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

53988Re: Size of team a barrier to SCRUM and Agile

Expand Messages
  • woynam
    Jan 26, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Even 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 scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Seyit Caglar Abbasoglu <scabbasoglu@...> wrote:
      > Some interesting stuff about multi-tasking
      > http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2006/09/the-multi-tasking-myth.html
      > 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.
    • Show all 24 messages in this topic