|
|
|
|
|
by einrealist
4109 days ago
|
|
If you cannot estimate something, then you should do it in a timebox over and over again, until you are satisfied. If my project requires lots of research and prototyping, I still have valid and useful options in Scrum. For research, my team will have short sprints with timeboxed backlog items. The result of a research item can be a presentation of the discoveries and a vote / discussion on what to research next (sprint review). If my team's research isn't done within that timebox, the findings are presented anyway and the team / stakeholder may decide to simply file a new backlog item on the same topic for the next sprint. Or the incomplete result is a sign of complexity which can be split into many backlog items. Such items can be that the team decided to get external consultancy or a product presentation by a vendor. If the team has to mix research with prototyping, it could do two types of sprints: short research sprints as explained above and longer implementation sprints for the prototype that are based on the research results. For example, the team may require two, one week sprints for doing research and then a two week sprint for implementing or continuing a prototype. At the end of each sprint (sprint review) there is a decision on whether the next sprint will be a research or a prototyping one. So Scrum is still a valid method that enables a team to even steer research and prototyping efforts. This is where Scrum actually shines, because it gives you flexibility and transparency (!) in an uncertain environment. |
|
If you have different length research and implementation sprints, how would you estimate the amount of work (whether in story points or whatever else) that can be done in a given sprint? Is it a matter of making sure to compare "like to like"?