4 ms·
There’s something subtle but important your comment raises. Feature are not bricks! The brick metaphor is about assigning chunks of implementation that have a p
by raganwald 15y ago
There’s something subtle but important your comment raises. Feature are not bricks! The brick metaphor is about assigning chunks of implementation that have a possibly many to many relationship with units of business value (call them features).
Dividing up a project by feature and/or tracking progress on a project by feature is very different from tracking project by brick.
- nodemaker 15y agoYes I forgot to point that out.....The blocks are not directly related to individual features....For example one block can deal with Network Requests and it can use another smaller block to cache data....One block for managing thread pools. But I guess one could create a mapping between the set of blocks and the set of features.A feature then would be complete when all its mapped blocks satisfy their test cases.But I am yet to see a project management system based on this approach.
- GFischer 15y agoSorry, what I had in mind was the Work Breakdown Structure advocated in the "traditional" (PMI/Pmbok), and the lowest divisions as "bricks", or the agile approach of separating a project into User Stories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_breakdown_structure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_breakdown_structure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_story It's not what you were talking about. Your points at the end of the article are pretty similar to what I was taught in a short agile project management seminar this week, if it helps :)