Re: Looking for Agile Experience

On 10/24/2013 3:49 PM, Matt Olson wrote:

With a lack of requirements how does one estimate the time and cost involved in such project?

Story points.

It turns out that story points are a very close analogue to function
points, even though 'point' means something different. Mostly,
so-called 'estimates' under the waterfall philosophy are useless. Any
chunk of work longer than a couple of hours is basically impossible to
estimate (in my estimation). So seeing 'Order Entry display - 4 days'
is a joke, and looking at how many waterfall projects go over estimate,
I'd say that objective evidence supports my opinion.

If, instead, the estimate were broken into smaller functions (validate
customer ID, check customer credit worthiness, pop up tickler window for
specials) the sum of the estimates plus an integration estimate brings
us much closer to a useful (ie can plan employee hours) figure. Note
that the functions look an awful lot like user stories.
--buck

-----Original Message-----
From: John Yeung
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:45 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Looking for Agile Experience

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Richard Schoen <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

There appear to be shades of Agile, so we've picked up the bits that
seemed to make sense such as requirements before coding

Well, "requirements before coding" is actually more strongly associated with the waterfall development style than the agile style.
You could definitely argue that it is part of agile, but the emphasis of agile is on adaptability and responsiveness; and as such the requirements are much more likely under agile to change quickly or be revisited.

Whenever I hear people in IT (particularly in companies whose core business is NOT their IT) talk about requirements before coding, it's in the context of having as close to iron-clad specs as possible for a whole project prior to doing any coding at all for that project. The specs are typically only revisited if it is discovered that they are unworkable (and the IT people working under this model typically blame the users for giving them bad specs or for asking to change the specs after the work starts). This model sounds much, much more like waterfall, and practically not at all like agile.

If by "requirements before coding" what you really mean is "let's understand something (which is preferably some small piece) well enough to be able to write tests for it first (and let's then go ahead and write those tests first) before we do coding (for the functionality being requested)" then, yes, absolutely, you are talking more agile-style than waterfall-style. But that's a lot of extra verbiage that you're implying/assuming. In my opinion, far too much to distill to a three-word buzzphrase.

John