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

Re: Rally & Info.Radiator integration ???

Expand Messages
  • jay_conne
    We perceive that Rally can not be kept as visible and as directly perceptual to a co-located team as the IRs. One question was whether Rally has a projectable
    Message 1 of 24 , Jul 3, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      We perceive that Rally can not be kept as visible and as directly
      perceptual to a co-located team as the IRs. One question was
      whether Rally has a projectable report format that would make
      it 'close enough' to using the IRs in support of the various Scrum
      meetings and day-to-day activity? However, even having a big screen
      in the room showing such a report, would be limited by the
      resolution max of 1024 x something. That is not enough for a non-
      scrolled full-visual-field of the full-context.

      Have others resolved these concerns?

      Jay

      --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "David H." <dmalloc@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > On 03/07/06, jay_conne <jay@...> wrote:
      > > My client is committed to a pair of tools for tracking Scrum
      > > projects - each addresses an essential need:
      > >
      > > - Rally provides the SOX (Sarbanes Oxley) coverage to meet
      parent
      > > corporate requirements as well as the tracability and
      auditability
      > > of automated testing results - a QA dream come true, in theory.
      > >
      > So what does Rally lack? Last I checked that was a tool which is
      able
      > to acommodate all the needs of agile reporting and requirement
      > holding.
      >
      > Information duplication will soone ror later lead to desynch which
      > then later on will lead to desaster. Been there done that. The
      > solution was to get rid of all the tools but one. Which is the
      > taskboard. (and yes this is a huge company)
      >
      > -d
      >
      > --
      > Sent from gmail so do not trust this communication.
      > Do not send me sensitive information here, ask for my none-gmail
      accounts.
      >
    • David H.
      ... Am I understanding this correctly? Your team is collocated in one physical location? Might I ask why you need a tool at all then and not simply stick to
      Message 2 of 24 , Jul 3, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On 03/07/06, jay_conne <jay@...> wrote:
        > We perceive that Rally can not be kept as visible and as directly
        > perceptual to a co-located team as the IRs. One question was
        > whether Rally has a projectable report format that would make
        > it 'close enough' to using the IRs in support of the various Scrum
        > meetings and day-to-day activity? However, even having a big screen
        > in the room showing such a report, would be limited by the
        > resolution max of 1024 x something. That is not enough for a non-
        > scrolled full-visual-field of the full-context.
        >
        Am I understanding this correctly?
        Your team is collocated in one physical location?
        Might I ask why you need a tool at all then and not simply stick to
        the classical task board setup which can be sized to any size you
        would like it to be?

        Furthermore, what do you mean by "in support of the various Scrum
        > meetings and day-to-day activity". Are you talking about Sprint Planning, Sprint Review, Sprint retrospective an dthe Daily scrum?
        What kind of notes do you need to keep? each of those "meetings" has a
        very different incentive to it :)

        Sorry for all the questions, but before I could offer some insight, I
        need to understand what you are actually trying to accomplish.

        -d

        --
        Sent from gmail so do not trust this communication.
        Do not send me sensitive information here, ask for my none-gmail accounts.
      • Ilja Preuss
        ... I haven t used Rally, but if it isn t very unlike every other computerized tool, it lacks very much in visibility, ease of use and flexibility. We are
        Message 3 of 24 , Jul 3, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com wrote:
          > So what does Rally lack? Last I checked that was a tool which is able
          > to acommodate all the needs of agile reporting and requirement
          > holding.

          I haven't used Rally, but if it isn't very unlike every other computerized
          tool, it lacks very much in visibility, ease of use and flexibility.

          We are using Xplanner, and although the double bookkeeping is a pain, adding
          a wall of cards for iteration planning has improved things so much that we
          don't want to go back. (If at all, we should try without Xplanner, in my
          opinion.)

          Just my 0.02,

          Ilja
        • Ilja Preuss
          ... And that s only the tip of the disadvantages in comparision to a manual IR. Cheers, Ilja
          Message 4 of 24 , Jul 3, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            > However, even having a big screen
            > in the room showing such a report, would be limited by the
            > resolution max of 1024 x something.

