4 ms·
> Well, as devs, we have specific feature requirements > Devs are resources who are paid for by budget that was earned by committing to said roadmap items deli
by cygned 6y ago
> Well, as devs, we have specific feature requirements
> Devs are resources who are paid for by budget that was earned by committing to said roadmap items delivery.
That’s “classical” fixing of all dimensions of the “magic triangle” (scope, budget, time), not agile by any stretch, rather a practice from waterfall management.
I argue that there’s a fourth dimension; quality. How do you see the quality of the teams’ work?
- waheoo 6y agoI actually prefer a systems lifetime as the 4th dimension. Quality is just a function of the system time to live being fit against the other three constraints. Scope, budget and time. (I'd actually say time is a subset of budget.)
- WrtCdEvrydy 6y agoTo be honest, most "deadlines" are really just cost boundaries in the first place. If you're not publicly traded and made an announcement about something going live on a certain date, or have a regulatory body that requires something by a certain date, your deadline is just a cost-cutting measure.
- ric2b 6y agoQuality is part of scope. Is it in scope for this to be maintainable? To be stable? To have a nice UX?
- waheoo 6y agoI guess time to live is scope too but I think it's far too often ignored. Scope generally determines feature coverage, not quality or how long we expect to use the system.
- pjmorris 6y agoJohanna Rothman, in 'Manage It', suggests these dimensions to what we usually think of as the 'triangle': features, quality, schedule, cost, team size, team members, and resources (infra, sw, etc...)