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

Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Scrum / Agile Guidelines and Checklist

Expand Messages
  • Ilja Preuss
    ... I agree, when the document states what the team members expect from each other, and when all the team members agree that it is the right thing to do, and
    Message 1 of 20 , May 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      MacKilby wrote:

      > That being said, I have no problem if this document is a charter for
      > an individual team. Some teams I've found do need this codification
      > at the start, but it ends up becoming a disposable document as trust
      > builds on the team (and I'm thinking PO, SM, and developers when I say
      > team).

      I agree, when the document states what the team members expect from each
      other, and when all the team members agree that it is the right thing to
      do, and agree on the content of the document. That is, when the document
      is the *result* of a conversation between all the affected people.

      That's not what I understood Michael's situation to be. It sounded to me
      as if the document codified what the team expected from "outside"
      members, and as if those possibly even hadn't been asked whether they
      wanted such a documented, and as if the document came *before* the
      conversation with all those affected. To the amount that this impression
      is correct, it would trouble me.

      Cheers, Ilja
    • banshee858
      ... We don t know that. This could be the first draft or a starting point for the discussion. A lot of people do not understand what Scrum is or how it works
      Message 2 of 20 , May 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        >
        > I agree, when the document states what the team members expect from
        > each other, and when all the team members agree that it is the right
        > thing to do, and agree on the content of the document. That is, when
        > the document is the *result* of a conversation between all the
        > affected people.
        >
        > That's not what I understood Michael's situation to be. It sounded to
        > me as if the document codified what the team expected from "outside"
        > members, and as if those possibly even hadn't been asked whether they
        > wanted such a documented, and as if the document came *before* the
        > conversation with all those affected. To the amount that this
        > impression is correct, it would trouble me.
        >
        We don't know that. This could be the first draft or a starting point
        for the discussion. A lot of people do not understand what Scrum is
        or how it works day-to-day, describing that makes things clear.

        FWIW, it is a little detailed for my taste and could be boiled down to
        a few key principles that remind us of the details. Much like a user
        story reminds us of the details of the requirements.

        Carlton
      • Michael Wollin
        This document is for ³inside,² if you include PO¹s who are really internal proxies for the actual customers. It is a continuation of an ongoing conversation
        Message 3 of 20 , May 1, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Scrum / Agile Guidelines and Checklist This document is for “inside,” if you include PO’s who are really internal proxies for the actual customers. It is a continuation of an ongoing conversation and a strawman draft offered up for comment by the development team. Among its purposes, it tries to reassure the developers that they are not being asked to estimate or commit to implementing poorly defined stories.

          The document is a response to continued confusion on the team’s part (PO, SM, developers, and QA – i.e., everybody). Each individual member seems to take away something different. Sometimes you just have to write it down in order to get everyone to “hear green when you say green.”

          Ultimately, it’s all about building trust. Scrum explicitly intends to give the team a great deal of empowerment and control. It values team morale, job satisfaction and fun. We are not there. We are not near there. But we did not start from scratch, and Rome wasn’t built in a day.


          On 5/1/08 3:34 AM, "Ilja Preuss" <it@...> wrote:

          MacKilby wrote:

          > That being said, I have no problem if this document is a charter for
          > an individual team.  Some teams I've found do need this codification
          > at the start, but it ends up becoming a disposable document as trust
          > builds on the team (and I'm thinking PO, SM, and developers when I say
          > team).

          I agree, when the document states what the team members expect from each
          other, and when all the team members agree that it is the right thing to
          do, and agree on the content of the document. That is, when the document
          is the *result* of a conversation between all the affected people.

          That's not what I understood Michael's situation to be. It sounded to me
          as if the document codified what the team expected from "outside"
          members, and as if those possibly even hadn't been asked whether they
          wanted such a documented, and as if the document came *before* the
          conversation with all those affected. To the amount that this impression
          is correct, it would trouble me.

          Cheers, Ilja
        • Ilja Preuss
          ... Correct. That s what I tried to express. ... In my experience, a document is seldom a good starting point for a discussion. And if it is supposed to be, it
          Message 4 of 20 , May 1, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            banshee858 wrote:
            >> I agree, when the document states what the team members expect from
            >> each other, and when all the team members agree that it is the right
            >> thing to do, and agree on the content of the document. That is, when
            >> the document is the *result* of a conversation between all the
            >> affected people.
            >>
            >> That's not what I understood Michael's situation to be. It sounded to
            >> me as if the document codified what the team expected from "outside"
            >> members, and as if those possibly even hadn't been asked whether they
            >> wanted such a documented, and as if the document came *before* the
            >> conversation with all those affected. To the amount that this
            >> impression is correct, it would trouble me.
            >>
            > We don't know that.

