Pawel Brodzinski on Leadership in Technology

Whatever it takes to lead a team, build a product, and run a business

Tag: methodology

  • Is a ScrumMaster of Any Value?

    Tobias Mayer, who I respect very much, recently put his thoughts about ScrumMasters into a blog post. The post that can be summarized best by its title: Delete [ScrumMasters]. The strongest point of the post goes as follows:

    “I believe the concept of ScrumMaster has done more damage to our industry than it has aided in change. It has been a way for individuals and organizations to jump on the Agile band wagon, in a mostly painless way (discounting severe certification costs) and continue to do much as they were doing before.”

    It isn’t a surprise for me that the post gained a lot of traction. Many experienced leaders in our community have quickly supported Tobias’ crusade.

    I haven’t.

    I agree with vast majority of what Tobias has written. I like the diagnosis he makes. I even believe we should be told such things by our thought-leaders. Yet I don’t jump on the bandwagon of spreading the epiphany: we don’t need ScrumMasters anymore.

    One of stories that instantly pops into my head whenever I hear about the role of ScrumMaster is the one John Cieslik-Bridgen, who used to be a ScrumMaster at Lunar Logic, shared with me once:

    “We were doing a “design your ideal team” exercise. In this exercise, I liked the fact that I wasn’t referred to as a ScrumMaster, rather ‘a John’, as in, “we’ll need ‘a John’”. I think the use of the word “coach” much better reflects what I try to do.”

    On a side note: I’d love to have “a John” as a title on my business card someday. After all, many teams need a John.

    By this point you may wonder, which part of Tobias’ post I haven’t understood, as the story is totally aligned with the article. Well, I have understood the post. John’s story, however, is just one side of the coin.

    The other is that few organizations are mature enough to hire, or promote, a John. Conversely, many companies lose their Johns, these great coaches and counselors, because they don’t have a named place for them. What’s more, organizations often need some kind of framework to even allow a role of a John. This framework very often happens to be Scrum and the role is called ScrumMaster.

    I don’t say it is a magic pill that solves every problem in an organization. I just say this step is often very helpful in moving to the next level for both the org and for a John.

    And yes, I can think of other, arguably better, means to an end of organizational and personal improvement, but I find this one working surprisingly often. To quote Tobias once more: “Sorry guys, it’s what I see.”

    I actually see much value if a John blossoms and eventually leaves the organization because it just scratches the surface and doesn’t really introduce agile values. At the end of the day we still have one more great guy on the job market.

    While I agree with the argument that the ScrumMaster role is often abused and I don’t really like how it is defined, I still consider it one of the valuable options for organizations. The option that may end in preservation of status quo, but also in creating a space for people who will take the org to the next level.

    Does it mean we should throw away the role as a whole? Well, in mature organizations, where there is a good understanding of the reasons that ScrumMasters were introduced and what they are supposed to do, I see no reason to cultivate the role or the title.

    On the other hand I still see the ScrumMaster role as a tool that can create space for change agents (I hate this name too) and catalyze improvements. After all, would there be a John without a ScrumMaster first?

    Have I just written a post in defense of the ScrumMaster role? Oh well…

  • On Agile Once Again

    There was said a lot in the old rusty discussion on being agile versus doing agile, The Only Right Mindset, etc. Same with lean but on a smaller scale I guess. In all these discussions I always try to be on common sense side.

    I mean I somehow missed the moment when agile became a major religion and lean a minor one (for the time being), but evidently it must have happened as I see lots of worshippers around. People who know the one and the only way of doing things. People who believe in this or that method. Me? I don’t buy it.

    I will support most agile and lean initiatives I see out there, but it is not because they suit to my perfect picture of the world. It is so because applying Scrum or Kanban, even by the book, is still an improvement for majority of teams. By the way, pardon my “Kanban by the book” as there is no such thing, but definitely there already are beaten paths leading to Kanban adoption so it wasn’t vast oversimplification.

