53988Re: Size of team a barrier to SCRUM and Agile
- Jan 26, 2012Even if you *could* multitask without any overhead cost, it would *still* wind up costing the business in lost value.
Ron and several others have posted examples *numerous* times that demonstrate that implementing multiple projects in parallel *guarantees* that all but one project will be delivered later than if the projects had been addressed serially.
A project delivered later is *lost value*. Are businesses aware of this? If not, why? You need to have a conversation with the business that clearly explains that they can have Project A in 2 weeks, or they can have it in 12 weeks. In possible world can they have 6 projects in 2 weeks, but we can certainly give them 6 projects in 12 weeks, with the corresponding loss in value.
Why on earth is this so difficult for people to comprehend?
--- In email@example.com, Seyit Caglar Abbasoglu <scabbasoglu@...> wrote:
> Some interesting stuff about multi-tasking
> It seems Human can not multi-task complex jobs. She can only context
> switch, and it's really costly.
> The last statement is pretty effective :
> " Whenever possible, avoid interruptions and avoid working on more than one
> project at the same time. If it's unavoidable, *be brutally honest with
> yourself-- and your stakeholders-- about how much you can actually get done
> under multi-tasking conditions.* It's probably less than you think."
> Perhaps your CIO should know about this.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>