41668Re: Technical quality advocator
- Oct 1, 2009Hello Ron,
--- In email@example.com, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
> In simple terms, the team has a bad definition of done, or is not
> living up to the definition they have.
> The more interesting question is why. What is making them value
> shoddy work?
> Ron Jeffries
I asked this to the team, and they said: "delivering something which business puts a very high value is most important". They say, in a future time after the pressure decreases (which i think will never happen), they say they would be more quality-driven.
They don't see the stories as a chance to improve their architectures. Rather, when a story can be accomplished by doing a work-around solution in the system, they do that so. So, they're increasing their defect rates consciously.
Also, the team is trying to learn new knowledge about the technologies which they seem are valuable. This increases the re-work rate because they're doing something wrong at the 1st, 2nd time, and then they're thinking to re-write those parts from the begin again. They're mostly doing minor refactorings (like changing variable/method names etc), not doing something like evolving the architecture step by step.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>