Timeline for Scrum and swarming non-parallelizable tasks
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 5, 2017 at 14:18 | vote | accept | Ukko | ||
| Jun 15, 2016 at 15:16 | comment | added | Ukko | @BartvanIngenSchenau mentioning the PO rings a bell. That is one thing that is not well defined here. We don't have a good PO role in the organization, there is a group of BAs that play the role of POs but they are not the real POs. In this case the BA is getting lots of pressure from management on this specific functionality, and she was kind of afraid to have us touch a "low priority" story. | |
| Jun 15, 2016 at 6:52 | comment | added | Bart van Ingen Schenau | @Ukko: The official Scrum way to deal with that problem is to talk with the PO if they are willing to re-prioritize some work to get the complete backlog done sooner. I still have to meet a PO who isn't willing to work with the team in such a way. | |
| Jun 14, 2016 at 20:13 | comment | added | Telastyn | @Ukko - priorities are priorities, not a queue. | |
| Jun 14, 2016 at 20:11 | comment | added | Ukko | I will totally point out Individuals and interactions over processes and tools. I am totally in favor of pulling in work, but that is very frowned on, again because we are going against the PO's priorities. The funny thing is that seems to be a theme that is coming up as I describe this. | |
| Jun 14, 2016 at 17:31 | history | answered | Telastyn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |