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

54933Re: Looking for Advise on Standup, burndown, and tracking progress

Expand Messages
  • tony_t_tubbs
    Apr 16, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I read these forums often, and know you consistently in evangelizing this point of view. I completely agree that going doing things this way will undoubtedly lead to a better product and code base in the end.

      We have raised concerns, and made requests. These have gone all the way to The Board. There's no time or budget there to help us out. As such, we've reduced scope to the minimum it is believed the market will accept (we all believe do diligence was done here). At the same time there is a race to market, and end of year is a key date for that. At the end of all that the situation is that A, B and C must be done by June 1 so that D - N can be done by Dec. 31. M - Z have been postponed to be completed through 2014.

      I guess I'm saying we as a team and PO are in agreement that we have defined the best product possible by the due date - one that provides the minimum necessary to enter the market next year.

      Entering the market as late as 2Q next year could be too late. This is where I get lost between what is advocated by the books vs what I see day after day, year after year. I'm not suggesting you're wrong. I expect you have seen and experienced something different than I have. This is where I think a coach would really help us. We seem stuck in our box unable to see how to bridge the gap between these seemingly conflicting goals.


      --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, RonJeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
      > Hi Tony,
      > On Apr 16, 2012, at 2:22 PM, tony_t_tubbs wrote:
      > > If the PO says 'The agreement is A, B and C must be done by June 1, you figure out how to get it done', then you figure it out, yes?
      > Actually, no. It is the PO's job to manage scope so as to deliver the best possible product (highest possible value) by the due date.
      > Teams generally produce X amount of work per unit time. The PO's job is to choose the specific items that produce the best product by the deadline.
      > Teams generally do not produce more and better work by working more hours. Generally, overtime produces inferior work, and, quite often, less overall. It is possible -- there is not general agreement on this -- that a team can get more done, for a little while, working more hours. My own experience causes me to doubt this very strongly.
      > If I had to hit a deadline, I'd put effort into thinning down the stories. Your PO, as you suspect, is not doing the PO's job. He or she is just cracking the whip and setting you up to be the fall guys. I'd not be loving that were it me. In fact, I've been there many times, and it didn't ever turn out as well as making good scope decisions would have.
      > Good luck ... for now you just have to gut it through, I guess ...
      > Ron Jeffries
      > www.XProgramming.com
      > Everything that needs to be said has already been said.
      > But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. -- Andre Gide
    • Show all 25 messages in this topic