Skip to main content

Definition of Ready

Ready for what?

Ready to be picked up by the delivery team and added to a Timebox/Sprint backlog.

NOT:

Defined to the nth degree of detail so that no further discussion is required.

Definition of Ready:

Like the DoD, the DoR is defined by the team and should be updated whenever it seems appropriate e.g if there's a big change in the team or the work; or the team simply sees the need for a change.
Being agreed and enforced by the team means that it should, hopefully, mean an end to the common moaning in retrospectives that 'the story was crap'.

As the team gets used to only selecting 'ready' stories it focuses grooming/refinement sessions to ensure that the top priorities are in the best possible state.

The business/product owner will also very quickly understand the need for good prioritisation and quality stories. This is driven home the first time a team refuses to take a priority story into an iteration.

While there are a number of ways to start, many people are familiar with the INVEST principles for writing good user stories.

This stands for:

Independent, Negotiable, Valuable, Estimable, Small and Testable

DoR must, at the very least, address value, testable and estimable.

What might a basic DoR look like?

A story:
  • must have a defined business value (whether relative - points - or absolute - financial)
  • must be testable (by the owner at least, but also by the delivery team)
  • must be estimable (if it's too big to estimate, break it down. If we don't know enough to estimate, discuss it further and add details.)
  • must be prioritised in the team backlog
  • must exist in the tool used to store the team's stories (Cards or electronic)
  • must have a defined owner willing to work with the team and sign it off




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The case for Project Management in Agile?

OK, I know how most of the Agile community feels about Project Managers: Process over People Meetings Documentation Urrgh... But however you name the role (Agile Delivery, Scrum Master, Project Manager) and whoever does it  - someone needs to help the team to: Plan Track Deliver Communicate Being a group of incredibly talented engineers does not give a team the right to ignore 3.5 of these. All too often, engineers want to dive in to designing and building great software, but see planning as a hassle, tracking as a waste of time (or an abuse of their rights), communication as an alien concept and delivery (the fun bit) as something that will be done when it's done. It may be popular to talk about being a 'self-organising team' and railing against any form of 'order' being imposed.  But why is that order being imposed?  Maybe it's to deal with the chaos that your s-o-t has failed to deal with so far. As organisations scale and the senior leadership gets further a...

Agile Armchair Generals

If you're an Agile practitioner of any sort you will understand what I mean by Armchair Generals (if not, it may be an idea to check if you are one..). Apropos of nothing an email arrives that questions the management of your project in terms of whether it is properly 'Agile'. Feedback is, of course, a great tool.  But it must always be understood within the context of the person providing it. So when the email lands questioning the type of contingency you've built into your project or the depth of analysis performed on your requirements set, ask yourself: 1. Has the questioner spotted something you and the team have missed? It happens.  That's why independent reviews can be helpful. 2. Has the questioner misunderstood something about your project?  If so, maybe your communications weren't quite clear enough or they've missed something - it happens, we're all busy. If the questioner has understood the topic correctly and is simply disagreeing ...

Project Team morale and how it is affected by YOUR leadership style.

If I asked what qualifies someone to lead an IT Project you might immediately think of literal qualifications; a degree, a PRINCE2 practitioner certificate, DSDM certification. You might think of the practical skills needed to achieve Project Management tasks; the ability to plan, management of RAID/CARDI items, stakeholder communication. All of these things are vital to managing a project, but as we're often reminded: Management ≠ Leadership And projects need leaders.   Why?  Because people need leaders.  Humans are pack orientated creatures and we are most comfortable within a structure that supports and guides us.  Within a project the same is true.  The 'doers' usually thrive within a supporting structure that takes care of their (professional) needs and protects them from attack.  Without Developers and Testers the rest of the project team is just a lot of expensive * flesh. In a mature and capable project team there is a certain joy to be ...