<div dir="ltr"><div>Good stuff David. One note is that there are likely to be small stories mixed into the bottom layers of the iceberg. It won't all be epics and sagas down there. (At least, it hasn't been for projects I have on). <br><br></div>Joel: I'm struggling to understand how "hierarchical" would work in the real world. Since you, JamesF, and I all like the heterogeneous model, is it worth even keeping hierarchical around? If so, can you explain it more fully? I would hate for a project to artificially combine stories into an epic, merely to obey a rule that all work must be contained within an epic. <br><br> <br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><span><font color="#888888"><br>Kevin Smith<br>Agile Coach<br>Wikimedia Foundation<br><br></font></span><br><font><font><i><font color="#888888">Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. Help us make it a reality.<br></font></i></font></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 12:27 PM, David Strine <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dstrine@wikimedia.org" target="_blank">dstrine@wikimedia.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I haven't heard these terms before but I understand the need for #2.<div><br></div><div>I'm a huge fan of <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Agile-Estimating-Planning-Mike-Cohn/dp/0131479415" target="_blank">Agile Estimation and Planning</a> </i>by Mike Cohn and I'll reference it for my response. </div><div><br></div><div>RE #1</div><div>The way I understand backlogs in Scrum, epics and stories for an "iceberg" in the same backlog. </div><div><img src="cid:ii_14e0d35ea015de69" alt="Inline image 1" style="margin-right:0px" height="197" width="305"> </div><div>If you have a story large enough to be called an epic, it inherently won't fit into a sprint. It needs to be broken down. Also, Scrum and agile still require a team to do some planning to achieve the iceberg shape. </div><div><br></div><div>Over several sprints, the team works down through the backlog. Epics start getting closer to the top. One of my instructors, Ken Rubin has a rule for this. If an epic appears within 3 or 4 sprints of the top of the backlog, the team must consider breaking it down or re-prioritize it lower.</div><div><br></div><div>IMO problems like #1 crop up when you use a virtual backlog and scrum board. Anne and I are trying some tests on the FR-tech backlog to produce the iceberg:</div><div><a href="https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/fundraising-backlog/" target="_blank">https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/fundraising-backlog/</a><br></div><div>We have the first 3 sprints roughed out with goals. Then columns for quarterly goals beyond that. The Epics can't enter the first 3 sprints unless they are broken down. This exposed some features that needed to be addressed immediately. </div><div><br></div><div>RE #2 </div><div><i>Agile Estimation and Planning</i> uses the term "split". I like using the term "breakdown". I've also heard "decompose". I think people would understand your terms just fine. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>On the meta idea of SP costing: </div><div>The general assumption is that the new smaller stories are re-costed after the epic is split or changed. In your exploding example, there really isn't an epic left. There should just be smaller stores and they should all have their own costs. Again I think this is a tool problem. The epic just happens to exist after the new tasks are created. In a real world paper board, the epic would be crumpled up in a trashcan while the smaller stories remain in the backlog. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Joel Aufrecht <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jaufrecht@wikimedia.org" target="_blank">jaufrecht@wikimedia.org</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>Hi,<br><br>Here are four very idiosyncratic terms that I came up with while discussing Epics and Backlogs with Kevin. I found them very helpful but I'm sure there are existing, more common names for these out there. A quick googling didn't reveal anything exactly relevant and before I invested more time in looking for standard terminology I thought I'd ask here.<br><br>1) Heterogeneous vs hierarchical product backlogs<br></div><div><br>A <span>hierarchical</span>
product backlog is one with a stack-ranked list of stories and also a stack-ranked list of Epics (and maybe a stack-ranked list of Sagas or Themes or Features as well). In this backlog, each Story is part of an Epic.<br><br>A heterogeneous product backlog is one stack-ranked list comprising a mix of Stories and Epics, each completely independent.<br><br></div><div>A homogeneous product backlog is one stack-ranked list of Stories, which is what vanilla Scrum starts with, but in practice this is rarely adequate for a project of any size. It is, however, best practice for a _sprint_ backlog.<br><br></div><div>2) Shaving vs Exploding Epics<br></div>To shave an epic is to identify a Story within the scope of work of an Epic, create that as an independent Story, and then rewrite the Epic to exclude that scope. To explode an Epic is to move the entire scope of work into a series of Stories and then close the Epic. Both of these methods are appropriate in a heterogeneous product backlog, where they prevent double-counting scope. In a hierarchical backlog, the scope of work of the original Epic must be preserved, so the equivalent to shave is "partial work breakdown to the story level" and to explode, "full work breakdown to the story level".<br><br></div>Thoughts? What terms have you seen for these concepts?<span><font color="#888888"><br clear="all"><br><div><div><div><div><div><div dir="ltr"><font color="#888888"><div><b>Joel Aufrecht<br></b></div><div>Team Practices Group<b><br></b></div><div>Wikimedia Foundation<br></div></font></div></div></div>
</div></div></div></font></span></div>
<br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
teampractices mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:teampractices@lists.wikimedia.org" target="_blank">teampractices@lists.wikimedia.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
teampractices mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:teampractices@lists.wikimedia.org">teampractices@lists.wikimedia.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>