Skip to main content

Story Kick-offs Vs Iteration Planning Meetings

In one of my recent projects we tried a new technique of brainstorming a story which we called 'Story Kick-offs'. Story Kick-offs were mainly about discussing the stories to be played within an iteration in more detail. All members of the team; Devs, Testers, UX, PM, IM, BAs would participate in this meeting. Typically, the BA responsible for a story would walk the team through the details of the story and then questions from the team would be addressed. Depending on the team size and number of parallel streams that could be in play, typically, 2 or 3 stories would be discussed during this meeting. We would have atleast 3-4 Story Kick-off meetings per iteration to cover-up all stories within the iteration. The Testers would already have some knowledge of the stories being discussed, since they would have reviewed the stories before they were sent for customer sign-off and ideally have already written test scenarios for the stories to be discussed. After our first story kick-off meeting, we saw a major difference in the way the story was delivered. Here are some observations which i am listing below
  • Since all team members were part of this exercise, everyone had context of the story in play. There were multiple people within the team who could answer questions around the story.
  • Even the lamest of questions were answered and nothing was left in doubt during the story kick-off meeting
  • Devs were able to provide a better estimate after having spent some time breaking the story into tasks, given they have a better understanding of what needs to be developed
  • The testers test scenarios would be discussed too, in-order to cover any unambiguous or hidden scenarios
  • The Usability experts would have inputs on certain usability aspects too which would lead to further discussions
  • IMs, PMs too get a good understanding of the story in play, so that it adds to their understanding of the application from a big picture.
This, compared to IPMs were much more beneficial to us as a team. During IPMs, it is difficult to go into too much detail for a story, assuming that there would be quite a few stories to be covered in a given amount of time.

Having said this, IPMs were indeed done with the Clients in-order for them to understand what all will be delivered in an iteration and also what were the showcase scenarios that would be done during the Iteration showcase.

It is possible that the style of IPMs done in my organization is different from what other organizations do, so i wouldn't completely discount them off here. Story Kick-offs have worked really well for us and hence we decided to go this way.

    Comments

    Post a Comment

    Popular posts from this blog

    Build quality in early and often

    One of the most important aspects of building good software is to encourage the concept of build, measure and learn. For companies to be able to innovate and be quick to market they must encourage a good engineering culture that sets up teams for success. In an ideal world, you should deliver to production daily. However, if you deliver software fast, but it is full of bugs, your product has a lower chance of succeeding. As an agile tester, one of your focus points has to be to speed up the feedback loop while maintaining good quality. Over the years I have laid across a few good practices that make teams build the product right and also build the right product. Engage Test Engineers as early as possible in the development cycle Test Engineers are often treated as the last stand against finding problems before release, yet like all software activity; their focus is affected by the information available to them. In order to better understand the risk associated with changes an
    Post a Comment
    Read more

    Can projects do without Business Analysts?

    My  last 2 gigs were a bit different to the usual ones from a team composition point of view. The bit that was different was that there weren't any Business Analysts on the team. My initial concerns were who would gather requirements? Who would analyse stories? Who would negotiate scope with the business? Who would be involved in Scope Management? Who would be our proxy customer? The above questions got me concerned, but it wasn't as bad as i thought it to be. The customer was co-located with the team and we had easy access to validate our understanding on business rules, scope, sign-offs etc. Our team composed of an IM, Devs and Testers. The IM was managing scope with the customer and getting the priorities. The team would then sit with the business to understand what the requirements were and we would create Epics and then further break them down into smaller chunks of workable stories. A thing to note here is that all roles would put their BA hat on and identify gaps if
    Post a Comment
    Read more

    BDD is over-rated

    Over the past few years, I have tried to justify the use of a BDD (Behavioral Driven Development)  framework to express my tests, but not once have been able to say BDD has helped me address a  problem which writing tests the non BDD way would not have addressed. I do understand the value BDD brings to the table, but in most projects that I have implemented BDD on, we have tried to provide a solution (BDD) to a problem that does not exist. Let me try and explain. Lets look at the key benefits of expressing tests the BDD way (There could be more) Collaboration between Business and Development Ubiquitous Domain Language Focus on the behavior of the application Now, more often than not unless your business is co-located with the team, collaboration is not the easiest. The value BDD brings here, is the business validating our understanding by reading our tests expressed in the Given When Then format (BDD) and providing feedback, as BDD expresses the behavior of the system in a l
    1 comment
    Read more