Comments on: Some of the problems I see in Agile Methods – Part 1 http://blog.hexacta.com/some-of-the-problems-i-see-in-agile-methods-%e2%80%93-part-1/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=some-of-the-problems-i-see-in-agile-methods-%25e2%2580%2593-part-1 Sat, 25 Jun 2011 03:11:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Juan Gabardini http://blog.hexacta.com/some-of-the-problems-i-see-in-agile-methods-%e2%80%93-part-1/#comment-19 Juan Gabardini Thu, 20 May 2010 14:54:23 +0000 http://blog.hexacta.com/?p=241#comment-19 Hi Santiago! As have being said, there are good reason to make a big effort to make it "potentially shippable". Let me change the angle: agility is based in common sense. There is no 'Agility police'. You will not fail the next appraisal ;) Bottom line: if it seem reasonable to the team, just do it. (regardless of what authority say: book, authors, gurus) Hi Santiago!
As have being said, there are good reason to make a big effort to make it “potentially shippable”.
Let me change the angle: agility is based in common sense. There is no ‘Agility police’. You will not fail the next appraisal ;)
Bottom line: if it seem reasonable to the team, just do it. (regardless of what authority say: book, authors, gurus)

]]> By: Tomás Pollak http://blog.hexacta.com/some-of-the-problems-i-see-in-agile-methods-%e2%80%93-part-1/#comment-18 Tomás Pollak Sat, 28 Nov 2009 01:52:47 +0000 http://blog.hexacta.com/?p=241#comment-18 One interpretation I make about producing a "potentially shippable product" on every sprint is that the product should reach a state at the end of every sprint that at least gives the product owner the chance to make the call. If you take that away from the product owner, some new dysfunctions may present themselves. I agree that most often than not it will not make sense to ship the product, but there are many "potentially enjoyable benefits" as well. For example: 1. To lower the anxiety of the sponsors by showing them the progress and have them keep funding the project. 2. To give a periodic sense of fulfillment to the dev team. 3. To have a product always ready for a demo if you have to make a sale. and last but not least: To actually ship it. One interpretation I make about producing a “potentially shippable product” on every sprint is that the product should reach a state at the end of every sprint that at least gives the product owner the chance to make the call. If you take that away from the product owner, some new dysfunctions may present themselves.

I agree that most often than not it will not make sense to ship the product, but there are many “potentially enjoyable benefits” as well. For example:
1. To lower the anxiety of the sponsors by showing them the progress and have them keep funding the project.
2. To give a periodic sense of fulfillment to the dev team.
3. To have a product always ready for a demo if you have to make a sale.
and last but not least: To actually ship it.

]]> By: Leonardo http://blog.hexacta.com/some-of-the-problems-i-see-in-agile-methods-%e2%80%93-part-1/#comment-17 Leonardo Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:08:12 +0000 http://blog.hexacta.com/?p=241#comment-17 I really tend to think this shippable requirement is very good to focus the developers on closer product releases, focusing on the sprint functionality and testing it. Sometimes as you said, looks pretty complex to create a shippable product, but I will even consider working unit testing over some "non" visual functionality to be a modest shippable product just because it works as expected. Leo! I really tend to think this shippable requirement is very good to focus the developers on closer product releases, focusing on the sprint functionality and testing it.

Sometimes as you said, looks pretty complex to create a shippable product, but I will even consider working unit testing over some “non” visual functionality to be a modest shippable product just because it works as expected.

Leo!

]]> By: Mark Schwartz http://blog.hexacta.com/some-of-the-problems-i-see-in-agile-methods-%e2%80%93-part-1/#comment-16 Mark Schwartz Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:22:22 +0000 http://blog.hexacta.com/?p=241#comment-16 Yes, I've chosen to interpret the word "potentially" in the way that fits with my own opinions :-) Just because something is "potentially" shippable doesn't mean that it would be rational for the product owner to "ship" it. I think "potentially" means that the stories in the sprint have been completed and tested - the emphasis behind "potentially shippable", I think, is that stories get "done-done-done" and that they were well-defined in the first place as bits of value-added functionality. If you have an area of functionality that will require a bunch of stories and several sprints to complete, then it is "potentially" shippable each sprint if the stories in it are done and don't throw errors and don't leave the database in a funny state, etc. Even though it is "potentially" shippable, a rational product owner won't *choose* to ship it, because the meaningful group of functions hasn't been completed yet. That's how I choose to interpret it ...but maybe someone should ask Ken Schwaber what he really means :-) Yes, I’ve chosen to interpret the word “potentially” in the way that fits with my own opinions :-)

Just because something is “potentially” shippable doesn’t mean that it would be rational for the product owner to “ship” it. I think “potentially” means that the stories in the sprint have been completed and tested – the emphasis behind “potentially shippable”, I think, is that stories get “done-done-done” and that they were well-defined in the first place as bits of value-added functionality.

If you have an area of functionality that will require a bunch of stories and several sprints to complete, then it is “potentially” shippable each sprint if the stories in it are done and don’t throw errors and don’t leave the database in a funny state, etc. Even though it is “potentially” shippable, a rational product owner won’t *choose* to ship it, because the meaningful group of functions hasn’t been completed yet.

That’s how I choose to interpret it …but maybe someone should ask Ken Schwaber what he really means :-)

]]>