            And that's only the tip of the disadvantages in comparision to a manual IR.

            Cheers, Ilja
          • David H.
            ... To be honest. That visibility argument is one I was _never_ able to buy into. There are enough ways to make a computer based tool just as visible as paper
            Message 5 of 24 , Jul 3, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              >
              > I haven't used Rally, but if it isn't very unlike every other computerized
              > tool, it lacks very much in visibility, ease of use and flexibility.
              >
              To be honest. That visibility argument is one I was _never_ able to
              buy into. There are enough ways to make a computer based tool just as
              visible as paper on the wall.

              How?
              Buy two LCD screens, put them on the wall, have them show Rally or
              whatever tool you use all day long. All updates that are done, will be
              shown in real time. Give _everyone_ a login as well. That covers
              passive as well as active information needs.

              Would I rather still use a board with cards? Hell yes! Do I buy into
              this visibility argument, not really. Visibility is what you make of
              it.

              -d


              --
              Sent from gmail so do not trust this communication.
              Do not send me sensitive information here, ask for my none-gmail accounts.
            • Ilja Preuss
              ... Or a projector, yes. That s what I d probably try to do if I had to use an electronic tool, and had the budget. Perhaps visibility wasn t the best choice
              Message 6 of 24 , Jul 4, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com wrote:
                >> I haven't used Rally, but if it isn't very unlike every other
                >> computerized tool, it lacks very much in visibility, ease of use and
                >> flexibility.
                >>
                > To be honest. That visibility argument is one I was _never_ able to
                > buy into. There are enough ways to make a computer based tool just as
                > visible as paper on the wall.
                >
                > How?
                > Buy two LCD screens, put them on the wall, have them show Rally or
                > whatever tool you use all day long. All updates that are done, will be
                > shown in real time.

                Or a projector, yes. That's what I'd probably try to do if I had to use an
                electronic tool, and had the budget.

                Perhaps visibility wasn't the best choice of words, because visibility
                doesn't help you when people don't look at it. In my experience, people are
                much more likely to look at manual IRs - I suppose because they are more
                pleasing and interesting to look at.

                > Give _everyone_ a login as well. That covers
                > passive as well as active information needs.

                Updating a manual IR has a very different feel in my experience. It's more
                involving, because it allows for more flexibility in what you do or how you
                do it. It's easier to try variants. It's more tangible. And it allows for
                better collaboration. Not to speak about the unmatchable resolution... ;)

                > Would I rather still use a board with cards? Hell yes! Do I buy into
                > this visibility argument, not really. Visibility is what you make of
                > it.

                I agree if by visibility you just mean "big and public". I tend to think
                that there is much more to it, although I guess you could argue that I speak
                about more than just "visibility".

                Cheers, Ilja
              • Tobias Mayer
                I agree with Ilja that visibility means much more than just something that can be seen . A taskboard can also be touched; it allows real-time interaction and
                Message 7 of 24 , Jul 4, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  I agree with Ilja that visibility means much more than just "something that can be seen".  A taskboard can also be touched; it allows real-time interaction and collaboration to take place on an ongoing basis; it sparks dialog and it generates involvement.  The thing in itself AND the iteractions that occur around it are both visible.  In the case of an electronic tool you only get the former, no matter how good, or big, the projection. I would say that is not full visibility. 
                  Tobias


                  Ilja Preuss <preuss@...> wrote:
                  scrumdevelopment@ yahoogroups. com wrote:
                  >> I haven't used Rally, but if it isn't very unlike every other
                  >> computerized tool, it lacks very much in visibility, ease of use and
                  >> flexibility.
                  >>
                  > To be honest. That visibility argument is one I was _never_ able to
                  > buy into. There are enough ways to make a computer based tool just as
                  > visible as paper on the wall.
                  >
                  > How?
                  > Buy two LCD screens, put them on the wall, have them show Rally or
                  > whatever tool you use all day long. All updates that are done, will be
                  > shown in real time.

                  Or a projector, yes. That's what I'd probably try to do if I had to use an
                  electronic tool, and had the budget.

                  Perhaps visibility wasn't the best choice of words, because visibility
                  doesn't help you when people don't look at it. In my experience, people are
                  much more likely to look at manual IRs - I suppose because they are more
                  pleasing and interesting to look at.

                  > Give _everyone_ a login as well. That covers
                  > passive as well as active information needs.

                  Updating a manual IR has a very different feel in my experience. It's more
                  involving, because it allows for more flexibility in what you do or how you
                  do it. It's easier to try variants. It's more tangible. And it allows for
                  better collaboration. Not to speak about the unmatchable resolution.. . ;)

                  > Would I rather still use a board with cards? Hell yes! Do I buy into
                  > this visibility argument, not really. Visibility is what you make of
                  > it.

                  I agree if by visibility you just mean "big and public". I tend to think
                  that there is much more to it, although I guess you could argue that I speak
                  about more than just "visibility" .

                  Cheers, Ilja


                • David H.
                  ... Yes, absolutely so and I would never argue that. I will deliberately play the devil s advocate here. Just for the record, I favour boards as well. ...
                  Message 8 of 24 , Jul 5, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >
                    >
                    > I agree with Ilja that visibility means much more than just "something that can be seen".

                    Yes, absolutely so and I would never argue that.

                    I will deliberately play the devil's advocate here. Just for the
                    record, I favour boards as well.

                    >A taskboard can also be touched; it allows real-time interaction and
                    collaboration to take >place on an ongoing basis; it sparks dialog and
                    it generates involvement.
                    This can be done with an electronic tool as well.
                    The two LCD I talked about where placed in the cafeteria on the wall
                    and there was a wireless keyboard and a mouse people could use to make
                    instant changes. The location helped foster communication and the
                    keyboard and mouse made it possible to make instant changes. As it
                    might be more complicated than a simple task board, this kind of
                    interaction can be achieved with an electronic tool as well.

                    >The thing in itself AND the iteractions that occur around it are both
                    visible. In the case of >an electronic tool you only get the former,
                    no matter how good, or big, the projection. I >would say that is not
                    full visibility.

                    Se above. Tje interaction with that tool was quite visible, as people
                    would gather around, drinking their coffee, while a couple of them
                    mucked around, adding tasks, updating story texts and so on. This also
                    generated visibility with other teams as the data on the scren
                    suddenly moved and they walked up to see what is going on.
                    That was just a matter of clever placement of those screens.

                    -d


                    --
                    Sent from gmail so do not trust this communication.
                    Do not send me sensitive information here, ask for my none-gmail accounts.
                  • Ilja Preuss
                    ... Very good point - thanks for stating it so eloquently! Regards, Ilja
                    Message 9 of 24 , Jul 5, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > The
                      > thing in itself AND the iteractions that occur around it are both
                      > visible. In the case of an electronic tool you only get the former,
                      > no matter how good, or big, the projection. I would say that is not
                      > full visibility.

                      Very good point - thanks for stating it so eloquently!

                      Regards, Ilja
                    • Ilja Preuss
                      ... Sounds like that was a really good electronic information radiator, for an electronic information radiator. ;) It seems to me, though, as if it takes more
                      Message 10 of 24 , Jul 5, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > Se above. Tje interaction with that tool was quite visible, as people
                        > would gather around, drinking their coffee, while a couple of them
                        > mucked around, adding tasks, updating story texts and so on. This also
                        > generated visibility with other teams as the data on the scren
                        > suddenly moved and they walked up to see what is going on.
                        > That was just a matter of clever placement of those screens.


                        Sounds like that was a really good electronic information radiator, for an
                        electronic information radiator. ;)

                        It seems to me, though, as if it takes more effort and creativity to get
                        those advantages that just come more or less naturally with manual ones. I
                        also feel that the electronic versions are still more cold and less
                        flexible.

