Search Results

Search found 5335 results on 214 pages for 'agile processes'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 28/214 | < Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >

  • Project Management Techniques (high level)

    - by Sam J
    Our software dev team is currently using kanban for our development lifecycles, and, from the reasonably short experience of a few months, I think it's going quite well (certainly compared to a few months ago when we didn't really have a methodology). Our team, however, is directed to do work defined by project managers (not software project managers, just general business), and they're using the PMBOK methodology. Question is, how does a traditional methodology like PMBOK, Prince2 etc fit with a lean software development methodology like kanban or scrum? Is it just wasting everyone's time as all the requirements are effectively drawn up to start with (although inevitably changed along the way)?

    Read the article

  • Basic is Best

    - by Eric A. Stephens
    Fellow foodies will recognize the recent movement towards "farm-to-table" restaurants. These venues attempt to simplify their menus and source ingredients as close to the source as possible. I had the opportunity to dine at such a restaurant the other evening. I was gushing about the appetizer to my server when she described the preparation for the item and then punctuated her comments with "basic is best". I reminded my fellow enterprise architect diners there was an architecture lesson in that statement. They rolled their eyes and chuckled. But they also knew I was right. I'm reminded of Frederick Brooks' book The Mythical Man Month and his latest The Design of Design. The former must read book talks about complexity. But he refrains from damning all complexity. The world we live in and enterprises we strive to transform with enterprise architecture are complicated organisms, much like the human body. But sometimes a simple solution is the best approach. Fewer applications (think: portfolio rationalization). Fewer components. Fewer lines of code. Whatever level of abstraction you are working at, less is more. I'm reminded of the enterprise architecture principle "Control Technical Diversity". At one firm I created pithy catch phrases for each principles. I named this one "Less is More". But perhaps another variation is what my server said the other night, "Basic is Best".

    Read the article

  • How to approach scrum task burn down when tasks have multiple peoples involvement?

    - by AgileMan
    In my company, a single task can never be completed by one individual. There is going to be a separate person to QA and Code Review each task. What this means is that each individual will give their estimates, per task, as to how much time it will take to complete. The problem is, how should I approach burn down? If I aggregate the hours together, assume the following estimate: 10 hrs - Dev time 4 hrs - QA 4 hrs - Code Review. Task Estimate = 18hrs At the end of each day I ask that the task be updated with "how much time is left until it is done". However, each person generally just thinks about their part of it. Should they mark the effort remaining, and then ADD the effort estimates to that? How are you guys doing this? UPDATE To help clarify a few things, at my organization each Task within a story requires 3 people. Someone to develop the task. (do unit tests, ect...) A QA specialist to review task (they primarily do integration and regression tests) A Tech lead to do code review. I don't think there is a wrong way or a right way, but this is our way ... and that won't be changing. We work as a team to complete even the smallest level of a story whenever possible. You cannot actually test if something works until it is dev complete, and you cannot review the quality of the code either ... so the best you can do is split things up into small logical slices so that the bare minimum functionality can be tested and reviewed as early into the process as possible. My question to those that work this way would be how to burn down a "task" when they are setup this way. Unless a Task has it's own sub-tasks (which JIRA doesn't allow) ... I'm not sure the best way to accomplish tracking "what's left" on a daily basis.

    Read the article

  • How to make sprint planning fun

    - by Jacob Spire
    Not only are our sprint planning meetings not fun, they're downright dreadful. The meetings are tedious, and boring, and take forever (a day, but it feels like a lot longer). The developers complain about it, and dread upcoming plannings. Our routine is pretty standard (user story inserted into sprint backlog by priority story is taken apart to tasks tasks are estimated in hours repeat), and I can't figure out what we're doing wrong. How can we make the meetings more enjoyable? ... Some more details, in response to requests for more information: Why are the backlog items not inserted and prioritized before sprint kickoff? User stories are indeed prioritized; we have no idea how long they'll take until we break them down into tasks! From the (excellent) answers here, I see that maybe we shouldn't estimate tasks at all, only the user stories. The reason we estimate tasks (and not stories) is because we've been getting story-estimates terribly wrong -- but I guess that's the subject for an altogether different question. Why are developers complaining? Meetings are long. Meetings are monotonous. Story after story, task after task, struggling (yes, struggling) to estimate how long it will take and what it involves. Estimating tasks makes user-story-estimation seem pointless. The longer the meeting, the less focus in the room. The less focused colleagues are, the longer the meeting takes. A recursive hate-spiral develops. We've considered splitting the meeting into two days in order to keep people focused, but the developers wouldn't hear of it. One day of planning is bad enough; now we'll have two?! Part of our problem is that we go into very small detail (in order to get more accurate estimations). But when we estimate roughly, we go way off the mark! To sum up the question: What are we doing wrong? What additional ways are there to make the meeting generally more enjoyable?

