would suggest that there are probably improvements to be made to your testing. The vast majority of your testing should be automated and run in less than 15 minutes. There are numerous test frameworks available for just about any programming environment you can think of. That should reduce the number of tests that have to be run manually drastically and therefore shorten that time dramatically.Scrum is quite clear about the fact that there should be release planning and that the PO and the team should consider doing a "release sprint" prior to an actual release to do all those things that you would not add to a normal sprint. I am not an expert on this, because we write internal software and we actually do release every 2 weeks (but then we don't have to get FDA Class II approval), but I am sure others on this list can say more about this.
From: scrumdevelopment@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:scrumdevelo pment@yahoogroup s.com] On Behalf Of Mark Graybill
Sent: 01 November 2007 00:40
To: scrumdevelopment@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Potentially releasable softwareA debate has brewed here regarding a statement someone made that we are not really doing Scrum because we do not have a releasable product at the end of every Sprint.The dilemma is this:- Our software is classified by the FDA as a Class II medical device so getting filing done every 30 days is a challenge.- Our full testing suite takes a full week.- In order to faciliate quicker ramp-up for the team in assimilating and being productive using Scrum, we are doing 15 day Sprints (in speaking with Mike Cohn I think this is a preference we have in common.)- From a project standpoint, 30 day Sprints are challenging and 15 day Sprints impose a near impossibility to produce a releasable product or even potentially releasable at the end of every Sprint.- The idea of deploying at this frequency has not been well received by our customers.The proposal in debate is this:- Each user story involves a procedure to bring it to potentially releasable status.- The end result is a feature tested and integrated into the product.- But the product itself does not go through full testing every Sprint.- Have alpha releases that only require an alpha contract and do that every two Sprints.What are some of your experiences and opinions in this regard?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>