Skip to main content

Driven by priority - practical tips

Agile processes are designed to support changing activities when the business environment changes. This after all is the natural understanding of the word agile - the ability to change direction quickly. What this means in practice is the tasks in plans - backlog items in a release say - have to be prioritised and changed when priorities change. This has always been a feature of xProcess, but in the very earliest releases the priorities list was a single list. We soon found when we had up to 1000 stories, features requests and defects to prioritise against each other it was an almost impossible task to get your brain round it all. This led to the current model in the product where groups of tasks can be defined and prioritised relative to one another, and then the groups themselves can be given a "weight" relative to other groups so that the overall priority list can be derived. This allowed us for example to prioritize bugs relative to one another and then decide on the balance between bug-fixing and new features in any given release. It made the whole process much more manageable.

The screen shot below shows a single "Priority Group" being prioritised, either by dragging and dropping tasks or by giving them a priority number.


Recently a user of the xProcess "Basic Scrum" process raised the issue that the relative priorities of user stories get lost if stories are moved from one Sprint to another (for example if they are incomplete at the end of the Sprint). Here's my reply:

xProcess has a very flexible mechanism for defining priorities using "Priority Groups" which allows any Folder or Parent Task which has been "prioritised" to support ordering of tasks within it. Each Priority Group can be given a "weight" so that all the priorities can be combined into the ordered list that the scheduler uses. As with many of the very flexible mechanisms in the product, when you actually tailor the product for a given process (Basic Scrum in this case), you have to make some decisions about the normal way to use the features.

Basic Scrum defines Sprints as prioritised Parent Tasks with diminishing weight (later Sprints therefore have lower weight and are scheduled after the earlier ones). As you've observed when you move a task from one Sprint to the next the priorities they had in the previous Sprint gets lost. So if this is a normal part of your process - I can understand why it could be - why not define another prioritised group (say a Folder called Release Backlog) where you can give your stories a longer lasting relative priority. The weight for this group does not need to be high because it will just be the "tie-breaker" when stories have the same priority in Sprint. I think this should achieve what your aiming for.
There are many different way to use Priority Groups, some of which have been incorporated into the standard processes released with xProcess. For example the Simple Process has the facility to add "High", "Medium" and "Low" categories to the project so that just by categorising tasks they get prioritised appropriately.
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Does your Definition of Done allow known defects?

Is it just me or do you also find it odd that some teams have clauses like this in their definition of done (DoD)?
... the Story will contain defects of level 3 severity or less only ... Of course they don't mean you have to put minor bugs in your code - that really would be mad - but it does mean you can sign the Story off as "Done"if the bugs you discover in it are only minor (like spelling mistakes, graphical misalignment, faults with easy workarounds, etc.). I saw DoDs like this some time ago and was seriously puzzled by the madness of it. I was reminded of it again at a meet-up discussion recently - it's clearly a practice that's not uncommon.

Let's look at the consequences of this policy. 

Potentially for every User Story that is signed off as "Done" there could be several additional Defect Stories (of low priority) that will be created. It's possible that finishing a Story (with no additional user requirements) will result in an increase in…

"Plan of Intent" and "Plan of Record"

Ron Lichty is well known in the Software Engineering community on the West Coast as a practitioner, as a seasoned project manager of many successful ventures and in a number of SIGs and conferences in which he is active. In spite of knowing Ron by correspondence over a long period of time it was only at JavaOne this year that we finally got together and I'm very glad we did.

Ron wrote to me after our meeting:

I told a number of people later at JavaOne, and even later that evening at the Software Engineering Management SIG, about xProcess. It really looks good. A question came up: It's a common technique in large organizations to keep a "Plan of Intent" and a "Plan of Record" - to have two project plans, one for the business partners and boss, one you actually execute to. Any support for that in xProcess?

Good question! Here's my reply...

There is support in xProcess for an arbitrary number of target levels through what we call (in the process definitions) P…

Understanding Cost of Delay and its Use in Kanban

Cost of Delay (CoD) is a vital concept to understand in product development. It should be a guide to the ordering of work items, even if - as is often the case - estimating it quantitatively may be difficult or even impossible. Analysing Cost of Delay (even if done qualitatively) is important because it focuses on the business value of work items and how that value changes over time. An understanding of Cost of Delay is essential if you want to maximise the flow of value to your customers.

Don Reinertsen in his book Flow [1] has shown that, if you want to deliver the maximum business value with a given size team, you give the highest priority, not to the most valuable work items in your "pool of ideas," not even to the most urgent items (those whose business value decays at the fastest rate), nor to your smallest items. Rather you should prioritise those items with the highest value of urgency (or CoD) divided by the time taken to implement them. Reinertsen called this appro…