    Read the article

  • Feature Driven Development in the work place?

    - by FXquincy
    Question Please explain Feature Driven Development in a nutshell? Situation My Business Analyst calls their documentation FDD, but it just seems overwhelmed by details. In a Nutshell An 'in a nutshell' example would be good, since I'm trying to reduce unnecessary detail and confusion. I want to add clarity, and an Occam's' razor approach to the documentation. Thanks for your help, Here's what I found

    Read the article

  • Are there references discussing the use parallel programming as a development methodology? [closed]

    - by ahsteele
    I work on a team which employs many of the extreme programming practices. We've gone to great lengths to utilize paired programming as much as possible. Unfortunately the practice sometimes breaks down and becomes ineffective. In looking for ways to tweak our process I came across two articles describing parallel pair programming: Parallel Pair Programming Death of paired programming. Its 2008 move on to parallel pairing While these are good resources I wanted to read a bit more on the topic. As you can imagine Googling for variations on parallel pair programming nets mostly results which relate to parallel programming. What I'm after is additional discussion on the topic of parallel pair programming. Do additional references exist that my Google-fu is unable to discern? Has anyone used the practice and care to share here (thus creating a reference)?

    Read the article

  • How do you track existing requirements over time?

    - by CaptainAwesomePants
    I'm a software engineer working on a complex, ongoing website. It has a lot of moving parts and a small team of UI designers and business folks adding new features and tweaking old ones. Over the last year or so, we've added hundreds of interesting little edge cases. Planning, implementing, and testing them is not a problem. The problem comes later, when we want to refactor or add another new feature. Nobody remembers half of the old features and edge cases from a year ago. When we want to add a new change, we notice that code does all sorts of things in there, and we're not entirely sure which things are intentional requirements and which are meaningless side effects. Did someone last year request that the login token was supposed to only be valid for 30 minutes, or did some programmers just pick a sensible default? Can we change it? Back when the product was first envisioned, we created some documentation describing how the site worked. Since then we created a few additional documents describing new features, but nobody ever goes back and updates those documents when new features are requested, so the only authoritative documentation is the code itself. But the code provides no justification, no reason for its actions: only the how, never the why. What do other long-running teams do to keep track of what the requirements were and why?

    Read the article

  • Planning Poker and wordy developers

    - by Pomario
    My team is composed of 4 developers; all seasoned and skilled. One of them is a wordy, well intended chap who insists on defining the technical solution to our stories before we put down our estimates with Planning Poker. He refuses to estimate if he doesn't have a rough idea of the agreed technical solution (which sounds reasonable, right?). The problem is that our estimating sessions are taking forever to finish!! In your experience, how do you deal with this kind of personality when playing the planning poker?

    Read the article

  • What happens between sprints?

    - by Steve Bennett
    I'm working on a project loosely following the scrum model. We're doing two week sprints. Something I'm not clear on (and don't have a book to consult) is exactly what is supposed to happen between sprints: there should be some "wrap" process, where the product gets built and delivered, but: how long does this typically take? should the whole team be involved? does it strictly have to finish before developers start working on the next sprint items? is this when code review and testing take place? There are three developers, adding up to about 1 FTE. So the sprints are indeed very short.

    Read the article

  • What to do when there are no logical user stories but separate development tasks?

    - by Alex. S.
    We need to generate a release in 3 weeks, and for the planning we are doing today we don't have coherent logical user stories from the backlog tasks. Is valid to match say each development task is equivalent to an user story? Methodologically what is the correct way of handling this?, because anyway we are going to have standup meetings and we are going to control the progress of the project against those development tasks. For example, we have things like: . Adapt ETL to process numeric lists . Adjust licensing component . Remove DTC and so on. So, for the planning poker and iteration planning is valid to use those tasks? if not, what is the alternative?

