Re: [scrumdevelopment] Burn Up Charts
- It's similar but not the same. The chart that you are talking about
measures the progress of writing code against the progress of writing
functional tests. The Burn Up chart measures the progress of writing
code as well, but compares it against an ideal of features for the whole
project. I think that it's a step a way from XP since it tries to make a
longer range prediction of the project FCS state than XP does.
Ron Jeffries wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 1:56:17 PM, Mary Poppendieck wrote:--
>>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):
> For an analogous chart, see the Functional Test graph in XP Installed.
> Basically looks like an S-curve going up.
> Ron Jeffries
> If names and real items do not correspond with each other, there will be fighting.
> --Jing Fa
> 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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Phil Goodwin, Java Software, Sun Microsystems, 408.276.7090, or x17090
For a bowl of water give a goodly meal;
For a kindly greeting bow thou down with zeal;
For a simple penny pay thou back with gold;
If thy life be rescued, life do not withhold.
Thus the words and actions of the wise regard;
Every little service tenfold they reward.
But the truly noble know all men as one,
And return with gladness good for evil done.
- Shamal Bhatt
> 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.