                        So we probably agree that the manual thing is to preferred, but if for some
                        reason you use something automatic/electronic, you still can do a lot of
                        things to get similar benefits.

                        Thanks for the interesting discussion!

                        Cheers, Ilja
                      • jay_conne
                        Hi Tobias, I agree with you about the interaction - and just look up! to answer any question it addresses - from global to details. Do you have any
                        Message 11 of 24 , Jul 5, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi Tobias,

                          I agree with you about the interaction - and "just look up!" to
                          answer any question it addresses - from global to details.

                          Do you have any experience integrating the two, i.e. having the two
                          coexist? I want the benefits of both.

                          Jay


                          --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Tobias Mayer <tobyanon@...>
                          wrote:
                          >
                          > I agree with Ilja that visibility means much more than
                          just "something that can be seen". A taskboard can also be touched;
                          it allows real-time interaction and collaboration to take place on
                          an ongoing basis; it sparks dialog and it generates involvement.
                          The thing in itself AND the iteractions that occur around it are
                          both visible. In the case of an electronic tool you only get the
                          former, no matter how good, or big, the projection. I would say that
                          is not full visibility.
                          > Tobias
                          <snip>
                        • jay_conne
                          ... Scrum ... screen ... non- ... Yes. ... I tried to express that in my original posting - the Rally tool provides and integration with testing and
                          Message 12 of 24 , Jul 5, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "David H." <dmalloc@...>
                            wrote:
                            >
                            > On 03/07/06, jay_conne <jay@...> wrote:
                            > > We perceive that Rally can not be kept as visible and as directly
                            > > perceptual to a co-located team as the IRs. One question was
                            > > whether Rally has a projectable report format that would make
                            > > it 'close enough' to using the IRs in support of the various
                            Scrum
                            > > meetings and day-to-day activity? However, even having a big
                            screen
                            > > in the room showing such a report, would be limited by the
                            > > resolution max of 1024 x something. That is not enough for a
                            non-
                            > > scrolled full-visual-field of the full-context.
                            > >
                            > Am I understanding this correctly?
                            > Your team is collocated in one physical location?
                            Yes.

                            > Might I ask why you need a tool at all then and not simply stick to
                            > the classical task board setup which can be sized to any size you
                            > would like it to be?
                            I tried to express that in my original posting - the Rally tool
                            provides and integration with testing and auditability that my
                            client values highly.

                            > Furthermore, what do you mean by "in support of the various Scrum
                            > > meetings and day-to-day activity". Are you talking about Sprint
                            Planning, Sprint Review, Sprint retrospective an dthe Daily scrum?
                            > What kind of notes do you need to keep? each of those "meetings"
                            has a very different incentive to it :)

                            Yes, definitely, all of them and in their specific contexts of
                            value. What kind of notes? Nothing but the normal here: Scrum:
                            burn-down update and impedimnet list as the SM backlog;
                            Retrospective: the done-well and the need attention lists; etc. for
                            each context.
                            >
                            > Sorry for all the questions, but before I could offer some
                            insight, I need to understand what you are actually trying to
                            accomplish.


                            Thanks - I appreciate the desire for specificity :-)

                            Jay
                            >
                            > -d
                            >
                            > --
                            > Sent from gmail so do not trust this communication.
                            > Do not send me sensitive information here, ask for my none-gmail
                            accounts.
                            >
                          • Ilja Preuss
                            ... I don t think I have a clear picture of your situation. What exactly does the client value, and why? How does he get it from Rally, but wouldn t from
                            Message 13 of 24 , Jul 5, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              >> Might I ask why you need a tool at all then and not simply stick to
                              >> the classical task board setup which can be sized to any size you
                              >> would like it to be?

                              > I tried to express that in my original posting - the Rally tool
                              > provides and integration with testing and auditability that my
                              > client values highly.

                              I don't think I have a clear picture of your situation. What exactly does
                              the client value, and why? How does he get it from Rally, but wouldn't from
                              something manual?


                              Curious, Ilja
                            • jay_conne
                              Hi Curious Ilji, Some of this relates to the US SOX (Sarbanes Oxley) recent laws that treat business leaders as guilty until proven innocent - a significant
                              Message 14 of 24 , Jul 6, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi Curious Ilji,

                                Some of this relates to the US SOX (Sarbanes Oxley) recent laws that
                                treat business leaders as guilty until proven innocent - a
                                significant perversion of basic principles of law in a free
                                society. But that matter asside...

                                Rally interoperates with automatic testing software such as Mercury
                                and thereby provides requirements-to-tests tracability plus
                                regression testing results auditability. For large and regulated
                                industries, this represents a great value for meeting auditability
                                standards.

                                We're talking large scale management of the business - especially in
                                a software intensive business.

                                Does that help?

                                -Jay

                                In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Ilja Preuss" <preuss@...>
                                wrote:
                                >
                                > >> Might I ask why you need a tool at all then and not simply
                                stick to the classical task board setup which can be sized to any
                                size you would like it to be?
                                >
                                >> I tried to express that in my original posting - the Rally tool
                                provides and integration with testing and auditability that my
                                client values highly.
                                >
                                > I don't think I have a clear picture of your situation.
                                What exactly does the client value, and why? How does he
                                get it from Rally, but wouldn't from something manual?
                                >
                                > Curious, Ilja
                              • David H.
                                ... I am sorry, but I cannot quite follow that :) This seems to me like an automated papertrail and that is something I can do with a whiteboard as well :) But
                                Message 15 of 24 , Jul 6, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  >
                                  > We're talking large scale management of the business - especially in
                                  > a software intensive business.
                                  >

                                  I am sorry, but I cannot quite follow that :)
                                  This seems to me like an automated papertrail and that is something I
                                  can do with a whiteboard as well :)

                                  But I guess I can understand where you are coming from. Personally I
                                  think Sarbanes and Oxley is the biggest &^*&^*&^*&^ ever invented

                                  -d

                                  --
                                  Sent from gmail so do not trust this communication.
                                  Do not send me sensitive information here, ask for my none-gmail accounts.

                                  "Therefore the considerations of the intelligent always include both
                                  benefit and harm." - Sun Tzu
                                • Tom Perry
                                  Er..Aside from Manual vs. Electronic debate which I ll save for another day... I ve used Rally fairly extensively as well. In my last project I made a point of
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Jul 6, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Er..Aside from Manual vs. Electronic debate which I'll save for another
                                    day...

                                    I've used Rally fairly extensively as well. In my last project I made a
                                    point of printing the burndown charts from Rally every day. I should
                                    mention that this was also a SOX compliant project, however Rally was
                                    not part of the compliance for us. I kept everything on a corkboard (the
                                    IR) that was prominently placed along with some other project metrics
                                    that I was experimenting with. The actual chart was not very large -
                                    filling only half an 8.5 by 11 page. Maybe not the best radiator. I
                                    guess we could have scaled it larger when printing.

                                    The team entered all their information directly into Rally (most of the
                                    time, eventually I stopped hassling them and we did the entry all
                                    together as a team each morning). Anyhow, we were able to pretty
                                    effectively measure our progress as a team. I would print out the
                                    burndown and bring it into the standup meeting every morning and drop it
                                    in the middle of the table so that people could check it out themselves
                                    during the meeting (I'd pretend to act all coy and casual when I did it
                                    ;-). Usually people would grab it and take a look, and sometimes even
                                    refer to it during the meeting. The point is that the information was
                                    there and visible for everyone on the team.