    Anyway, whenever I’m talking with a team about methods I don’t object adopting old-school formal waterfall-like approaches, pardon my French. On occasions I may even advise sticking to them.

    And if you ask me, this is exactly being agile.

    It’s easy to criticize a team which is following a heavy process. The Manifesto says “people over process,” so you’re doing it wrong! But wait, aren’t that people who enforced (or asked for) this process? Are we really that fixed if we can consume changing requirements and still deliver, despite our heavy process? And most of all, isn’t Scrum (to take the example from the top of my head) a pretty formal process as well?

    We are far beyond the point where you could get away with simple labels like “Scrum means agile.” We know more, we understand more and most of all we have hell lot of examples of good, bad and ugly things done under the agile banner.

    If I see a team that has a very formal process enforced by their client and they are doing very well, yet they still look for occasions to reduce the burden of formalities while sustaining the quality I see agile. I see it even if the only practice from Scrum handbook they follow is daily standup. I see agile even if, at the first look, most of people would rate them “hard-core waterfall.”

    On the other hand, when I see a team applying Scrum, Kanban or whatever they believe is the next big thing, and they are doing it blindly, without understanding how the damn thing works, why it works and how it even applies to team’s specific situation I don’t see even a bit of the message which started it all.

    You can say that I oversimplify things. Maybe I do. Yet this approach works for me. This is a lesson I got from jumping on Kanban bandwagon. Kanban is vague enough that the simple message that a team is using the method tells you almost nothing. At the same these few simple rules, which come in variety of flavors, usually bring pretty good results. If you understand what you’re doing, that is.

    You don’t need strict and specific rules to make it work. You just need understanding of the tool you use.

    This is pretty interesting observation as I happen to be part of program board on different agile/lean events and I still see many proposals trying to go through with the message about the ultimate way of doing things. Wake up! We’re past this point for some time already. We don’t need oracles. We need practitioners sharing their ups and downs, successes and failures, and most importantly deep understanding what they are doing, why, and how comes that it happens to work.

    And by the way if you happen to suit this picture somehow I encourage you to submit your proposal to the ACE Conference – the event I can honestly recommend. We still look for a handful of speakers to share their knowledge and experience. Besides, Krakow in late spring/early summer is a really nice place to visit.

  • Scrum versus Kanban

    These days every blog discussing agile topics should have a big hairy article on Scrum versus Kanban, so here it is. Well, just joking. Actually many people, way wiser than me, approached that subject some time ago already presenting different arguments. If you want to hear some of the strongest opinions out there check Ken Schwaber’s post on how Scrum is good and Kanban sucks. If you look for more weighted opinion David Anderson shared one. Just recently Mike Cohn also added very reasonable two cents to the discussion even though he actually doesn’t agree with David.

    Also there’s been a lot written about Scrumbut and Scrumban. I don’t see the point in repeating once again that if something works for your team – go for it, no matter if that breaks the orthodoxy of the method of your choice.

    Note: I’m well aware that until now I just share what I’m not going to write about. Is this post is going to be just a set of links to some good articles though? No, not exactly, but please do check mentioned articles – they’re a piece of good reading. Anyway, to the point. There’s one thing which is often mentioned as one of main differences between Kanban and Scrum but I think this is the core of the whole this versus that thing.

    The point

    From pretty much every Scrum and Kanban comparison you’ll learn that introducing Scrum is a revolution while with Kanban it is rather evolution. You’ll also be pointed that both approaches foster improvement. Now, finally, after all that beating around the bush: my point here is how Scrum revolution differs from Kanban evolution in terms of introducing improvements and why it is so.

    Team model and software development process

    Let me start with something I was learning for quite a long time (no, I’m not that bright to catch it during the first class):

    Scrum proposes pretty damn good team model and process for building software.

    If you look for model team which would work in majority of situations go for a Scrum team: cross-functional, small and tightly-integrated. If you look for healthy approach to software development you can’t really go wrong with Scrum. Scrum is well-thought and well-weighted approach. No surprise it ruled the agile world.

    On the other hand Kanban tells you that your team model is good for now, no matter how it is organized. And your process of building software is OK even if it’s pretty chaotic. For now.

    Kanban doesn’t propose any specific team model or software development approach.

    It basically means that you get no hints whatsoever how the well-organized team would look like. Nil. Nothing. Find out by yourself. No help here. Well, almost.

    The difference

    When organizing Scrum team you can basically turn your thinking off. Well, sort of. It’s all in the book. Someone took the effort to propose team model which I’ve just labeled “pretty damn good.” Same with the process you’re meant to follow.

    Kanban chooses the other approach: we don’t know what optimal solution for your team is. Here’s some help but you’re going to learn it by yourself.

    The difference? Pretty damn good doesn’t automatically mean optimal. Scrum is optimized for majority of teams, not for your unique group. Yes, of course, Scrum has improvement mechanisms, retrospective being the flagship here, but in terms of general rules it stays unchanged.

    Kanban accepts that starting point may be way worse than in Scrum case but leaves you all options open. You aren’t really constrained with specific practices or models. What you’re going to end up with is totally on you and your team.

    Help you get

    You can put it in other words if you prefer. Scrum tells you how you should change, at least to some point. Scrum is like your mother-in-law – she always knows that you suck here and there and how exactly you should act to be um… better.

    Kanban on the other hand is like your friend, close but probably not the best one you have. He’ll try to show you where you could improve but won’t state it explicitly. It’s just not that kind of relationship. It will be rather a set of hints and smoke signs – it’s you who chooses to use them to change yourself or just ignore them.

    Which one is better

    Neither. Despite comparisons I’ve just use I really think there’s no winner here. And yes, I’m generally considered as a Kanban guy but I also strongly believe there’s no silver bullet.

    If you need a kick start Scrum may give you one even though it imposes some constraints on the way you work. On the other hand if you have in your team someone who is experienced with variety of different methods it may be a good idea to start with Kanban and check where it’s going to lead you.

    After all, since I’m not an orthodox, I’ll also tell you should experiment like crazy, no matter which path you choose. Heck, that’s where all those Scrumbans started – people were changing their process, people were breaking The Holy Rules of The Method just to end up with something more optimal for them.

    Final thought

    If I want you to remember one thing from this post it would be: Scrum tells you explicitly how to organize work and improve things, while Kanban tells you nothing about the ideal models and helps you find out the optimal way by yourself.

    After all, this post is big and hairy so I guess I succeeded with the task anyway.

    Advertisement: Protect your business from a surprise software audit with License Dashboard.

     

  • Kanban Basics

    I often say that you can implement Kanban in your team in a single afternoon. That’s how we did that after all. So when Andy Brandt asked me to do Kanban Basics webinar I expected that preparing it would be pretty simple. How long can you talk about few-hour-long task?

    Well, it wasn’t as simple as I expected.

    Kanban itself is very simple. But telling people they should visualize workflow, limit work in progress and measure the flow isn’t really all the basic stuff they need to know. After a while it always ends up with questions how we do this and how we do that.

    What limits should be set on board?
    What happens when a bug is found during testing?
    Should sticky notes be moved back on the board at all?
    How cycle time is measured?
    What happens when the limit is reached?
    What to do when emergency task pops up?
    How to cope with multiple projects?
    Is feature-by-feature deployment mandatory?
    How estimation is done?

    That’s an interesting observation – I often deal with most of these questions at the end of my Kanban presentations, no matter if I cover basic or advanced material. After giving it some thought I decided this would be a good starting point to prepare Kanban Basics presentation.

    What I ended up is presentation below. It covers a bunch of scenarios visualized with (surprise, surprise) Kanban board. Additionally I used Scrum as the reference to make a basic Kanban description easier to understand.

    Kanban Basics

    If you have some basic questions which seem to be omitted in the presentation, please leave a comment. I’d be happy to both answer the questions and update future versions of the presentation.

    If you speak Polish feel free to watch the recording of the webinar.

    Also, check The Kanban Story series as it reveals all the details of Kanban implementation in my current team.

  • The Kanban Story: When and Why We Abuse Limits

    We have limits on our Kanban board. This isn’t really a news. Sometimes we abuse them. Since Kanban doesn’t force you to stick to the limits always-and-by-all-means it shouldn’t surprise you much either. However the interesting thing is when, why, how and how often we do it.

    I think I should start with stating that our limits are rather loose. It is technically possible to have as many as 15 MMFs in progress across the board. It never happened and it won’t ever happen, but still it is technically feasible. That’s crazy huge workload for 5-person team.

    But we happen to have limits like that and it’s not without a reason. If you recall our pseudo-iterations triggered by VCS issues you know we ship our software in packages of few (typically 2 or 3, sometimes 4) features. This means we sometimes move a group of 4 features across the board. For example it happens after deployment when we move features from testing complete to live stage. OK, enough of introduction about our limits.

    When do we abuse limits?

    It sometimes happens we change content of our deployment package on the fly. For example we have a package of 4 features in testing (either ongoing or completed) and then our crazy product owner (aka me) comes with an idea to add another tiny but super-important and super-urgent feature. Of course we could wait till another pseudo-iteration is deployed but sometimes it just makes more sense to add it to the old package instead of waiting another 13 days for another deployment package.

    We also had a painful MMF blocked for long weeks by our subcontractor. This practically reduced our limit in development by 1 for a longer time. It happened once that we decided to break this reduced limit acknowledging the fact we can do nothing more about blocked feature.

    Why do we abuse limits?

    Two words: common sense. If it is more reasonable to break the limit than to adjust whole work to our board we don’t try to perform some artificial actions just to be compliant with the process.

    We aren’t here for the board. The board is here for us.

    How do we abuse limits?

    First we all discuss the decision. Breaking the limit shouldn’t be treated as a normal thing. It is an extraordinary situation. So we collectively decide whether in this very situation breaking the limit is a better solution or we should rather stick to our constraints.

    This serves two purposes: one, we make this decision very consciously and two, we stress that it isn’t a typical and easy-to-accept situation.

    It happened once when I found the board with a broken limit with no discussion whatsoever about the fact. I fired two third of the team and burned whole office… Well, maybe not really, but man, I wasn’t happy. I wasn’t happy at all.

    How often do we abuse limits?

    This is the question you were waiting for, weren’t you? Pretty rarely I’d say – thrice a year. Well, describing it as an average result is a bit of abuse itself since it was our first year with Kanban. But you can see this is an extraordinary situation.

    To summarize, limits on our Kanban board aren’t a sacred cow. We break them if it does make sense and we decide it is a better solution than sticking to them at all cost. On the other hand we try to make breaking the limit an uncomfortable situation (you know, all this discussion, talking with each other… yikes) so we aren’t tempted to do this very often.

    So far it works pretty well.

    Read the rest of the Kanban Story.

  • Agile Isn’t Immune for People Who Don’t Give a Damn

    I like presenting. I just love the fact that every time I deliver the presentation I find something new in there. It’s like having tiny epiphanies while you’re talking to a crowd. And I’m sure I wouldn’t have them if I didn’t overcome my fears and didn’t start speaking publicly.

    A thing which hit me last time I was delivering my Kanban Story presentation was how fragile agile is in terms of people who don’t give a damn. In the summary of presentation I make a point that Kanban may not be for your team if you work with undisciplined engineers.

    But what I realized while I was talking it is not only about lack of discipline. It’s about care. In Kanban people have to care about Kanban board. They have to move cards as they progress with features. They can’t abuse limits unless it is agreed among the team and team rules allow to. They should think how they could improve the board. They should keep the board up to date.

    Why it is so important? Because the board is single most important information radiator in Kanban teams. If contents of Kanban board are random you spread random information about project among the team and outside the team. You pretty much misinform everyone around. And now the important thing:

    In Kanban teams anyone can easily abuse Kanban board.

