RE: [scrumdevelopment] Scheduling Defect Fixes
- Back in 1976, a guy called Peter Chen wrote a paper on Entity Modelling. He was an academic. His paper has been claimed to be the most cited academic paper in IT/CS publication, and is the seminal work on ER Modelling.
Over the years, many people (usually American academics on the tenure track) have written books that include discussion on ER Modelling. Many of them have added a bit here and there, changed a bit here and there, presumably in attempts to make it better ... building on the shoulders of giants, I guess.
Nobody, to my knowledge, has gone into print condemning these authors for changing the ER Modelling theory and practice that Chen initially developed. Adding to, modifying, interpreting existing theory and practice is something that most publishers of books, papers, conference proceedings etc. have found to be useful and agreeable practice.
I do have to say that many of the modifications suggested to Chen's initial ER modelling are stupid, add complexity but not usefulness. This does not detract from the notion that modifications to exisitng thoery and practice are allowable activities.
I would strongly suggest that this is something that should be approved of in the agile community too. Refuting some suggestion on the grounds that it is not written in the canons of the method is not a useful practice. Daring to be a little different ought not be seen as heretical.
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.