Why points are lame...
- First of all, anything you can make up your own definition for is lame
and suspect to say the least. My CTO doesn't care to hear that my dev
team has 150 story points left. He wants to know how many hours they
have left. Hours are not subject to opinion. There are 60 minutes in
a hour and 24 hours in a day. My CTO can relate to this. My CTO
cannot relate to some story point with weights assigned arbitrarily
assigned. Sure, some of you will argue that it is not arbitrary and
you are entitled to your opinion just like you are entitled to your
opinion as to what constitutes a point. This opinion on a unit of
measure and the unscientific approach to defining it, no matter how
scientific you contend it is, is the reason it has no value in
defining remaining effort. Points = opinion and like the old saying
goes, 'opinions are like butt holes, everyone has one'.
- I think getting into a controversy on whether or not we should have Sprint 0 or -1 or whatever (leading to discussion on Sprint -5 :)) is a bit sophistic.
Whatever you care to call it, I think it is essential to have it, to ensure that the development team is ready, willing and able to go. To a great extent it is the Envision phase, I think, which includes ensuring that the development team is approproiate to the task, that the whole general picture is understood, that everyone is singing from the same hymn book, getting all the ducks in a row and so on. There has been some discussion in this group previously about whether or not this pre-project phase (that is, pre iteration phase) should include decisions about and the adoption of development tools and standards. Some say this should emerge during later iterations, but I disagree.
Having undertaken this phase, the project team is then able to competently and enthusiastically (one hopes) into the iteration cycle of the project proper.
What Scott Ambler was talking about seems to me to be just this situation.
Sprint 0, Sprint -1, Pre-Project Phase, Envision Phase ... what's in a name, a rose etc .....
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:42:54 +0000
Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Sprint Zero
> > what he defines as "iteration -1" and "iteration 0"I have discussed the 'Sprint zero' matter a couple of times. The
> I do hear this kind of thing a lot, but it smells like procrastination
> to me.
> What innovation is next, the 31 day Sprint?
drawbacks seemed higher than the benefits:
- Sprint zero does not produce working code
- Sprint zero takes away the sense of urgency
- Sprint zero leads to a misunderstanding of Scrum
- Sprint zero disappoints stakeholders
Whenever you need to set the stage before you can actually do Scrum,
don't call it a Sprint or iteration. Once you are in a Sprint, you are
doing Scrum - so the first Sprint is supposed to be Sprint One
- deliver working code
- refine backlog items / user stories
- figure out the architecture outline
- make stakeholders happy
My regards to all the poor teams out there who are still in Sprint
Sign up for the Hotmail Road Trip today. Your dream beach house escape for summer!