            Correct. That's what I tried to express.

            > This could be the first draft or a starting point
            > for the discussion.

            In my experience, a document is seldom a good starting point for a
            discussion. And if it is supposed to be, it doesn't make much sense to
            get it *right*, anyway - in that case, we are simply the wrong people to
            get input from.

            > A lot of people do not understand what Scrum is
            > or how it works day-to-day, describing that makes things clear.

            And one of the base tenets of Agile - and therefore I guess also Scrum -
            is that face-to-face conversation is ways more effective than written
            communication. If we believe that to be true, we probably should act
            that way, too, shouldn't we?

            > FWIW, it is a little detailed for my taste and could be boiled down to
            > a few key principles that remind us of the details. Much like a user
            > story reminds us of the details of the requirements.

            I like that analogy! :)

            Cheers, Ilja
          • David H.
            e? ... I thought User Stories remind us to have a conversation and as such they are always still a little ambiguous...? -d -- Sent from gmail so do not trust
            Message 5 of 20 , May 1, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              e?
              >
              > > FWIW, it is a little detailed for my taste and could be boiled down to
              > > a few key principles that remind us of the details. Much like a user
              > > story reminds us of the details of the requirements.
              >
              I thought User Stories remind us to have a conversation and as such
              they are always still a little ambiguous...?

              -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
            • Tobias Mayer
              A little off-track perhaps, but this thread reminds me of an organization that I worked with about eighteen months ago. The team members there created a
              Message 6 of 20 , May 1, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                A little off-track perhaps, but this thread reminds me of an organization that I worked with about eighteen months ago.  The team members there created a charter for themselves, to indicate their sense of responsibility to the organization and the Scrum process.  This is it:

                Framework: We commit to following Agile principles to the best of our ability using the whole Scrum framework.
                Quality: We commit to building quality into our products at every stage of their development and to continuously review and improve our techniques for achieving this.
                People: We are professionals and have a responsibility to respect each other, act honestly, communicate openly and assist/seek assistance where appropriate.
                Process: We commit to working with the organization to define a minimal process to guide our activities over the duration of each sprint, empowering teams to get the job done.
                Growth: As individuals, we commit to enhancing and furthering our knowledge and to share that knowledge, as appropriate, with others at [this_company].

                I like the simplicity of this, and the fact it was generated by three teams, collaboratively. I also like that it is non-prescriptive and focuses on values rather than detailed tasks and activities.  The blog post I wrote about how this charter emerged is here:  Spiderman Says...

                A document like this is certainly a starting point for conversation.  I am not sure that the document Michael Wollin proposed will have that effect, mainly because I am not convinced people will even read it. 

                Tobias



                --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Ilja Preuss <it@...> wrote:
                >
                > banshee858 wrote:
                > >> I agree, when the document states what the team members expect from
                > >> each other, and when all the team members agree that it is the right
                > >> thing to do, and agree on the content of the document. That is, when
                > >> the document is the *result* of a conversation between all the
                > >> affected people.
                > >>
                > >> That's not what I understood Michael's situation to be. It sounded to
                > >> me as if the document codified what the team expected from "outside"
                > >> members, and as if those possibly even hadn't been asked whether they
                > >> wanted such a documented, and as if the document came *before* the
                > >> conversation with all those affected. To the amount that this
                > >> impression is correct, it would trouble me.
                > >>
                > > We don't know that.
                >
                > Correct. That's what I tried to express.
                >
                > > This could be the first draft or a starting point
                > > for the discussion.
                >
                > In my experience, a document is seldom a good starting point for a
                > discussion. And if it is supposed to be, it doesn't make much sense to
                > get it *right*, anyway - in that case, we are simply the wrong people to
                > get input from.
                >
                > > A lot of people do not understand what Scrum is
                > > or how it works day-to-day, describing that makes things clear.
                >
                > And one of the base tenets of Agile - and therefore I guess also Scrum -
                > is that face-to-face conversation is ways more effective than written
                > communication. If we believe that to be true, we probably should act
                > that way, too, shouldn't we?
                >
                > > FWIW, it is a little detailed for my taste and could be boiled down to
                > > a few key principles that remind us of the details. Much like a user
                > > story reminds us of the details of the requirements.
                >
                > I like that analogy! :)
                >
                > Cheers, Ilja
                >
              • Ilja Preuss
                ... OK, perhaps I misunderstood some of your previous statements. To the amount that this document just captures the results of your discussions in the Whole
                Message 7 of 20 , May 1, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Michael Wollin wrote:
                  > This document is for “inside,” if you include PO’s who are really
                  > internal proxies for the actual customers. It is a continuation of an
                  > ongoing conversation and a strawman draft offered up for comment by the
                  > development team.