                                    Back to the Information Radiator. One interesting thing that I noticed
                                    was that the team actually didn't really refer to the burndown chart
                                    much during the day - they only used it during the standup. Otherwise,
                                    the people who referred to it the most were other teams, the execs,
                                    visitors and VIPs, etc. These folks would stand around the board and
                                    "Ooh" and "Aah" about how we were tracking the project progress.
                                    Occasionally, folks would even pin me down with some really tough
                                    questions. It was part of our sales pitch for agile projects. It may
                                    sound like I'm de-valuing the charts and metrics, but that's not the
                                    case - I just want to point out that it seemed like much of the value
                                    was derived by our sales force and execs as it was by our team when the
                                    information was radiated.

                                    Finally, size didn't seem to make much difference (although it doesn't
                                    hurt). Just a guess here, but it may be that the information needs to be
                                    in the same place, in the same way every day, and people really have no
                                    difficulty figuring out how to read it - large or small (consistency and
                                    reliability may be more important than size). Of course, that's just my
                                    opinion. I understand that big and glossy makes a lot of execs very happy.

                                    Hope that helps,
                                    Tom Perry
                                    tperry@...

                                    jay_conne wrote:
                                    > My client is committed to a pair of tools for tracking Scrum
                                    > projects - each addresses an essential need:
                                    >
                                    > - Rally provides the SOX (Sarbanes Oxley) coverage to meet parent
                                    > corporate requirements as well as the tracability and auditability
                                    > of automated testing results - a QA dream come true, in theory.
                                    >
                                    > - Task Board and Burn-Down Information Radiators (IR) to provide
                                    > all he Agile benefits we know so well. "You want to know X? Just
                                    > look up!"
                                    > Where X is anything from product/project vision to iteration goal,
                                    > to scoping, to tradeoff criteria, to what should I do next, and will
                                    > I make my iteration commitments.
                                    >
                                    > The question therefore is, how to balance these two overlapping
                                    > information management vehicles with the minimum of waste and the
                                    > maximum of benefits.
                                    >
                                    > One strategy is to have the team update the IR and the ScrumMaster
                                    > or a clerical transfer the data to Rally. With sufficient error
                                    > checking that should produce reliable double entry results.
                                    >
                                    > Alternatively, the team could be asked to update both artifacts.
                                    >
                                    > And finally, one might try to track low level detail on the IR and
                                    > more summary information on Rally - but I don't think that's viable
                                    > in this context.
                                    >
                                    > Any ideas on this from experience would be appreciated.
                                    >
                                    > "Discovering the art of the possible."
                                    >
                                    > TIA,
                                    >
                                    > Jay Conne
                                    > M:617-470-5038 jay@... www.jconne.com
                                    > CSM-P - Lean/Agile Coach and Trainer.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                                    > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...
                                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                  • Ilja Preuss
                                    Tom, very interesting comments, thanks! ... To me, it s not only about making execs happy. It s also about being a push medium - getting information from it
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Jul 7, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Tom,

                                      very interesting comments, thanks!

                                      > Finally, size didn't seem to make much difference (although it doesn't
                                      > hurt). Just a guess here, but it may be that the information needs to
                                      > be in the same place, in the same way every day, and people really
                                      > have no difficulty figuring out how to read it - large or small
                                      > (consistency and reliability may be more important than size). Of
                                      > course, that's just my opinion. I understand that big and glossy
                                      > makes a lot of execs very happy.

                                      To me, it's not only about making execs happy. It's also about being a push
                                      medium - getting information from it without actively looking at it, just
                                      because you walk by.

                                      The consisteny thing is interesting, though - hadn't thought about that yet.

                                      Regards, Ilja
                                    • Ilja Preuss
                                      ... Well, to the amount that I now have to admit that I have zero experience with such situations, and no idea what I would do... ;) Cheers, Ilja
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Jul 7, 2006
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        > Rally interoperates with automatic testing software such as Mercury
                                        > and thereby provides requirements-to-tests tracability plus
                                        > regression testing results auditability. For large and regulated
                                        > industries, this represents a great value for meeting auditability
                                        > standards.
                                        >
                                        > We're talking large scale management of the business - especially in
                                        > a software intensive business.
                                        >
                                        > Does that help?

