Interesting article. I find the following quote to be a bit odd - though in the context of "what makes a good metric", towards the end, it makes more sense: >

Interesting article. I find the following quote to be a bit odd - though in the context of "what makes a good metric", towards the end, it makes more sense: > Besides telling you that “velocity is low,” what else does a burndown chart reveal about your team’s bottlenecks, problems, and inefficiencies? Nothing. I mean - it's good to know there's a problem (deadlines won't be met), right? It might not answer why, but it certainly allows you to ask why. I'm also a little confused about what definition of velocity the article argues against while promoting a form of velocity called cycle time/avg cycle time; which seems to mesure how long tasks take to complete?