Terminating or Reprioritizing Iterations in OpenUP/Basic [message #567678] |
Tue, 07 November 2006 22:11 |
Jim Ruehlin Messages: 73 Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
What should OpenUP recommend when an iteration is not likely to deliver
some incremental functionality? For instance, if the team falls too far
behind, a serious problem arises, or management demands an immediate
change in focus (implement different requirements than those chosen for
the iteration)?
We currently recommend re-prioritizing and adjusting the scope of the
current iteration (Task: Manage Iteration). One issue I can think of
with this is that it's not Scrum-like, which isn't an awful thing but
it's inconsistent with other areas of our PM discipline that draw from
Scrum. Reprioritization also won't necessarily lead to the delivery of
stable incremental functionality as the items in the current iteration
are already considered the top priority.
The current OpenUP review that's focusing on consistency recommends
changing this guidance and terminating the iteration instead. Then the
reprioritization and concurrance would occur as part of the new
iteration. This may have the advantage of starting an iteration with a
clean slate rather than trying to save an iteration that's doomed.
Another option is to suggest both as possible alternatives but endorse
one of those solutions. Then we need to ask ourselves if a team using
the process out-of-the-box has the experience to make the right choice.
Does anyone feel strongly about this, or have another alternative?
Jim Ruehlin
jruehlin@us.ibm.com
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02712 seconds