Re: Poll: Hours or Story Points?
- 1. Hours.
2. Because we still have not been able to size the stories small
enough and so the information with hours is more indicative of progress.
PS: Peter's suggestion of Tasks seems useful in our scenario. I will try
this from Monday's sprint.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Rafael Nascimento
> Hi guys!
> Just a small poll:
> 1. How do you generate your sprint burndown charts? Considering hours
> story points?
> 2. Why?
> Rafael Nascimento
- Great post Matheus - couldn't agree more!
Just one thing to add, if you do have 'non-located' teams, capture the wall in some electronic form, send it to other teams and get them to 'copy' it onto their wall. Someone may moan about the extra work to start with but everybody should soon see the advantages.
--- In email@example.com, Matheus Gorino <lists@...> wrote:
> I've worked with Greenhopper for a while and I see 2 problems using it.
> 1. Every time they wanted to see it, they had to alt+tab to their browser,
> then either ctrl+tab to the previously opened chart board tab, or click on
> the chart board link, wait some seconds while it is generated, and see it.
> As it takes some boring steps, they didn't see it much, and I, the SM, have
> found myself for several times needing to check if they were looking at the
> graph and knew where they were.
> After introducing a physical chart, they didn't need to alt+tab anymore,
> they just needed to raise their head and look at the wall, and they started
> doing that several times a day. So it's not only having them to hand-draw
> the chart (which I believe made them more "owners" of this artifact), but it
> also increases visibility, what's is most important in my point of view.
> For sure, this will not work if you don't have a co-located team, but if you
> have a distributed team, the electronic vs. physical chart would be one of
> the smaller problems I'd be concerned about, as you would be losing a lot of
> other advantages of working co-located :)
> Also, I don't think that your Client should be looking at the Sprint
> burdown, as it is a Team's only artifact and it may be miss-interpreted by
> people outside the team, putting unwanted/unnecessary pressure on them.
> 2. Worse than the electronic Chart board is the electronic Kanban board.
> When using the Greenhopper Task board I found the team several times without
> the vision of the whole and not doing one-piece-flow. As sometimes we have a
> lot of Stories and Tasks, you need to use the browser's scrollbars to see
> which Stories are opened, how many Tasks are in progress, and can not easily
> balance between the To-do and Done column.
> Switching to a physical Kanban board made everything more clear. Sometimes,
> in the middle of the Sprint, looking at the To-Do column and seeing a lot of
> items, and then looking at the Done and seeing few items, says much more
> than the Burndown.
> I no longer need to warn the team about the WIP and one-piece-flow, they now
> perceive it much more easily. Now, when a developer gets up and go to the
> board to pick a new task, everybody sees it and they are now asking each
> other to help them close their current open tasks, instead of picking up a
> new task on the wall.