Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

its_in_the_feature_acceptance_criteria [2018/11/29 09:08]
hpsamios created
its_in_the_feature_acceptance_criteria [2018/11/29 09:09] (current)
hpsamios
Line 12: Line 12:
   
 Many traditional organizations,​ has controlled work by specifying in detail plans of work. This is both: Many traditional organizations,​ has controlled work by specifying in detail plans of work. This is both:
- +
   - A natural result of human nature in that there is a human bias to like what look like concrete plans because we (ie people) don't like ambiguity or unknowns (known as the "​ambiguity effect"​).   - A natural result of human nature in that there is a human bias to like what look like concrete plans because we (ie people) don't like ambiguity or unknowns (known as the "​ambiguity effect"​).
   - The result of traditional managerial thinking where if the plan went wrong, there was something wrong with the plan and the normal reaction is to take more time to plan. This ignores the fact that in today'​s world no amount of planning would have allowed us to foresee everything. As someone once said "Plans are useful; planning indispensable"​.   - The result of traditional managerial thinking where if the plan went wrong, there was something wrong with the plan and the normal reaction is to take more time to plan. This ignores the fact that in today'​s world no amount of planning would have allowed us to foresee everything. As someone once said "Plans are useful; planning indispensable"​.
Line 21: Line 21:
  
 A fixed scope mindset results in a number of issues for an organization but they can be summarized as follows: A fixed scope mindset results in a number of issues for an organization but they can be summarized as follows:
- +
   * The organization is unable to produce better business outcomes by taking advantage of new knowledge as they do the work, or as the business context changes. The result in sub-optimal business outcomes.   * The organization is unable to produce better business outcomes by taking advantage of new knowledge as they do the work, or as the business context changes. The result in sub-optimal business outcomes.
   * By stressing the scope, there is no incentive to stop work. If we truly believe that value delivery responds to the pareto principle where 20% of the effort delivers 80% of the value, this is a significant waste of capacity - do 80% of the effort to produce the last (and lowest) 20% of the value? Even if it takes 50% of the effort to deliver 80% (because we learn as we go what is valuable) this is significant waste of capacity. This process of evaluating this trade-off is often called [[how_does_the_agile_approach_allow_us_to_deliver_early|"​trimming the tail"​]].   * By stressing the scope, there is no incentive to stop work. If we truly believe that value delivery responds to the pareto principle where 20% of the effort delivers 80% of the value, this is a significant waste of capacity - do 80% of the effort to produce the last (and lowest) 20% of the value? Even if it takes 50% of the effort to deliver 80% (because we learn as we go what is valuable) this is significant waste of capacity. This process of evaluating this trade-off is often called [[how_does_the_agile_approach_allow_us_to_deliver_early|"​trimming the tail"​]].
   * By stressing the scope, you do not encourage your knowledge workers to experiment, take risks, and learn. Since the outcome is pre-specified there is no upside for the individual to try something.   * By stressing the scope, you do not encourage your knowledge workers to experiment, take risks, and learn. Since the outcome is pre-specified there is no upside for the individual to try something.
- +
 The result that your organization will be the opposite of "a learning organization optimized to deliver highest priority business value fastest."​ Given this is often one of the main agile transformation,​ this does not bode well. The result that your organization will be the opposite of "a learning organization optimized to deliver highest priority business value fastest."​ Given this is often one of the main agile transformation,​ this does not bode well.
  
Line 38: Line 38:
  
 In general there are a lot of ways this surfaces in an organization:​ In general there are a lot of ways this surfaces in an organization:​
- +
   * Very detailed, almost task oriented epic / feature description and acceptance criteria. Many people use the agile constructs to create new (slightly slimmer) versions of the new scope document. ​   * Very detailed, almost task oriented epic / feature description and acceptance criteria. Many people use the agile constructs to create new (slightly slimmer) versions of the new scope document. ​
   * Exclusively asking "Does this work meet the acceptance criteria?"​ or "Does this work meet the description?"​ Note this is not a bad question to ask but it should not be the only question. But be careful, this question leads to "​check-box"​ type thinking where people don't take advantage of what they have learned and don't do an evaluation based on business priorities.   * Exclusively asking "Does this work meet the acceptance criteria?"​ or "Does this work meet the description?"​ Note this is not a bad question to ask but it should not be the only question. But be careful, this question leads to "​check-box"​ type thinking where people don't take advantage of what they have learned and don't do an evaluation based on business priorities.
  • /home/hpsamios/hanssamios.com/dokuwiki/data/pages/its_in_the_feature_acceptance_criteria.txt
  • Last modified: 2018/11/29 09:09
  • by hpsamios