I'll ask a more complicated question. Does it matter? If you think your goals are being affected my other work, then it's probably worth testing. If not, then it might not be a productive use of your time.
We've had several conversations about tracking types of work. I believe it is more accurate and efficient to start with broad categories and slowly delve deeper. Also you need to strike a balance between tracking a lot of variables and not driving your team crazy with record keeping. Fr-tech is tracking unplanned work to start. We are 8 weeks in (4 sprints). We're only now getting patterns. In general, objective and empirical data should speak for itself. If you go into some investigation or analysis with a preconceived notions, then you need to try and disprove your idea (think null hypothesis). Otherwise you're running into selection and confirmation bias. On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Within the foundation, each team identifies one or a handful of quarterly > goals, which become the focus of the team. However, there is always going > to be important work that doesn't fit into a goal. Either there were > already too many goals in place, or there is one main goal but 10 ongoing > projects, or maybe this other work is too small to justify being a goal, > but too important to let slip. > > So the question I was asked was: How do other teams track these non-goal > important work items? Obviously the tasks themselves can be tracked in > phab, but do they get rolled up anywhere? How do teams ensure that they > continue to be worked on, despite not being one of the main goals? > > > Kevin Smith > Agile Coach, Wikimedia Foundation > > > _______________________________________________ > teampractices mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices > >
_______________________________________________ teampractices mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices
