Comments on: Agile antipattern: Taking on large stories

By: Bob Hartman

Bob Hartman — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 23:12:24 +0000

Eric, good point and I agree on burning anything that equates to more than 4-5 days. In my experience it has been VERY rare (actually I can’t think of a single team where this has been true, but I’m assuming I just don’t remember it) for a team to have a size 13 that corresponds to 5 days or less of work. Great catch – thanks!

- Bob -

By: Eric Fer

Eric Fer — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 21:55:01 +0000

Very good point.
I just have a different thought about the final suggestion: instead of ‘burning’ card number 13 and higher, we could ‘burn’ cards which represent an effort of more than 4 or 5 days of work.
The reason: points vary from a team to another, so ’13′ is not necessarily high number.

Congrats for the post

By: Agile antipattern: Another burndown chart that lies!

Agile antipattern: Another burndown chart that lies! — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:32:39 +0000

[...] amount of work. Do you ever see teams really do that? It certainly could be a symptom of allowing large stories and they just got completed that day. But I’m not buying it. When I see a chart like this [...]

By: Jon Kern

Jon Kern — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:18:06 +0000

Large stories are also a challenge because I tend to find the estimates get less and less accurate the larger the story. I have some actual feature charts from a project posted at the bottom of the page here, and it would seem to corroborate your quest for more granular story completion rates

By: Tweets that mention Agile antipattern: Taking on large stories -- Topsy.com

Tweets that mention Agile antipattern: Taking on large stories -- Topsy.com — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 21:26:56 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bob Hartman, Andy Hall. Andy Hall said: RT @AgileForAll: I posted a new #agile blog entry: Agile antipattern: Taking on large stories http://bit.ly/4XsfJc #fb [...]