InfoQ

InfoQ

News

My Bookmarks

Login or Register to enable bookmarks for unlimited time.

The content has been bookmarked!

There was an error bookmarking this content! Please retry.

Right-Size Your User Stories

Posted by Mark Levison on Feb 06, 2008

Sections
Process & Practices,
Architecture & Design
Topics
Agile Techniques ,
Agile ,
Customers & Requirements
Tags
User Stories
As experienced Agile practitioners know, getting your stories right is one of the most difficult aspects of the process. Pat Kua has recently written about a key question: How much detail should you put in your story?

A user story is a form of lightweight requirement that Agile projects use instead of long formal use cases. Use cases in all their detail don't adapt easily to changing customer needs. Instead, a user story provides just enough information to start a conversation between a developer and product owner. It's also the smallest piece of functionality that would provide value to the end user. Examples (from Mike Cohn's Advantages of User Stories for requirements) :

  • A user can post her resume to the web site.
  • A user can search for jobs.
  • A company can post new job openings.
  • A user can limit who can see her résumé.

Using Bill Wake's mnemonic, we INVEST in good stories: They're Independent, Negotiable, Valuable, Estimable, Small and Testable.

The trick, as Patrick says, is to know how much detail to write and when to write it. Too much detail early on and, like use cases, the story will have to be rewritten many times before it's implemented. Too little detail and the developers don't know what to plan for or implement. Patrick:

For stories that need to be implemented now, you want to have enough precision that allows developers and testers to be clear about what needs to be achieved. The waste of not having enough detail here is essentially rework in many of the downstream activities.

… For stories that need to be implemented in the distant future, you don't need the same level of detail. The waste of capturing too much detail too early is essentially rework at the analysis level.

So the answer is it depends: the further away a story is the less detail it should have. Only stories that are about to be tackled should have test cases and related details.

Read the full story: How much detail should you put in your story? on Pat Kua's site.

No comments

Watch Thread Reply

Educational Content

Jesper Boeg on Priming Kanban

In this interview, Jesper Boeg, author of the new InfoQ book – Priming Kanban, discusses the keys to using Kanban effectively, and how to get started if you are currently using other approaches.

New-age Transactional Systems - Not Your Grandpa's OLTP

John Hugg discusses high volume transaction processing applications with high and low frequency profiles, and how VoltDB can be used for that purpose.

Cool Code

Kevlin Henney examines code samples to see what can be learned from them starting from the premise that one won’t write great code unless he knows how to read it.

Collaboration: At the Extremities of Extreme

Jason Ayers share the observations he made watching a team of developers collaborating in real time on the same code base, pushing XP, pair programming and continuous integration to their extremes.

Yesod Web Framework

Michael Snoyman presents Yesod, a web framework written in Haskell and containing a web server, templating, ORM, libraries (templating, gravatar, etc.).

Transactions without Transactions

Richard Kreuter and Kyle Banker on how to avoid classical RDBMS transactional systems by using compensation mechanisms, transactional messaging or transactional procedures.

Attila Szegedi on JVM and GC Performance Tuning at Twitter

Attila Szegedi talks about performance tuning Java and Scala programs at Twitter: how to approach GC problems, the importance of asynchronous I/O, when to use MySQL/Cassandra/Redis, and much more.

10 tips on how to prevent business value risk

One category of risk that project teams need to ensure they address is business value failure – delivering a product that fails to provide value for the business investor.