                                        Well, to the amount that I now have to admit that I have zero experience
                                        with such situations, and no idea what I would do... ;)

                                        Cheers, Ilja
                                      • Paul S. R. Chisholm
                                        In Agile Project Management with Scrum (p. 153), Ken Schwaber mentions the CMM requirements management key process area, and suggests, Scrum addresses this
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Jul 7, 2006
                                        • 0 Attachment

                                          In Agile Project Management with Scrum (p. 153), Ken Schwaber mentions the CMM "requirements management" key process area, and suggests, "Scrum addresses this interpretation [of requirements tracability] ... by demonstrating within 30 calendar days how every Product Backlog item that has been worked on during the Sprint operates as business functionality."

                                          That's not consistent with my (admittedly and thankfully limited) experience. I can just imagine auditors (for SOX, CMM, ISO 9000, FDA 21 CFR Part 11, whatever) asking for evidence of requirements management/tracability, and being given a video of the Sprint review meeting. <sarcasm>It should appeal to their innate sense of humor, so vital to their job.</sarcasm>

                                          Scott "Agile Modeling" Ambler talks about how to handle requirements tracability (and how not to) in a Dr. Dobb's article: http://www.ddj.com/dept/architect/184415807

                                          Thoughts?  --PSRC

                                          --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "jay_conne" <jay@...wrote:

                                          Hi Curious Ilji,

                                          Some of this relates to the US SOX (Sarbanes Oxley) recent laws that treat business leaders as guilty until proven innocent - a significant perversion of basic principles of law in a free society. But that matter aside...

                                          Rally interoperates with automatic testing software such as Mercury and thereby provides requirements-to-tests tracability plus regression testing results auditability. For large and regulated industries, this represents a great value for meeting auditability standards.

                                          We're talking large scale management of the business - especially in a software intensive business.

                                          Does that help?

                                          -Jay

                                          In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Ilja Preuss" preuss@ wrote:

                                          Might I ask why you need a tool at all then and not simply stick to the classical task board setup which can be sized to any size you would like it to be?

                                          I tried to express that in my original posting - the Rally tool provides and integration with testing and auditability that my client values highly.

                                          I don't think I have a clear picture of your situation. What exactly does the client value, and why? How does he get it from Rally, but wouldn't from something manual?

                                          Curious, Ilja

                                        • Jeff Sutherland
                                          The design goal for the original Scrum in 1993 was to create a simple reporting capability, i.e. the burndown chart, that communicated to every single person
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Jul 8, 2006
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            The design goal for the original Scrum in 1993 was to create a simple
                                            reporting capability, i.e. the burndown chart, that communicated to
                                            every single person in the company in real time the exact state of
                                            each development team.

                                            So while the burndown chart is essential for the team to consistently
                                            meet dates, it is equally important to help the whole company
                                            self-organize to make the product release or project successful.

                                            Any duplicate data entry is waste. It would not be tolerated at Toyota
                                            (or PatientKeeper). Why would you even consider tolerating it in your
                                            company?

                                            Jeff Sutherland

                                            --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "jay_conne" <jay@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > My client is committed to a pair of tools for tracking Scrum
                                            > projects - each addresses an essential need:
                                            >
                                            > - Rally provides the SOX (Sarbanes Oxley) coverage to meet parent
                                            > corporate requirements as well as the tracability and auditability
                                            > of automated testing results - a QA dream come true, in theory.
                                            >
                                            > - Task Board and Burn-Down Information Radiators (IR) to provide
                                            > all he Agile benefits we know so well. "You want to know X? Just
                                            > look up!"
                                            > Where X is anything from product/project vision to iteration goal,
                                            > to scoping, to tradeoff criteria, to what should I do next, and will
                                            > I make my iteration commitments.
                                            >
                                            > The question therefore is, how to balance these two overlapping
                                            > information management vehicles with the minimum of waste and the
                                            > maximum of benefits.
                                            >
                                            > One strategy is to have the team update the IR and the ScrumMaster
                                            > or a clerical transfer the data to Rally. With sufficient error
                                            > checking that should produce reliable double entry results.
                                            >
                                            > Alternatively, the team could be asked to update both artifacts.
                                            >
                                            > And finally, one might try to track low level detail on the IR and
                                            > more summary information on Rally - but I don't think that's viable
                                            > in this context.
                                            >
                                            > Any ideas on this from experience would be appreciated.
                                            >
                                            > "Discovering the art of the possible."
                                            >
                                            > TIA,
                                            >
                                            > Jay Conne
                                            > M:617-470-5038 jay@... www.jconne.com
                                            > CSM-P - Lean/Agile Coach and Trainer.
                                            >
                                          • Alex Pukinskis
                                            ... From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Jeff Sutherland Any duplicate data entry is waste. It would not be tolerated at Toyota (or
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Jul 8, 2006
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              RE: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Rally & Info.Radiator integration ???

                                              -----Original Message-----
                                              From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Jeff Sutherland

                                              Any duplicate data entry is waste. It would not be tolerated at Toyota
                                              (or PatientKeeper). Why would you even consider tolerating it in your
                                              company?
                                              ----

                                              When we're helping larger organizations adopt Scrum where they need a dozen Scrum teams to synchronize development across a 3-month release, we've found that it's useful to do a large-scale release planning session with all of these teams.  During this session, each team maps their product backlog across multiple Sprints to see whether they can commit to the release. 

                                              We've found that this mapping activity seems to be best done by each Scrum team on the wall, with sticky notes and flip charts, physically arranging items on the different sprints.  However, with a large group it can be useful for ScrumMasters to transcribe the activities on the wall into a shared system (the Rally tool).  This enables the Uber-product-owner to verify that all of the pieces of their multi-team features are accounted for.  Also, for very large groups that are having breakout sessions or who are distributed across multiple locations, it makes it easier to check on what the other teams are planning.

                                              While the writing is duplicative, the data entry isn't really, but this is an example of where an electronic tool can be used along with information radiators.

                                              -Alex

                                              -Alex

                                            • Steven Gordon
                                              ... I have seen the following approach work to serve both masters without both writing and typing the same information: - Enter the data into the electronic
                                              Message 22 of 24 , Jul 8, 2006
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                On 7/8/06, Jeff Sutherland <jeff.sutherland@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > The design goal for the original Scrum in 1993 was to create a simple
                                                > reporting capability, i.e. the burndown chart, that communicated to
                                                > every single person in the company in real time the exact state of
                                                > each development team.
                                                >
                                                > So while the burndown chart is essential for the team to consistently
                                                > meet dates, it is equally important to help the whole company
                                                > self-organize to make the product release or project successful.
                                                >
                                                > Any duplicate data entry is waste. It would not be tolerated at Toyota
                                                > (or PatientKeeper). Why would you even consider tolerating it in your
                                                > company?
                                                >
                                                > Jeff Sutherland

                                                I have seen the following approach work to serve both masters without
                                                both writing and typing the same information:
                                                - Enter the "data" into the electronic tool that supports
                                                enterprise-wide visibility.
                                                - Print the appropriate data from the enterprise-wide tool onto
                                                index-card sized pieces of paper.
                                                - The team uses the printed "data" on its physical task board to keep
                                                itself properly organized and focussed.

                                                This approach still does not avoid all duplicate entry of information:
                                                - When new stories or tasks are discovered during planning, it wastes
                                                too much time to type the new work item into the electronic tool and
                                                print it onto a card in the middle of a meeting. Such discoveries are
                                                usually hand-written in the meeting and typed into the system after
                                                the meeting.
                                                - When stories or tasks change state on the team's physical board
                                                (e.g., gets completed), that information is typically represented by
                                                moving a card on the board. Editing the same work item in an
                                                electronic tool to update its state could be considered duplicate data
                                                entry, but I see no way around it.

                                                Steven Gordon
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.