                  OK, perhaps I misunderstood some of your previous statements. To the
                  amount that this document just captures the results of your discussions
                  in the Whole Team, that sounds good to me, in principle.

                  In the rest of this post, I will comment on the form of the document,
                  and ignore the content for now.

                  I would probably try to get it a bit shorter, to boil it down to a list
                  of essential working agreements. When it gets too long (say, more than
                  seven bullet points that apply to my working), I'm not able to keep them
                  in my head.

                  I prefer working agreements stated in a way as if I'm already doing
                  those things. The first of your points is already close:

                  "We will use the Wiki to capture stories, and details in the story."

                  Just remove the "will": "We use the Wiki to capture stories, and details
                  in the story."

                  Taking another example:

                  "The minimum basic details must be entered into a user story at least 24
                  hours prior to the sprint planning meeting by the product owner. If
                  not, there is no requirement for the team to assess the story (they can
                  if they want to, but do not have to)."

                  I would reformulate that again to fit the above pattern:

                  "The product owner enters the minimum basic details into a user story at
                  least 24 hours prior to the sprint planning meeting."

                  I'm uncomfortable with that second sentence, for a number of reasons. It
                  has a strong defensive, threatening and divisive feel to me, and
                  destroys the energizing effect the first statement could have. Therefore
                  I would just scrap it.

                  I hope you this helps.

                  Cheers, Ilja
                • Ilja Preuss
                  ... I think that s what Carlton tried to say: the story (card) doesn t *contain* the details, it is just a token to help us remember the details that we got
                  Message 8 of 20 , May 1, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    David H. wrote:
                    > e?
                    >> > FWIW, it is a little detailed for my taste and could be boiled down to
                    >> > a few key principles that remind us of the details. Much like a user
                    >> > story reminds us of the details of the requirements.
                    >>
                    > I thought User Stories remind us to have a conversation and as such
                    > they are always still a little ambiguous...?

                    I think that's what Carlton tried to say: the story (card) doesn't
                    *contain* the details, it is just a token to help us remember the
                    details that we got from somewhere else (discussions, acceptance tests,
                    etc.)

                    Cheers, Ilja
                  • Michael Wollin
                    Sure does help. Feel free to suggest more.
                    Message 9 of 20 , May 1, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Sure does help. Feel free to suggest more.


                      On 5/1/08 5:00 PM, "Ilja Preuss" <it@...> wrote:

                      > Michael Wollin wrote:
                      >> This document is for ³inside,² if you include PO¹s who are really
                      >> internal proxies for the actual customers. It is a continuation of an
                      >> ongoing conversation and a strawman draft offered up for comment by the
                      >> development team.
                      >
                      > OK, perhaps I misunderstood some of your previous statements. To the
                      > amount that this document just captures the results of your discussions
                      > in the Whole Team, that sounds good to me, in principle.
                      >
                      > In the rest of this post, I will comment on the form of the document,
                      > and ignore the content for now.
                      >
                      > I would probably try to get it a bit shorter, to boil it down to a list
                      > of essential working agreements. When it gets too long (say, more than
                      > seven bullet points that apply to my working), I'm not able to keep them
                      > in my head.
                      >
                      > I prefer working agreements stated in a way as if I'm already doing
                      > those things. The first of your points is already close:
                      >
                      > "We will use the Wiki to capture stories, and details in the story."
                      >
                      > Just remove the "will": "We use the Wiki to capture stories, and details
                      > in the story."
                      >
                      > Taking another example:
                      >
                      > "The minimum basic details must be entered into a user story at least 24
                      > hours prior to the sprint planning meeting by the product owner. If
                      > not, there is no requirement for the team to assess the story (they can
                      > if they want to, but do not have to)."
                      >
                      > I would reformulate that again to fit the above pattern:
                      >
                      > "The product owner enters the minimum basic details into a user story at
                      > least 24 hours prior to the sprint planning meeting."
                      >
                      > I'm uncomfortable with that second sentence, for a number of reasons. It
                      > has a strong defensive, threatening and divisive feel to me, and
                      > destroys the energizing effect the first statement could have. Therefore
                      > I would just scrap it.
                      >
                      > I hope you this helps.
                      >
                      > Cheers, Ilja
                      >
                      > ------------------------------------
                      >
                      > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                      > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                      > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • aalanatlas
                      +1 cringe.
                      Message 10 of 20 , May 2, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        +1 cringe.

