| Newsgroups |
gmane.comp.programming.scrum.general |
| Message-ID |
<CABJ7RBwqzt8susADCMha50uf+Yf-tJsM5ciXgq7+ZdLDAe1KEg@mail.gmail.com> |
Hi Michael,
A little sleep addled, but I think depending on who you're talking to and
the situation, reasons could be:
- risk: smaller chunks are easier to estimate, so there's less risk of
surprises. Bigger stories hide complexity, larger variation, yada yada (E
and S)
- risk: no matter how much we say 'we need it all' (cop out!), there are
always priorities within a large story. Not splitting means not thinking
about those and running the risk the less important thing is worked on
first. (V, N, S)
- risk: a large story will be less detailed, and a bigger chance of being
misunderstood. and since you'll find out late about that (because it's
large), you might find out *too* late (S and V)
- 'not easily split' is a cover for not wanting to deal with the
'negotiate' part of INVEST. Lazy. Also doesn't leave room for managing on
scope (where's the value), sprint goals, etc. so, you know, risk. (N, V)
Wouter
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Michael Wollin [email protected]
[SCRUMDEVELOPMENT] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Need the bullet points on why not to plan a big story that is the core
> priority but is too big for a single sprint and not easily split. That is,
> trading the V in inverts for the S. :) It's a "holidays" issue.
>
> I'm doing a training slide. Other than cadence and the ability to pick a
> different higher priority story on the next sprint because circumstances
> may have changed, what were the other reasons?
>
>
--
Wouter Lagerweij | [email protected]
http://www.lagerweij.com | @wouterla <http://twitter.com/#!/wouterla>
linkedin.com/in/lagerweij | +31(0)6 28553506