    It’s enough someone doesn’t care. He doesn’t care to move cards through the board or put his marker on task he’s working on at the moment or ignore transition criteria or whatever. Suddenly you have random Kanban board and no systemic tools to deal with the issue. People versus Kanban 1:0 at halftime. If you want to know how the match ends, well, you’ll have to read the blog in future since it is a subject for another post.

    It’s already half of A4 page and I haven’t really mentioned agile in general. Only Kanban. Kanban this and Kanban that. Don’t I have something else to say? Well, I do, thanks for bearing with me so far.

    One of reasons why Kanban is so easily abused by people who don’t give a damn is the fact that Kanban prescribes close to nothing. But enough of K-word. Scrum is more formal. Actually Scrum is pretty formal approach if you ask me. How it deals with the problem?

    A bit better. Stand-ups, time-boxing and planning meetings are all practices which help to deal with undisciplined team members. (I wanted to write “engineers” instead of “team members” but I’ve just recalled there are no roles in Scrum besides Scrum Master, Product Owner and Team Member and I prefer not to be killed by some Scrum extremist.) With these practices it is easier to make someone stick to convert folks who don’t care. If you work with Scrum you can’t work without time-boxing while the rest of the team has 2-week long sprints. You are asked the same questions as everyone else during stand-ups. There is more of a stick in Scrum than in Kanban. (Have I just said K-word?)

    XP goes even further. Rules are surrounding you everywhere, my poor engineer. It almost tells you how to pee. Not in pairs. fortunately If you work with XP and you don’t give a damn you’re probably already fired.

    But let’s face it – how many teams out there use eXtreme Programming religiously? Few. More of them follow just a couple of engineering techniques choosing Scrum as their process base. And even then we have whole variety of Scrumbuts, Scrumbans and Scrumwhatevers.

    Average agile approach in real world, if there happen to be something like that, would cover a very limited number of rules. I’d say that there would be less of them than Scrum proposes. And even then rules are often softened or teams choose those which are less painful to adapt.

    So we come back to the first point. The fewer constraints (aka enforced practices) we have in place the more easily our process can be abused by people who don’t give a damn. If your method base on a lot of common understanding instead of tons of process documentations and a number of strict rules buying all people in becomes crucial. Having few rules means that you give people power to create and adjust your software development/project management approach.

    It also means you give them power to destroy and harm it.

    If you like this post you should thank Michal who took the discussion up on Twitter.

  • When Kanban is the Best Choice

    Kanban, as any other methodology, isn’t a silver bullet. There are situations and teams when it shows its full potential but there are others where its impact will be limited. Where Kanban suits best then?

    Micro-sized teams

    It is said Scrum works best with teams of 7 or close to this size. Sometimes we deal with smaller groups. 3 people working on a project isn’t something very uncommon. For such micro-sized teams Scrum is often too formalized. You can limit a number of rules you follow and still keep good quality. And you have a bit more time to do the real work.

    Frequent priority changes

    “Walking on water and developing software from specifications are easy if both are frozen.” Unfortunately we deal with a lot of changes as we build software. There are new features; importance of tasks changes, new top priority bugs requires instant attention. Our response is moving to more flexible approaches. We try to avoid BDUF projects. We switch to agile methods employing short iterations. We even make iterations shorter and shorter. It allows us to change priorities frequently. Once every couple of weeks if we take typical Scrum implementation.

    The problem is when priorities happen to change even more frequently. Once every few days. Or even every single day. And yes, there are such projects. Kanban is a great answer for them. Feel free to change priorities every day. As long as it is well-grounded it shouldn’t ruin your project.