                        --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Don Gray <don@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Michael,
                        >
                        > > This is an excerpt of a document that we want to use to clarify
                        > > what’s expected from all concerned in our group. I would appreciate
                        > > some feedback.
                        >
                        > I cringed.
                        >
                        > I wondered what happened to "Customer collaboration over contract
                        > negotiation".
                        >
                        > I didn't get a sense of "let's figure out how to make this work."
                        >
                        > --
                        > Don (336)374-7591
                        >
                        > He who knows others is clever;
                        > He who knows himself is enlightened.
                        > Lao-Tzu
                        >
                        > Learn about yourself at the AYE Conference, Nov 2 - 5, 2008.
                        > www.AYEconference.com
                        >
                      • the_1wkndr
                        Hi Mike, I ve used a format that seems to work well for us in terms of clearly identifying the event/time box (Sprint Planning 1)...then outlining very simply
                        Message 11 of 20 , May 5, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi Mike,

                          I've used a format that seems to work well for us in terms of clearly
                          identifying the event/time box (Sprint Planning 1)...then outlining
                          very simply who should attend (Team, Product Owner) and a bullet list
                          of what the inputs, actions and outputs should be. When I wrote the
                          training for our teams...I used this style to help them quickly grasp
                          the concept w/o getting to mired in a lot of details. To agree with
                          another poster...its the people that transform and the easier it is
                          for them to put into practice a new concept...the less patience you'll
                          need with the transformation! They'll get it!

                          I'm teaching a new team now how to use this outline to work with folks
                          in our organization who aren't quite fully Scrum trained. I tell them
                          if they know what the need and how to get it (ie. actions and outputs
                          from whatever event) they can speak intelligibly to the meeting guest
                          (might be an untrained product owner)...about what they need and how
                          they want to see it.

                          If you'd like a sample of the template, I'm happy to share.

                          Alicia McLain
                          San Diego, CA
                          http://www.scrumalliance.org/profiles/8895-alicia-r-mclain
                          http://www.linkedin.com/in/aliciamclain

