Re: Scheduling Defect Fixes
- Hello Roy,
I think the velocity is the ability to deliver on the "Done" definition
of tasks. So, if a defect found is not covered under "Done" it is a new
feature, otherwise it is a "Not Done" feature which cannot count towards
I agree there will be bugs that will slip through, but again "Done"
definition decides their fate. In our case we consider all P0,P1,P2 bugs
as part of "Done" criterion that should be fixed ASAP and the effort
spent on them rightfully reduces the velocity. We do not take credit for
things "Not Done".
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Roy Morien <roymorien@...>
>Sprint" ... yes, I agree.
> I still can't see this, George.
> "velocity is roughly the team's capacity to accomplish work within a
>you should /subtract/ that from the available capacity." ... Why? The
> The bit I don't get is "If you've estimated the work to fix defects,
time and effort in fixing the defects is part of the team's capacity to
accomplish work. Fixing the defects is work. If you have no defects to
fix (highly desirable, of course), then the team's total capacity to
accomplish work will be spent on new development. BUT if they have
defects to fix, then they cannot accomplish that same amount of new
development, although they are working to capacity.
>"velocity is roughly the team's capacity to accomplish NEW work
> What you say is correct only if the definition of velocity is
PREVIOUSLY NOT ATTEMPTED, THAT IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO USER REQUESTS FOR
NEW FUNCTIONALITY, within a Sprint". This is not, in my view, the
definition, purpose and use of the concept of velocity.
> But this is, of course, where I obviously differ from some others.
> Roy Morien
> To: email@example.com
> From: lists@...
> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:46:03 -0500
> Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Scheduling Defect Fixes
> On 1/31/11 12:55 PM, Charles Bradley - Scrum Coach, CSM, PSM I wrote:
> > I'm curious though.
> > > If you wish to estimate how long they will take to fix, feel free
> > > to do so.
> > No mention of adding defect fixing to your velocity calculation?
> > mention that the practice is controversial? Maybe you were going fora
> > "basic" or "high level" description of the solution.estimates to
> > To the OP(the one who asked about scheduling bugs into Scrum), my
> > comment is this: Be careful about adding your defect fixing
> > velocity(which is a User Story concept). That practice iscontroversial,
> > and the main risk is that you do not want to decrease transparencyby
> > lumping material amounts of "defect fixing efforts" in with "newsolution,
> > functionality efforts that add value to the system." The best
> > as Ron mentions, is probably to reduce defects to such a small ratethat
> > there is no material amount of defect fixing time. There are otherStory
> > solutions, but they get down "into the weeds" in Scrum and User
> > philosophy.
> Yes. The way I express it is that velocity is roughly the team's
> capacity to accomplish work within a Sprint. If you've estimated the
> work to fix defects, you should /subtract/ that from the available
> capacity. And always remember that the goal is to produce working
> software, not to "get credit" for story points.
> - George
> * George Dinwiddie * http://blog.gdinwiddie.com
> Software Development http://www.idiacomputing.com
> Consultant and Coach http://www.agilemaryland.org
Although, this is not Twitter. I really want to do a +1.>>It (and the length of this thread) is a great illustration of why I recommend that teams not get too wrapped up in estimation. They start looking for numerical precision, and that starts consuming the energy that could be put toward accomplish goals.
Echoes my thoughts completely. Won't have been able to put it better myself.