    Maintenance projects

    A typical maintenance project routine looks like this:

    1. Whenever high-priority bug is submitted fix it as soon as possible
    2. Low-priority bugs becomes high-priority ones when resolution deadline approaches; then see above
    3. Whenever a client orders change request (CR) and there’s no high-priority bugs – try to do it as soon as possible
    4. If there are more than single concurrent CR ask project manager about priorities
    5. If there are no bugs or CRs do some refactoring or other improvement job

    Sounds like ideal Kanban playground, doesn’t it? That’s typical case of event-driven development (not event-driven programming) where you don’t actually have a roadmap or something but you do whatever new day brings. After all you don’t expect to have a bug submitted tomorrow, or do you?

    Multiple small projects

    Working on several rather small projects or sub-projects with the same team at the same time is pretty difficult. Resources (what a nice name for your people) are usually insufficient since it is harder to synchronize stream of small orders to keep it at the same level all the time and bringing more people just-in-case isn’t the best business strategy around. This ends up with (surprise, surprise) a lot of priority changes and trade-off games. “We can complete this additional project on time but we’d fail to meet a deadline here or there.”

    With standard structured project management approaches coordinating different threads with ever-changing priorities becomes pretty much a hell. What Kanban does is it organizes workflow so the main, well almost the only, thing you should care about is setting priorities at the beginning of workflow.

    Common part

    The common part for all of environments above is they don’t require many constraints to work. Few simple rules which come with Kanban should be enough to get things done. Another common thing is mid- and long-term planning is hard or even close to impossible, which is another problem hardly resolvable with more structured approaches. These two things are the most specific for environments where Kanban shows its full potential.

    This isn’t really a post which is a part of the Kanban Story but if you found it interesting you should like the story as well.

  • The Kanban Story: Pseudo Iterations

    One of reasons why I like Kanban so much is because it doesn’t force you to formalize your process. You don’t need to set strict time-boxing for example. If you want to – fine do it, but if it doesn’t suit you fine no one forces you.

    If you happen to work in environment where priorities change very often, and we do work like that, you’re likely to reject time-boxing since this approach doesn’t reflect process you follow. We didn’t want time-boxing and this was one of main reasons we rejected Scrum initially.

    Iterations were bad. At least that’s how we thought.

    After some time I realized we basically had iterations. Sort of. We didn’t set time constraints like “we’re going to do features which fit 2-week period.” But we started grouping features into releases like “stories A, C, E and F which are top priority at the moment are going into the next release.” It was taking as much time as needed to complete a group of stories so it wasn’t time-boxing really but still a small and (mostly) closed set of work items to do.

    Why we started doing that?

    • To make releases easier to plan. As I saw sticky notes moving from the left to the right I could estimate when we were going to deploy new set of features in production environment.
    • To have more frequent releases. With no real release planning we ended up with not very frequent deployments. At least not frequent enough for me. When we added some planning we set some boundaries for our work and made it easier to deploy more frequently.
    • To make version control look less like hell. We don’t use distributed version control so every time we want to release we need a branch in our code repository. If we had a few branches actively used bugs would have to be fixed in each of them, so we’d like to avoid having plenty of active branches. If we had only one branch and we wanted to release only completed features, leaving those under development aside, it would be quite a challenge. Having small feature sets going into development and adding a branch every time we start new set brings an order to version control.

    So we ended up having pseudo iterations. Not as strict as in Scrum but still. I can’t say how long the next iteration would take but it most likely won’t take more than 3 sticky notes. I can’t promise I won’t add anything to the scope during the iteration but if it happened I had good reasons to do it (e.g. adjusting the app which would stop working after deployment to take latest case).

    Seems like iterations aren’t such a bad thing after all.

    Check out the whole Kanban Story.

  • The Kanban Story: First Issues

    So we were doing great, everyone was happy and we were delivering on time on budget and on scope. Except it wasn’t exactly how things really looked like.

    First two projects were late. Not much but still. It was expected since these were our first estimates in the team and at that time we decided not to do anything about that yet. Slips were reasonably small, which was a good sign when we talk about our developers’ estimation skills. Nothing to be worried about.