    Read the article

  • How to implement Scrum in a company with three similar web-based products

    - by user1909034
    I am somewhat familiar with the concepts and benefits of Scrum. With that in mind, I am trying to improve the failing Scrum product management structure of a company I'm now working for that has three separate B2C products, catering to the same demographic and accessible on the same website. Each product has a product owner and a unique development team (5 - 9 people in each) behind it. Given that the target audiences are similar (not sure if it should matter) and the 3 web products are similar in nature, what are the potential benefits/risks associated with merging the teams and having just one product owner/scrum master/dev team? Some questions that come to mind are: does it make sense to have 3 product owners and three distinct backlogs if your website has three distinct products? Also, if you only have one product owner, what is the best metric off which to choose who that will be?

    Read the article

  • How can my team avoid frequent errors after refactoring?

    - by SDD64
    to give you a little background: I work for a company with roughly twelve Ruby on Rails developers (+/- interns). Remote work is common. Our product is made out of two parts: a rather fat core, and thin up to big customer projects built upon it. Customer projects usually expand the core. Overwriting of key features does not happen. I might add that the core has some rather bad parts that are in urgent need of refactorings. There are specs, but mostly for the customer projects. The worst part of the core are untested (as it should be...). The developers are split into two teams, working with one or two PO for each sprint. Usually, one customer project is strictly associated with one of the teams and POs. Now our problem: Rather frequently, we break each others stuff. Some one from Team A expands or refactors the core feature Y, causing unexpected errors for one of Team B's customer projects. Mostly, the changes are not announced over the teams, so the bugs hit almost always unexpected. Team B, including the PO, thought about feature Y to be stable and did not test it before releasing, unaware of the changes. How to get rid of those problems? What kind of 'announcement technique' can you recommend me?

    Read the article

  • Why is there a 20 and not 21 in some versions of Planning Poker?

    - by SuffixTreeMonkey
    In Planning Poker, cards usually contain numbers of the Fibonacci sequence, which is 0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55 etc. However, you can see on the Wikipedia page (and this has been confirmed to me by people that work at several positions where Planning Poker is applied) in some editions the cards stray away from Fibonacci sequence after 13. They lower 21 to 20 and then continue with 40 and 100. Is there some rationale on why these values have been changed, specifically 21 to 20? (Also note that some other cards are added, such as ? and 1/2, but these are easier for me to understand, compared to the 21 - 20 shift.)

    Read the article

  • In a team practicing Domain Driven Design, should the whole team participate in Stakeholder meetings?

    - by thirdy
    In my experience, a Software Development Team that comprises: 1 Project Manager 1 Tech Lead 1 - 2 Senior Dev 2 - 3 Junior Dev (Fresh grad) Only the Tech Lead & PM (and/or Senor Dev/s) will participate in a meeting with Clients, Domain Experts, Client's technical resource. I can think of the ff potential pitfalls: Important info gets lost Human error (TL/PM might forgot to disseminate info due to pressure or plain human error) Non-verbal info (maybe a presentation using a diagram presented by Domain Expert) Maintaining Ubiquitous language is harder to build since not all team members get to hear the non-dev persons Potential of creative minds are not fully realized (Personally, I am more motivated to think/explore when I am involved with these important meetings) Advantages of this approach: Only one point of contact Less time spent on meetings? Honestly, I am biased & against this approach. I would like to hear your opinions. Is this how you do it in your team? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Native mobile app development - how do I structure my user stories?

    - by richsage
    I'm about to start on a project which will involve developing prototype native mobile apps (iOS and Android initially) as well as a web-based admin interface and an API for these apps to communicate with. We've got a list of stories already drafted up, however a lot of them are in the format: As a mobile user I want to be able to view a login screen so that I can sign into the app If this were targeted for a single platform, I wouldn't see a problem. However, since we're targeting multiple platforms, I'm not sure whether these should now be duplicated eg "As an Android user" or similar. This seems like duplication, but it's work that will need to be completed separately for each platform. This is the first mobile project we've gone native on - previously it was Phonegap and we lumped all stories in under "As a mobile user". Since essentially this was a web-based app wrapped in native code, this didn't present too much of an issue, but I'm conscious that wholly-native apps are a different ballgame!

    Read the article

  • Many user stories share the same technical tasks: what to do?

