RE: [scrumdevelopment] Burn Up Charts
It's funny that you mentioned this. When I first introduced Scrum to our development team after a reading of the Scrum book, I accidentially created the burn-up chart. It wasn't for some time, and more reading that I realized it was intended to be a burn-down chart. I just preferred the the up direction as it seemed more natual. I like to think about 0% being in the graph origin, and then traking what is done( going up ) to 100%. I believe the advertised Scrum chart tracks work remaining( so it goes down), and not work done. I guess that traking the % done just provides more of a sense of accomplishment.
We also do not track the backlog on our chart. It changes far too frequently( daly to more than daly) to track in this manner. This makes the development team not really care what is on it any any given moment other than directly before the sprint planning meeting. We also don't exactly understand this, so we don't want it to become a hinderence.
Software Architect - .NET Solutions
Long & Foster Real Estate
From: Mary Poppendieck [mailto:mary@...]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 1:56 PM
Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Burn Up Charts
Hello Scrum Users,
I was at the Silicone Valley User's Group meeting last week and after the meeting a discussion occurred around burn-down charts. The group has a problem with the Scrum charts because they trend down rather than up (perceived by developers as negative), and more particularly, because they measure two things at once: both the team's velocity and the change in the backlog. If the team has little control over the backlog, the thought is that they would prefer to see the two charted separately, and as a burn-UP chart. Below is one possible example (hopefully you can see this chart):
What do Scrum users think about this?
Lean Software Development: An Agile Toolkit
To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> I think it is fine to assume that it is "independentAgreed!
> thinking". This is a good thing because it confirms
> that at least 2 people can reach the same conclusions
> and can validate their experiences and explain
> the world the same way.
> (You could alwaysI think we struggle with researching "previous art" because most of the
> ask the question the other way: Is the stuff
> from "Growing Software" coming from somewhere else
> since our stuff was published 5-7 years ago
> i.e. PLOP3 proceedings, PLOPD4 book, etc. I think
> it is safe to assume "independent thinking" because
> our industry is famous for not researching
> "previous art". In hard Science this would actually
> be an embarrassment.)
leading agile thinkers are in the trenches, not in academia. This is why I was
excited when I saw the overlap between the Scrum book and "Growing
Software". I figured that both the Scrum folks and Roy had probably not had
the opportunity to find each other.
I look forward to the outcome of future collaborations between agile thinkers
who find complexity science applicable to software development.