Originally posted by Lasse Koskela:
How exactly is your practice different from XP's planning game (where you also ask the customer to prioritize from a big pile of stories)?
Originally posted by Ilja Preuss:
What you are doing sounds a lot like Petition The King.
Originally posted by Ernest Friedman-Hill:
In the classic XP model, most of the significant stories are written at the beginning of the project, they're divided into "must have", "nice to have", "won't have" piles, and tentative iteration lists are built out of all the stories.
As the project goes on, new stories may be added, but their number is fewer than the original number, and you're driving towards a goal state in which the number of (must have/nice to have) stories goes to zero.
We deal with many customers separately, and there's no single customer voice. There's a kind of "tragedy of the commons" dynamic going on, in that everyone wants to consume all the resources themselves. As a result, it's up to us to evaluate the business value based on the relative importance of the different user groups to the company.
It's not utterly, completely different, but there's enough qualitative difference that we can't honestly call what we're doing "The Planning Game."
I was excited to learn about Scrum just because it's nice to have a name for what I think we're doing.
I've got no option but to sell you all for scientific experiments. Or a tiny ad:
global solutions you can do at home or in your backyardhttps://www.kickstarter.com/projects/paulwheaton/better-world-boo