    - by d3prok
    A little introduction to my case: As part of a bigger product, my team is asked to realize a small IDE for a DSL. The user of this product will be able to make function calls in the code and we are also asked to provide some useful function libraries. The team, together with the PO, put on the wall a certain number of user stories regarding the various libraries for the IDE user. When estimating the first of those stories, the team decided that the function call mechanism would have been an engaging but not completely obvious task, so the estimate for that user story raised up from a simple 3 to a more dangerous 5. Coming to the problem: The team then moved to the user stories regarding the other libraries, actually 10 stories, and added those 2 points of "function call mechanism" thing to each of those user story. This immediately raised up the total points for the product of 20 points! Everyone in the team knows that each user story could be picked up by the PO for the next iteration at any time, so we shouldn't isolate that part in one user story, but those 20 points feel so awfully unrealistic! I've proposed a solution, but I'm absolutely not satisfied: We created a "Design story" and put those annoying 2 points over it. However when we came to realize and demonstrate it to our customers, we were unable to show something really valuable for them about that story! Here the problem is whether we should ignore the principle of having isolated user stories (without any dependency between them). What would you do, or even better what have you done, in situations like this? (a small foot-note: following a suggestion I've moved this question from stackoverflow)

    Read the article

  • What methods of requirements elicitation are suitable when I do not have direct access to the user base?

    - by metadice
    I am working on an application to create invoices. There are some features that are required based on the type of the application and are common to all invoice applications. However, we still need to determine what unique needs the user base might have. We do not have direct access to the users to obtain requirements or user stories. What techniques are most suitable for eliciting high-quality requirements from users when direct or frequent access is not possible?

    Read the article

  • Are there studies about the disadvantages of using issue tracking systems? [closed]

    - by user1062120
    I don't like issue tracking systems because: It takes too much time to describe issues in it. This discourage its usage. You create a place to keep your bugs. And if there is a place for them, people usually don't care too much about fixing a bug cause they can put it there so that someday someone can fix it (or not). With time, the bug lists gets so long that nobody can deal with it anymore, taking up a lot of our time. I prefer handling issues using post-its on a white board, face-to-face conversations and killing important bugs as soon as they appear. I don't care too much to keep track of bug history because I don't think that it is worth the overhead. Am I alone here? Are there studies (book/article/whatever) about the disadvantages (or great advantages) of using issue tracking systems?

    Read the article

  • Facing quality issues

    - by juststartedmycareer
    A workforce management software has complex GUI (for example values in a page depends on the status (closed or open) of other pages). Only latest and near past development has test coverage. During our last release, we received lots of bugs from customer in-spite of 2 weeks of testing Sprint . We don't have dedicated test team. The developers does the unit test & User acceptance test. Every day triggers automated regression test. I am afraid the developers are not testing the entire workflow because its time consuming also not able to automate it because of its complexity. Any suggestions ?. The legacy code (15 yrs development) has less code coverage. How can I improve quality ? Note: Now not possible to hire testers to have independent test team!!

    Read the article

  • Scrum in a consulting environment?

    - by Darla
    Is it possible to introduce scrum to a consulting environment? On any given week I might belong to 4 different teams, each with a different PM, BA and dev team (I am a designer). It doesn't seem feasible, time wise, to be able to be part of that many teams/projects as there would need to be daily stand-ups for each, sprint reviews, etc. I should add these projects are not necessarily software, but mainly ecommerce web projects. Can someone who has done this speak to how you approach it?

    Read the article

  • How/is data shared between fastCGI processes?

    - by Josh the Goods
    I've written a simple perl script that I'm running via fastCGI on Apache. The application loads a set of XML data files which are used to lookup values based upon the the query parameters of an incoming request. As I understand it, if I want to increase the amount of concurrent requests my application can handle I need to allow fastCGI to spawn multiple processes. Will each of these processes have to hold duplicate copies of the XML data in memory? Is there a way to set things up so that I can have one copy of the XML data loaded in memory while increasing the capacity to handle concurrent requests?

    Read the article

  • How to GetGuiResources for all system processes?

    - by Krzysztof
    Hello, I need to measure all used GDI objects in a Windows xp system. I found a GetGuiResources(__in HANDLE hProcess, __in DWORD uiFlags) method (with the GR_GDIOBJECTS flag). I call it for the process which I get from the method GetCurrentProcess() defined in WinBase.h. I don't know how to call it for other system processes, which I get by System::Diagnostics::Process::GetProcesses(), because that function returns an array of Process pointers, and GetGuiResources takes a HANDLE. Does anybody know a solution for that? How can I transform Process pointer to a Handle or get HANDLEs for all running system processes? thanks for help in advance!

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >