I’ve been having fun this week watching some conference talks about my current favourite language, Elm, at Elm Europe 2017. And I enjoyed seeing an important idea discussed—important not just … Continue reading Always build for real people’s real problems
Sometimes a piece of analysis work can be very open-ended, or at least there is a danger that it might go on too long. Examples I’ve come across are reviewing … Continue reading Hubbard’s powerful question: What decision do we want to support?
Last week I wrote about the value of stopping work to tackle tech debt, and more specifically when we might expect to recover from the temporary stoppage. In the ensuing … Continue reading The cost of delay of technical debt
One of the questions that arises with many teams I work with is: Is it worth spending an iteration (or more) not delivering any features but just working on our … Continue reading Should we stop to address technical debt…?
A colleague pointed me to a nice article by Sue Davis about writing for the public, and among the suggestions was the idea of timeboxing feedback: “If you don’t, the … Continue reading The benefits of timeboxing a solution
Most project teams I work with prioritise their work in a simple order: most important, second most important, etc. But sometimes people still use the MoSCoW method, and I find … Continue reading There’s trouble in MoSCoW
There are many ways to measure a plan’s quality. Some of these are: flexibility, how realistic it is, and the number of internal or external dependencies. But in the end … Continue reading Frequent delivery is the test of a plan’s quality