                          --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Michael Wollin <yahoo@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > This is an excerpt of a document that we want to use to clarify what¹s
                          > expected from all concerned in our group. I would appreciate some
                          feedback.
                          >
                          > The idea here is not to create some 'legal document' (even if it
                          starting to
                          > sound like one on re-reading it) - but instead to try and ensure we
                          are all
                          > on the same page about what everyone expects of each other.
                          >
                          > User Stories
                          > * We will use the Wiki to capture stories, and details in the story.
                          > * The product owner or BA will ensure that the following is entered into
                          > each story on the WIKI:
                          > > * Basic business acceptance criteria
                          > > * Known assumptions (basic business assumptions)
                          > > * Known requirements of the story
                          > > * Known failure modes (if any are known by the product owner)
                          >
                          > Contract
                          > * The minimum basic details must be entered into a user story at
                          least 24
                          > hours prior to the sprint planning meeting by the product owner. If
                          not,
                          > there is no requirement for the team to assess the story (they can
                          if they
                          > want to, but do not have to).
                          > * If the story has basic details (outlined in "stories" above) then an
                          > attempt will be made to assess it. If the details are too vague or
                          unclear
                          > then the team will ask the product owner for more information during the
                          > sprint planning meeting.
                          > * Ideally the basic details will be in the story prior to the story
                          point
                          > planning meeting - but this is NOT required.
                          > * Once the story has been planned in the sprint planning and we have a
                          > "commitment" to implement then the team will endeavor to complete the
                          > implementation - including unit, system and integration testing (without
                          > release QA) - within the sprint.
                          > * A story is only completed when it has been unit tested, system
                          tested and
                          > integration tested. So it needs to be ready to go into a release
                          candidate.
                          > It is possible, and often likely, that it wouldn't make sense for it
                          to be
                          > in a release candidate yet - but it MUST be ready for one.
                          > * The team's commitment to implement will include implementing all
                          the tasks
                          > defined, and any additional ones that the team find are necessary and
                          > reasonable, based on their good-faith professional opinion, during
                          > development. The commitment will also include addressing all
                          failure modes
                          > that were identified and included in the story.
                          > * Any failure modes or new tasks (related to newly discovered edge
                          cases,
                          > etc) discovered during implementation but not listed during the planning
                          > meeting, or excluded failure modes, will NOT be included in the
                          commitment
                          > to implement. This means that we will view the story AS COMPLETE if it
                          > meets the acceptance criteria and identified failure modes EVEN IF
                          it fails
                          > on some newly discovered failure modes.
                          > * The team may elect to address newly discovered failure modes or
                          tasks if
                          > they wish during sprint BUT it is essential that addressing these
                          new tasks
                          > does not impact the commitment to completing the other stories in the
                          > sprint. This is completely the teams choice and NOT management or the
                          > product owner. [For example, if the team chooses not to address the
                          task,
                          > and to put it on the backlog, the product owner does not have the
                          right to
                          > force them to work on it until the next sprint].
                          > * Stories not completed go back into the backlog at the end of the
                          sprint.
                          > Of course stories should have been completed based on the commitment,
                          > however external circumstances such as production support, illness,
                          etc.,
                          > may cause delays and when this happens the story must return to the
                          backlog.
                          >
                          > Sprint Planning Meeting Guidelines
                          > * During the sprint planning meetings we will look at the stories
                          identified
                          > for the current/next release.
                          > * We will pick stories from the release, ideally in order or
                          importance - if
                          > that has been identified
                          > * We will spend 20 (TWENTY) minutes on each story.
                          > * For each story we will address everything in the checklist that
                          follows.
                          > * If we are not complete when the 20 minutes is up we will add a 30
                          minute
                          > analysis meeting task and move on to the next story.
                          >
                          > Sprint Planning Checklist
                          > * Each individual will define how much time they have to commit to the
                          > sprint. Individuals must take into account the following when then
                          commit
                          > their time:
                          > > * There should be a reasonable amount of time set aside for
                          production support
                          > > issues.
                          > > * Note that all non-critical defects should go on the backlog. If
                          a defect
                          > > requires immediate work then it is a critical defect and is
                          covered under
                          > > production support time.
                          > * Look at a story and spend 10 minutes doing the following:
                          > > * Review the assumptions
                          > > * Review, clarify and expand on the acceptance criteria (*)
                          > > * Review and clarify the requirements
                          > > * Brainstorm the possible failure modes
                          > > * What happens if we run out of time? [we ask the team if they
                          want to
                          > > continue, if not then we skip the story]
                          > * Based on the acceptance criteria, requirements and failure modes,
                          spend 10
                          > minutes:
                          > > * Defining tasks required to implement this story
                          > > * Estimate how long each task will take in ideal hours
                          > > * If we run out of time we add a task called "30 MINUTE ANALYSIS
                          MEETING"
                          > * Commitment: If we managed to identify all tasks and add ideal
                          hours then
                          > the team will say whether they are willing to commit to this story
                          in this
                          > sprint.
                          >
                          > How do we brainstorm the failure modes and what do we do with them?
                          > * Everyone should state whatever they think might be an issue and it
                          will be
                          > captured.
                          > * We must NOT argue about failure modes - if it is stated then it gets
                          > written down
                          > > * If we determine it isn't an issue at a later date (i.e., as we
                          look at
                          > > tasks) then that is fine
                          > * We should use prior experience and general paranoia to drive us to
                          define
                          > acceptance criteria - i.e. assume everything that can go wrong will go
                          > wrong.
                          > * Some failure modes will NOT be made part of the story - we may
                          make them
                          > their own stories.
                          >
                          > Other Guidelines
                          > The team should be careful about the wording of the acceptance criteria.
                          > Overly generalized criteria should be avoided. Blanket coverage of
                          failure
                          > modes should be avoided in failure modes: for example, an acceptance
                          > criteria should not end with "... and will work in all possible cases,
                          > everywhere in the known universe".
                          >
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.