    Another issue however appeared to be a real pain in the ass. One of applications got stuck somewhere in the middle of first iteration of tests. It looked like there was always something more important to do. Everyone was doing high-priority things and the application wasn’t touched even with a stick. There was no mechanism which would add an incentive to finish things and not leave even less-important tasks for later.

    We also had a problem with our Product Owner. The guy was trying to catch many parallel threads and organize team’s work but unfortunately he was pushing in a bit too many new things. At the same time he was losing some of nice ideas on the way. Before some of them could be implemented guy was coming back from another meeting with a client bringing new, better and higher-priority tasks and the old ones were fading into oblivion. For those of you who can’t wait to ask who this crappy Product Owner was the answer is: yes, it was me.

    A general conclusion was we need some more organization not at project level but at team level. Something which would help us finishing things and limit chaos generated by rapidly changing business environment. Specific of our team was we were doing a number of very small projects simultaneously so coordinating these projects was crucial to avoid falling into chaos.

    We were about to do first process improvements…

    Read the whole story.

  • The Kanban Story: Initial Methodology

    You already know how our team looked like and what concerns I had with implementing plain old Scrum. You also know we chose “take this from here and take that from there” kind of approach to running our projects. Our base method was Scrum but we were far, far away from accepting it the orthodox way.

    What we finally agreed on within the team can be described in several rules:

    1. Planning
    For each application at the beginning we were deciding what we want to see there in the next version. We were trying to limit a number of features but didn’t set any limits how long development should take. The longest cycle was something between three and four weeks.

    2. Requirements
    When we’d known what we wanted to do we were creating user stories and non-functional requirements. Each session took whole team, even when someone wasn’t going to develop that specific application. As it usually happens the scope was being changed as we discussed different aspects of planned work. We were adding (more often) or cutting off (less often) features. We were building a coarse-grained architecture as we discussed non-functional requirements. At the end of the day we had a whiteboard full of stories which were a starting point for development.

    3. Tasks
    Since user stories were rather big we were splitting them to smaller pieces – development tasks. This was changing view from feature-wise to code-wise. Development tasks were intended as small pieces of work (possibly not bigger than 16-hour long) which were a complete wholes from a developer’s point of view. Ideally a single user story should have several tasks connected to it and single development task should be connected with only one user story or non-functional requirement. It wasn’t a strict rule however and sometimes we had many-to-many relation since specific changes in architecture (single development task) were affecting many usage scenarios (many user stories). Development tasks should make as much sense as possible for developers so they were defined by developers themselves and by those who were going to do the job. Tasks were stored in a system which was used company-wide.

    4. Estimation
    At the very beginning we had no strict deadlines but we were estimating anyway. There were two goals: learn to estimate better when there aren’t huge consequences for being wrong and getting into a habit of estimating all of planned work. Our estimates were done against developer tasks, not user stories. The main reason why we went this way was that tasks were smaller so estimates naturally were better than they would be if we did them against user stories. A specific, pretty non-agile, thing we were doing with estimation was a rule of estimating each task by a developer who would be doing it. More on this in one of future posts.

    5. Measuring progress and work done
    Current progress could be verified by checking actual state of tasks connected with a specific app. Nothing fancy here. The thing which was important here was writing down how much time it took to complete the task. When completed each task had two values – estimated time needed to complete the task and time it really took to do it. At the end of the day we knew how much our estimates were flawed. The important thing here was official announcement that no one is going to be punished in any way for poor estimates.

    That was pretty much all. No stand-ups since we were all sitting in one room and we discussed issues and work progress whenever someone felt like it. No Scrum Master since, well, we weren’t doing sprints and within specific project things were rather self-organized. A kind of Product Owner emerged, impersonated by me, as we needed a connector between constantly changing business environment and the team working on different projects. You could say we needed one to bring some chaos to our work which would be equally true.

    We were going to build a few small projects that way. At the same time we were prepared to improve the way we create our software as soon as notice flaws and find a way to fix them.

    Keep an eye on the whole Kanban Story.