Відео

Glad it was helpful! Hope it helped.

Happy to help! Thanks for checking it out.

Thank you! Let me know if you still have questions.

Thanks Joe!

Thanks for the great question! There's no way to get the cycle time for any given item from a CFD. Jira does keep a history for each story and records when it changes state. So you could go through the history of specific stories and see when it started and when it was completed to find its particular cycle time. There is also a control chart report that will show you the cycle time for the team for all items and you can see what your outliers are. I don't think it will show you which specific items are associated with which cycle times, but I would have to investigate further. Thanks again. And good luck!

@@Artemisagile Thanks for nice explanation

Hi Jahzeel. We look at a few metrics for Scrumban teams: lead time, cycle time, and throughput. Lead time is the amount of time it takes from the time a work item enters the backlog until it's delivered (so backlog to done). Cycle time is the time from when work starts (it moves to In Progress) until it's delivered. And throughput is the number of items we can complete in a certain timebox (say 2 weeks). There are some other metrics we can view (like control charts) that plot those items over time so we can see how consistently we're delivering. We don't want a lot of variation but there are likely to be outliers that take much longer. I hope that helps!

@@Artemisagile it does! Thanks for your answer. By any chance, do you know if there are any available reports for those metrics in Jira Atlassian software?

Hi Zoran! If you're looking for forecasting, you'll typically look at the throughput (the number of items the team completed over the course of a timebox) or, if you're using story pointing because the work is different sizes, you can calculate a velocity over that period as well. That should give you a good representation of what the team can typically produce and, as we know in agile, past performance is a pretty good indicator of future performance. You should also be looking at cycle times and possibly looking at how long work items stay in individual states to see if there's waste you can eliminate (delays, hand-offs, etc.). That will help you continuously improve your team's performance. Hope that helps. Thanks for commenting!

That would be Release Planning which, for all intents and purposes, precedes Sprint Planning; that involves other higher order skills. One side note: Sprints are NOT about predicting, but rather about Adapting!!

You're very welcome! Glad you found it useful.

Hi Pierre-Gilles. Sorry for the delayed reply - I never got notified that you'd commented. I don't have it available anywhere right now. But if you're interested, I might just release it for general consumption. Let me know and I'll get it published to Apple App Store and Google Store.

And it's free of charge. It would be ridiculous to charge for it. :)

Great question. SAFe recognizes that teams may be working in ways other than Scrum (especially Kanban). They should still do the same kinds of things during PI Planning (such as creating PI Objectives). SAFe does expect that Scrumban and Kanban teams will still slot work into iterations during PI Planning even if the execution during the PI is going to be different. They'll still participate in the Train-level meetings (Scrum of Scrums, PO Sync, etc) and will demonstrate what they produced during the System Demo for the Train. It's a pretty poorly-understood idea within most SAFe implementations because most teams run Scrum or something similar. But we will need to describe the work we're doing/value we're delivering at every sprint boundary - the same as teams working in Scrum. While it's less ideal, one of the core values of SAFe is alignment which is achieved primarily through planning and execution cadences. The main article on doing Kanban (or Scrumban) at the team level is described in this article: www.scaledagileframework.com/team-kanban/ I hope that helps!

My personal experience is to use a two-week cadence for retrospectives. It seems to be a "Goldilocks timebox" for retrospectives. We still have to do it - it's the instantiation of principle #12 in the Agile Manifesto - and a regular cadence is a good practice. Scrumban has a lot of practical uses beyond R&D. I use it for almost everything I do. If you need to do discovery around work you're going to be doing soon, use spikes. If the discovery about things you're not going to work on soon, why are you doing it? We want to maximize "the amount of work NOT done" (principle #10), so we don't want to do discovery too far in advance. Hope that helps! If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to reach out to me - artemis@artemisagile.com!

Artemis Agile Consulting I agree with the two week cadence, one week week just means it's always rush hour and people get burned out.

The presentation was that long because it's more than just about how to do it, but also a case study of a team that underwent the transformation. Be cautious about fewer meetings as a metric; focusing on more effective or efficient use of time is a better one. Some teams need more meetings but they're shorter and more focused - and more effective as a result.

Thank you! Very happy you enjoyed it.

+Artemis Agile Consulting I'll need to watch it again and take some notes

After reviewing this, did you have any questions? Let me know if you need anything!

+Heidi Manning Typically we wouldn't look at velocity - that's typically used to calculate how much work a team has done/can do in a sprint (timebox). We don't normally use timeboxes in Scrumban (although you can - that's a little more involved), so we don't typically track velocity. We do track what's called "lead time" and "cycle time" which is the time required for the team to deliver work from when the work hits the backlog (lead time) or from when the team starts working on the item (cycle time) until it's delivered. I go a little more in-depth on that in my Transforming Teams to Kanban and Scrumban video. If you still want to use timeboxes for planning/executing your work, you'd continue to do what you do in Scrum - estimate the size of the work, focus on completing work and delivering value, and then finding out how much work the team was able to deliver in that timebox. But you'd do in a way that limits your work-in-progress (WIP) and focuses on completing work or pulling work through the system. Hope that helps answer your question. :)