In The Logical Thinking Process, H. William Dettmer talks about three different areas of systems:
- The Zone of control (or span of control) includes all those things in a system that we can change on our own.
- The Sphere of influence includes activities that we can impact to some degree, but can’t exercise full control over.
- The External environment includes the elements over which we have no influence.
These three system areas, and the boundaries between them, provide a very useful perspective on what a delivery team can hope to achieve with user stories. Evaluating which system area a user story falls into is an excellent way to quickly spot ideas that require significant refinement. Continue reading
TL;DR version: Modern technology and delivery approaches, in particular the push towards continuous delivery, enable us take the walking skeleton technique much further. By building up the UI first and delivering the back-end using continuous delivery, without interrupting or surprising users, we can cut the time to initial value delivery and validation by an order of magnitude! Continue reading
We’ve been working very hard over the last few months to make impact mapping easier and more effective with MindMup. Here are 6 ways we think it’s helping. I’d love to hear your ideas and comments on how we can make it even better.
It can be tempting to add a ton of scenarios and test cases to acceptance criteria for a story, and look at all possible variations for the sake of completeness. Teams who automate most of their acceptance testing frequently end up doing that. Although it might seem counter-intuitive, this is a sure way to destroy a good user story. Continue reading
This is an excerpt from my upcoming book 50 Quick Ideas to Improve your User Stories. If you want to try this idea in practice, I’ll be running a workshop on improving user stories at the Product Owner Survival Camp
Many teams get stuck by using previous stories as documentation. They assign test cases, design diagrams or specifications to stories in digital task tracking tools. Such tasks become a reference for future regression testing plans or impact analysis. The problem with this approach is that it is unsustainable for even moderately complex products.
A user story will often change several functional aspects of a software system, and the same functionality will be impacted by many stories over a longer period of time. One story might put some feature in, another story might modify it later or take it out completely. In order to understand the current situation, someone has to discover all relevant stories, put them in reverse chronological order, find out about any potential conflicts and changes, and then come up with a complete picture.
Designs, specifications and tests explain how a system works currently – not how it changes over time. Using previous stories as a reference is similar to looking at a history of credit card purchases instead of the current balance to find out how much money is available. It is an error-prone, time consuming and labour intensive way of getting important information. Continue reading