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

53425Re: Stable Velocity?

Expand Messages
  • JackM
    Nov 30, 2011
      You folks are 100% correct. The reason why you don't get partial points is precisely to get the teams to understand what the meaning of done is. I find that this works really well in practice. The bottom line is if it's not done, it just causes a ripple effect through the release. And you never come right after that. So it's not a punishment, it's just a reality.

      Now some teams give partial points and it can work as long as you are consistent. But honestly if there are two things i would not give up, that is 1. don't ever lengthen a sprint, don't get points for partial completion.

      Stay tough!
      Jack
      www.agilebuddy.com
      blog.agilebuddy.com
      twitter.agielbuddy.com

      --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Wouter Lagerweij <wouter@...> wrote:
      >
      > Perhaps you can ask them what they think velocity is used for.
      >
      > Sprints are the unit of planning for a Scrum project. Velocity is used to
      > find out after which sprint we can expect a story to be done. If a story is
      > not really done sprint, it has no value, so counting part of that story's
      > points for that sprint is completely useless. In fact, doing so means you
      > will be structurally over-estimating!
      >
      > I actually mentioned this same issue in a blog post on ways to make
      > velocity a useless
      > number<http://www.lagerweij.com/2011/07/08/5-ways-to-make-sure-velocity-is-useless/>.
      > (semi-shameless blog plug:-)
      >
      > Wouter
      >
      >
      > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Sten <steoj@...> wrote:
      >
      > > **
      > >
      > >
      > > I do have an issue with the average velocity concept. In my team (I'm a
      > > Scrum Master for one team of 9 people not including myself and the PO) they
      > > insist on keeping the estimate on stories the almost complete in one sprint
      > > to get the "correct payoff" of the whole story even though completing it in
      > > the sprint they are in amounts to a 1 or a 2 and the original estimate was
      > > a 5 or an 8.
      > >
      > > I argue that the definition of velocity is COMPLETED features per sprint -
      > > not the value of several user stories completed over several sprints.
      > >
      > > I think the team is viewing me as tha bad guy trying to take away their
      > > "pay" wich they believe is the velocity.
      > >
      > > They do have other issues as well - some having the result of US not being
      > > completed at the end of the sprint - like silo-thinking "my tasks are done,
      > > so I'm done", planning the sprint to make sure there are tasks for everyone
      > > in the team. Finishing all that are finshed the last two or three days of
      > > the sprint, working on their own and so on.
      > >
      > > The PO is seems to be accepting the teams excuses for not completing the
      > > user stories.
      > >
      > > Most of my efforts to help them change their approach seems to be viewed
      > > as an attempt to tell them what to do and how to do it, rather than taken
      > > in as something to reflect on.
      > >
      > > When accepting average velocity I let them keep on fooling themselves by
      > > thinking not completing userstories has no real negative impact because
      > > we'll complete it next sprint anyway.
      > >
      > > Thoughts?
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "woynam" <woyna@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > We typically use a 3 month rolling average when calculating velocity.
      > > Given that a team gets zero points for a story that isn't finished at the
      > > end of Sprint, it's not uncommon for the following Sprint to show a small
      > > increase in velocity, as the stories rolled over are credited to it.
      > > >
      > > > Averaging the velocity smooths out the bumps, and also help reduce the
      > > likelihood that someone would try to "game" the system, e.g. call a story
      > > done when it's not really ready. I'd rather have the story done-done, even
      > > if it means spending an extra day on it at the beginning of the subsequent
      > > iteration.
      > > >
      > > > Mark
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Ashish Mahajan <agileashish@>
      > > wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > http://ashish-the-agile-guy.com/2011/11/28/stable-velocity/
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > --
      > Wouter Lagerweij | wouter@...
      > http://www.lagerweij.com | @wouterla <http://twitter.com/#!/wouterla>
      >
    • Show all 23 messages in this topic