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

Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Rally & Info.Radiator integration ???

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 24 , Jul 3 11:29 AM
      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 2 of 24 , Jul 3 1:44 PM
        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 3 of 24 , Jul 3 1:59 PM
          > 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 4 of 24 , Jul 3 3:02 PM
            >
            > 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 5 of 24 , Jul 4 1:33 AM
              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 6 of 24 , Jul 4 8:38 PM
                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 7 of 24 , Jul 5 1:32 AM
                  >
                  >
                  > 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 8 of 24 , Jul 5 1:39 AM
                    > 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 9 of 24 , Jul 5 1:47 AM
                      > 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 10 of 24 , Jul 5 2:47 PM
                        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 11 of 24 , Jul 5 2:55 PM
                          --- 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 12 of 24 , Jul 5 11:06 PM
                            >> 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 13 of 24 , Jul 6 9:21 AM
                              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 14 of 24 , Jul 6 11:34 AM
                                >
                                > 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 15 of 24 , Jul 6 10:57 PM
                                  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 16 of 24 , Jul 7 3:14 AM
                                    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 17 of 24 , Jul 7 3:17 AM
                                      > 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 18 of 24 , Jul 7 5:40 AM

                                        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 19 of 24 , Jul 8 10:07 AM
                                          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 20 of 24 , Jul 8 10:46 AM
                                            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 21 of 24 , Jul 8 5:57 PM
                                              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.