123 reputation
8
bio website
location Folsom, CA
age 37
visits member for 3 years, 2 months
seen Feb 6 '13 at 8:59

Oct
4
comment Should we quit trying to do agile if QA takes 12 weeks?
You are 100% correct. Your three items are good advice. I can only affect so much change as a single developer, but I can try to lead by example and see if some QA people want to come along for the ride. My biggest frustration is that nobody else really seems to care, which is obviously a huge barrier to the successful turn around required. Most people on the team are just happy to continue with the status quo; at least that's my impression.
Oct
4
comment What Types of Stories Should Be In a Sprint Review?
Sorry for the delay in accepting. Your answer is reasonable, and you bring up some great questions. My question came from a place of frustration, because our Agile effort is completely derailed. But it's like talking to a brick wall trying to get any realistic assessment of the situation. We have new PLM on board, and I think these questions you pose in your final paragraph are a good starting point to begin the conversation with her to hopefully get a fresh start. Thanks.
Sep
1
comment What Types of Stories Should Be In a Sprint Review?
No, not really concerned, because these are arguments I'm prepared to make with the necessary people internally. The post is a bit of a rant though, so I'm going to edit it.
Jul
28
comment Should we quit trying to do agile if QA takes 12 weeks?
Thanks for the conversation guys, it was very valuable to me. I think it'll be valuable to strive to include QA in the iteration and think of our product not as a whole but rather as the smaller components that constitute the whole. This seems like a good plan to address the situation.
Jul
28
comment Should we quit trying to do agile if QA takes 12 weeks?
Our full product is really made up of many smaller parts that can all be upgraded independently. I think our customers are very willing to upgrade those smaller components much more frequently. It seems to me that we should perhaps focus on releasing and QA'ing those smaller components at the end of sprints instead. We could shorten the feedback loop due to a more focused approach and deliver value to customers more quickly. Then we could do a full product release at some point that wraps up all the smaller bits. Then QA has less to do since most has already been validated in prior sprints.
Jul
28
comment Should we quit trying to do agile if QA takes 12 weeks?
However, I don't recall us ever releasing a build to a customer after a sprint. Furthermore, the way our customer base is, they don't want a full product release that often. Our customers are slow to upgrade. The most important point that you made was at the end of your response in terms of not applying agile if the requirements are not agile. I think this is spot on. When we started doing agile, we had it dialied in, and the circumstances made sense. But since then, things have changed dramatically, and we are clinging to the process where it may not make sense any longer.
Jul
28
comment Should we quit trying to do agile if QA takes 12 weeks?
I think this is probably the best response in light of our current situation. For me, one of the most important parts of Agile is having a shippable release at the end of each sprint. That implies several things. First, a level of testing must be done to ensure no showstopping bugs if you think you could release the build to a customer. Second, assuming the first statement is true, is it possible that QA is duplicating a lot of work that should have already been done during development? I think there is probably something to address there, both in our QA and our development team (I am a dev).
Jul
28
comment Should we quit trying to do agile if QA takes 12 weeks?
Your response brought up some good conversation between a colleague and myself. The main point in your response that got me was, "At the end of a sprint (or a couple) you release a product you are confident it could be put in the market." I don't ever recall releasing product at the end of a sprint until after we've completed a whole series of sprints, it's gone through QA, and we've had several rounds of follow-up bug fixing. In that respect, I think we're using Agile merely as a way to break up and organize our workload and nothing else. We are not gaining any benefits of Agile really.
Jul
28
comment Should we quit trying to do agile if QA takes 12 weeks?
I think this is a very good response. I'm not really aware of how the QA team is organized or how they proceed with their testing. Our QA team is in India, which I think is a not insignificant part of the problem. From what I understand, their test plans are not published such that anyone can review them and validate them. Furthermore, due to the time difference, the turn around time on the back-and-forth between developers and QA is atrocious. What should take an hour of conversation at someone's desk turns in to days of emails or JIRA comments.
Jul
28
comment Should we quit trying to do agile if QA takes 12 weeks?
Furthermore, I don't recall ever getting feedback from QA until after the build from the last sprint as I mentioned above. This validates your point. What I think this could lead to is situations where decisions that are made in sprint 1 turn out to be faulty decisions, but that faulty decision is not fully realized until all the subsequent work is done on top of that faulty decision. This of course could lead to a huge amount of rework.
Jul
28
comment Should we quit trying to do agile if QA takes 12 weeks?
Right. I was just discussing this with a colleague. I'd say we haven't even really been doing proper releases at the end of each sprint. We do a build at the end of each sprint because that's what Agile says you should do, but we have no intention of anyone ever seeing that build. I don't know if QA gets those builds or not, but I can assure that you no customer will ever see a build at the end of the sprint. Only one build is potentially official, and it's the one from the last sprint. In my mind, that's totally not Agile at all. With that workflow, Agile is only a way to organize work.
Jul
28
comment Should we quit trying to do agile if QA takes 12 weeks?
@merryprankster Could you elaborate on your response? Do you mean to say it's pointless to not have QA be a part of the team and verify quality as part of the sprint? Or do you mean that the team should be verifying quality on their own to a point where QA should be rendered almost useless? Or perhaps another meaning? I don't know correct answers here. I'm just looking for any advice I can get on a way to rectify a situation that I feel is horribly broken. Thanks.
Jul
28
comment Should we quit trying to do agile if QA takes 12 weeks?
@Mchl You are correct. I failed to explicitly state that I am in development.
Jul
28
comment Should we quit trying to do agile if QA takes 12 weeks?
@TokenMacGuy (I'm a Mac guy as well by the way) This is my exact feeling and the cause of my frustration. Consensus seems to be that I'm definitely not off base for feeling this way.