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

Re: Burn Up Charts

Expand Messages
  • gilmanj_2000
    Mary, I don t really understand the horizontal expected feature set . Becuase the expected feature is generally increasing, am I looking at feature creep
    Message 1 of 64 , Apr 1, 2003
      Mary, I don't really understand the horizontal "expected feature
      set". Becuase the expected feature is generally increasing, am I
      looking at feature creep over time?

      John Gilman

      --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Mary Poppendieck"
      <mary@p...> wrote:
      > 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?
      >
      >
      >
      > Mary Poppendieck
      >
      > www.poppendieck.com <http://www.poppendieck.com/>
      >
      > Author of
      >
      > Lean Software Development: An Agile Toolkit
    • Dave Hoover
      Mike, ... Agreed! ... I think we struggle with researching previous art because most of the leading agile thinkers are in the trenches, not in academia.
      Message 64 of 64 , Apr 12, 2003
        Mike,

        > I think it is fine to assume that it is "independent
        > 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.

        Agreed!

        > (You could always
        > 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.)

        I think we struggle with researching "previous art" because most of the
        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.

        --Dave
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.