Skip to main content

Is Your Build-Up Chart Misleading You?

In The Humble Build-Up Chart – Communicating with Stakeholders, I discussed how a build-up chart can be used to show progress and projections – to achieve communication with stakeholders. Today, I’d like to address a couple of ways in which a build-up chart can be misleading.

Done-ness?

In Why Scrum requires completely “Done” software every Sprint, Christiaan Verwijs digs into what it means to produce a “Done”, useable, and potentially releasable product Increment (as defined by The Scrum Guide™). One way our build-up chart can mislead us is if what the build-up chart is tracking as “done” is not “Done”, usable, and potentially releasable.

Looking at our sample build-up chart below, note the solid blue line that indicates progress-to-date. If the work that has been tracked here is not completely “done” and in a releasable state, then there is likely hidden work that will delay the actual release.

Sample build up chart

Examples of work that might not be revealed by the build-up chart:
  • Manual regression testing
  • Creating “missed” automated tests
  • Preparing deployment packages
  • Testing by a downstream QA organization
  • User-facing documentation and training
  • Security reviews
  • Performance and scalability testing

What can we do?
  • It is critically important to pay attention to “done-ness”. As highlighted in Christiaan ‘s blog post, any gap between what you are calling “done” and actually being in a releasable state is a significant risk to your product/project. Be relentless in your pursuit of true done-ness.
  • Ask questions, e.g. “What would keep us from successfully and safely putting this into production today?” – the answers will point you to what is being left out.
  • For a vision of what “great” might look like, read The Phoenix Project.

The Discovery Trend


In my prior post, I showed how the build-up chart can show likely “discovery” – to account for growth in the “known work”. One way in which the build-up chart can be misleading is if the discovery trend does not match reality. For example, the build-up chart below shows historical discovery (blue lines to the left of the green shading) as well as projected discovery (blue lines to the right of the green shading).
Build up chart with discovery


One thing to notice about this chart is that the forward-looking discovery has a significantly different trend than the actual historical discovery. If we add overall trend lines (red) to show us this trend, we see that any Release 1 / Release 2 projection dates we are inferring from this chart are probably well short of actuality.

(Note that the upper trend line still may not be steep enough if we look at the recent discovery trend vs. the overall discovery trend.)
Build up chart showing true trendline for discovery

What can we do?

  • Pay attention to trends. The “yesterday’s weather” heuristic (tomorrow has a high likelihood of being like today) applies to both what the team is likely to achieve (velocity) as well as what it is learning (discovery).
  • Be curious. What does the discovery line represent? Is it something controllable (e.g. we’re selling new features and we could scale back) or does it tell us something about the work and team (e.g. see Points Inflation in my prior post)?
  • Ask questions, e.g. “I see that the forward looking trend is different from the recent past trend. What data do we have that suggests a different future than our recent past?”

Is your build-up chart misleading you?


While the build-up chart is a useful communications tool, there are ways in which it can provide misleading information. Watching out for “what’s not done” and “discovery trends” can help you be a more savvy user of the build-up chart.

Originally published January 9th, 2020 on the Innovative Software Engineering blog. Republished with permission.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Agile Training, Revisited

“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.” – attributed to Heraclitus What happens when we come back to Agile training? As part of our commitment to being an Agile organization and supporting the growth of our people, in 2016 we held 2-day training events for our team members. The training was CSM ( Certified ScrumMaster ) specific – but we felt it would be valuable for everyone, not just those people whose role included Scrum Master. We achieved almost 100% – as in, almost everyone in the company attended, and almost all of those took and passed the CSM. More importantly, with senior management and business leaders attending alongside engineers, the training created conversations and shared understanding that helped us make significant strides in our ability to succeed and deliver value using agile mindset and principles. Two years later, a lot has changed. Our business has shifted. One of our product lines has enough teams on

Lessons from the fragile

What's the opposite of fragile?   Most people's immediate answer is "robust" or "resilient". But consider… if we subject something that is fragile to stress, shock, randomness or volatility, we can expect that it will be harmed. If we do the same to something that is robust or resilient, we can expect that it will resist harm - but won't be any better off than when we started. But what if something that is subjected to stress, shock, randomness or volatility actually benefited ? That would be the opposite of fragile: antifragile. This is the core theme of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's book Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder .   What does fragility and antifragility look like?   As human beings, we often think of things that have uncertainty or randomness as having a range of possible outcomes that are centered around some "most likely" outcome, as in the diagram below.     However in many domains, there is an asymmetr