| You're supposed to use your velocity to figure out how many story points you can reasonably complete in a Sprint. But if the velocity is padded (by adding invisible capacity... extra hours unaccounted for in the velocity calculation) then you end up with unrealistic expectations. If your velocity is correct you should end up with 100% completion and your employees having a work life balance. But I rarely see that. If a developer finishes all their tickets they should help out other developers. And if by some stretch you overestimate... which I think may be a worlds first for software ;)... you're supposed to grab the next highest priority ticket from the backlog. But I've also seen an approach where the sprint purposely has more than the velocity in it as kind of a "stretch goal" but everyone on the team knows anything bellow the velocity line is unlikely to get done. I've also seem places where the stretch goal becomes the goal the client is told will be completed... those places are toxic, if you find yourself working at one, run. Edit: If you are 100% complete on your first Sprint then yes, you probably incorrectly planned capacity. It takes 3 sprints to get a velocity. But once you have a velocity, it should be pretty stable. Edit 2: This is why you prioritize your whole backlog, not just the current sprint. For the chance you end up with 100% completion. No use scheduling > 100%. IMO that just lends to the problem I mentioned of the stretch goal becoming the real goal. |
So then the idea is - well, "fix" the other unplanned work by adding more process to those other groups...
BUT then overall the business changes anyway.
conclusion - the point of all this is:
1 - we create an illusory sense of control so the business can feel good about it 2 - so at least we don't have to be overwhelmed by an infinite todo list and can end each day with some sense of work/life balance