My wife and I saw two movies over the holidays. One was The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug and the second was The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. Both were the second episodes in a three part series. I suspect both were shot at the same time as their concluding episodes as well.
No, this is not a movie review, although both of them were “reasonable” follow-ups to their opening episodes. But both also had a similarity—one that bugged both my wife and I very much.
Both of them left you (the audience, the customer) hanging at the end. And I’m not talking about a subtle ending that hinted at a future plot direction. I’m talking about an abrupt, no warning at all, CUT off of the movie in lieu of the next (and hopefully final) installment.
I want to share a story from a Galaxy Far, Far Away.
It’s been on my mind quite a bit of late, as I tell it in some of my agile classes. However, I’m unsure whether the students believe me or they glean the significance of the story. I usually share it to illustrate a key point around software requirements. I usually get LOTS of pushback in my classes surrounding the “goodness and need” for fully documented requirements in software projects.
And as I unfold the agile approach to requirements (user story based, conversational, acceptance-driven, intentionally incomplete, and did I say collaborative?) the class starts turning ashen-faced in disbelief. Particularly attendees who are Business Analysts, Project Managers, and Testers struggle with the essence of agile requirements.
So that being said, I thought I’d try telling it here by writing it down.
I was talking to an experienced Scrum Master and Agile Coach the other day about agile in general and the topic of stand-ups came up. It seems he’d had an “experience” at one of our local agile group meetings where Daily Standup dynamics were being discussed.
Here’s a link to the session. It’s a meeting from our local Raleigh, NC AgileRTP group. The topic was entitled: Do You Stand Up? I missed the meeting, but he recounted the general discussion and flow for me.
The group consensus was that: 'Chickens' (interested bystanders, stakeholders, leadership folks, etc.) should not talk during the Daily Scrum. The rational mostly surrounded that at it would interrupt the teams conversations and flow.
The Scrum Master disagreed with this view and he (jokingly) said that—when he brought up his perspective, the crowd summarily dismissed him as being wrong.
The other evening I attended a presentation on agile metrics by Larry Maccherone of Rally Software. It was a great presentation. But he said something along the way that has been bothering me since. Let me try to get you in the right place by setting the stage a bit.
He started off by saying the agile metrics in general are “Context Based”. That is, your business space, problem domain, company maturity, technology stack, size and maturity of your team, etc; ALL come into play when determining your metrics. I guess this implies a one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work and, in fact, that there is a unique size per agile context.
He had me at hello with this one.
It happens to me on a weekly basis. I’m teaching a class on how to write User Stories. Usually it’s part of my Product Owner workshop. We’re happily writing stories for an iPad application simulation. Typically halfway thru the exercise someone raises their hand because they’re struggling with the format of a purely technical story. Quite often they don’t know how to frame the “user” clause and are stuck there in their writing.
My first recommendation is often to tell them to skip it. I tell them that the “As a” and the “So that” clauses are usually quite different for technically related stories. I just ask them to quantify the need (technically), in clear English with perhaps a couple of sentences, and then move on.
Last week I had the privilege of doing some training at a company that had previously been following waterfall and more traditional approaches. Call it a jump-start, the idea was to do a minimal amount of training, help them get a backlog together, and then start “sprinting” as soon as possible.
I do this fairly often, but this group caused me to reflect a bit. Here are some thoughts…
I hear this challenge over and over again from Product Owners. They have little to no problem writing functional User Stories, but then…
Bob, the team is placing tremendous pressure on me to write technology centric User Stories. For example, stories focused on refactoring, or architectural evolution, or even bug fixing. While I’d love to do it, every time I give them to the team and we discuss them, they nit-pick the contents and simply push back saying they can’t even estimate them in their current state.
So I’m stuck in a vicious cycle of rinse & repeat until the team gets frustrated and pulls an ill-defined story into a sprint. And this normally “blows up” the sprint. What can I do?
I think the primary root cause of this problem is that the company views the Product Owner role as the final arbiter of user stories; meaning they need to write them all. I feel that’s an anti-pattern myself, but the question remains, what to do in this situation.
I’ve seen several clients apply approaches that significantly helped in handling, what I refer to here, as technical user stories. Let me share a couple of real-world stories (nor user stories mind you ;-) that should help you envision some alternatives.
I can’t recall when I first came upon the Pareto Principle.
I think it might have been when I was studying for my Six Sigma Green Belt. But
I’m unsure. I know I was operating as a QA Director at the time, because most
of my example uses for it surrounded testing and defects. Nonetheless, it’s
probably been over 15 years.
That being said, I don’t think I hear people “considering”
Pareto enough in their day-to-day activity, so I thought I’d bring it up and
remind everyone of the Pareto Principle or 80:20 Rule and it’s implications for
software engineering in general and agile teams in particular.
I’m sorry but I need to vent. I’ve been encountering these
patterns a bit too often lately and I just need to get these thoughts off my
chest.
The patterns are these:
- Organizations and teams consider it the Product
Owners role/job to write every aspect (word) of every User Story. And,
if the stories aren’t “complete enough” the team kicks it back to the Product
Owner to do a better job.
- User Stories are too robust. I’m being kind
here. The Product Owner / Analyst writing the story writes a complete
requirement (pages, all information) before ever showing it to the team.
From my perspective, these are both agile requirement
anti-patterns, you shouldn’t be doing it this way, and I’ll try to explain why.
In both cases, I think it goes against some of the very core principles of the
agile methods. It’s not changing your Waterfall views and while, you’re saying you’re
agile on the outside, on the inside you’re still handling your requirements the
same old way.
