I am employed in a very brilliant company with a true intention of doing XP. Communication is good and management is open to constructive discussion but due to pressing time constraints, some certain things are considered too RUP to be discussed.
At the moment I'm a little troubled with the volume of change that becomes necessary while implementing the stories. I believe many of these discoveries (which take time and effort of course) are the responsibilities of the story writers (customers, end users and product owners) and not the developers. To put is short, user-stories are too conceptual and just convey the underlying intention but lack enough details (specially pre-conditions and post-conditions, relevance to other stories, dependencies and alike). The developer is expected to fill in the blanks at his own discretion by the virtue of XP developers being designers and analysts at the same time. The problem is many of these blanks are discovered after some wrong assumptions have made made their way into evaluation time and code since noticing added complexities emerge than initially anticipated. Even then finding the right thing to fill in takes time which is - to various degrees - considered as deviation from the initial estimations.
I'm looking for a constructive way of conveying these implications to the management in a way that would not pose me as someone who is trying to unnecessarily complicate things. I'm new and as yet I have not established much credibility.
You insights are most welcome.
Closely related and somehow gives an answer : How much detail about a user story can a developer expect?