
Introduction
I recently participated in a Scrum development discussion thread on Yahoo Groups where one member new to Scrum asked the following: "Our burndown chart's remaining work line always goes up. As a Scrum Master, what do I have to do to make it go down?" This question, surprisingly, generated a lot of response from the community. I found it puzzling to see how adamant some were to introduce solutions to get the remaining work line to go below the estimated work line.
Goal
I believe that the underlying goal should not necessarily be about staying below the estimated time line in a burndown chart (although this would be nice). Rather, the goal should be about achieving SUSTAINABLE THROUGHPUT (figuring out what your team's development capacity is and how much you can shove through the pipeline). A burndown chart is just an information radiator that is there to help you to determine whether that goal of reaching optimal capacity is achieved. That's it. So as a Scrum Master, you should not get too overly hung up on the burndown chart.
Understanding the problem
If you know you are completing tasks but your burndown is still going up, this probably means that you're adding more tasks during the Sprint than your development team is able to finish. But there's value in knowing this information. When you see that your remaining work line is above the estimated work line by the end of your Sprint, this is a good indicator of the following:
• Your development team is applying new design choices to the existing code during the sprint.
• The tasks you have scheduled are so large and undefined that the hours keep going up as you figure out the complexity is increasing.
• Or your team is having difficulties estimating - which is common among new Scrum teams (see my previous blog on the significant of story points here).
What you can do about it
These are just a few examples of what a burndown chart can tell you. There could be a whole host of other reasons why you're above the estimated line. However, there's a number of things you can do; you can remove tasks off the sprint or you can try and break the tasks down further till you have something more manageable. The challenge is pinpointing the reason and trying in a very practical way, to get the team working at a sustainable capacity in order to manage all tasks for each iteration while minimizing work-in-progress.
Practical use of the tools
Another point that was brought up in the discussion thread was, why have a burndown chart at all if you're using a task board? Although I do believe the task board provides value, I don't believe that it should be a substitute for the burndown chart. The Burndown, Kanban boards and burnup charts are all just tools in your project management toolbox to assist you with continuous delivery of value to the customer. And each of those tools serves a different purpose. With a task board, you know which tasks are in queue, you know which are in progress, you may even know how big the tasks are. But without the burndown, you don't know how far along the complete trajectory you are. Just because half the cards on a Kanban board is in the "done" column midway through a Sprint, doesn't necessarily mean that you have completed half the story points for that iteration. The reason is that you may have smaller or larger tasks remaining. And the larger the project, the more complicated it is to get a sense of the size of each task just from glancing at a whole bunch of cards on a board. Everyday my teams provide a brand new estimate (in hours) for all tasks in progress (this takes them just a few minutes to update each day). So I take a look at my burndown, and in one second, I know if we are ahead or behind the plan...
Comments
Thank You for Addressing This
June 15, 2009 by Aaron Oliver (not verified), 39 weeks 3 days ago
Comment id: 2707
I've been on teams that struggle with this same issue. Thank you for providing some good insight into why the perceived "problem" is actually useful information.
Burndown - useful information
June 15, 2009 by jack milunsky (not verified), 39 weeks 3 days ago
Comment id: 2708
Thanks for letting me know that I got to help. It makes the effort that much more satisfying.
Jack
In our implementation, it
June 15, 2009 by Anonymous (not verified), 39 weeks 3 days ago
Comment id: 2709
In our implementation, it seems like Agile is turning into a tool for management to produce reports showing our "efficiency". Our programmers are having issues trying to figure out what benefit the programmers receive.
If anything, with the added meetings, Agile seems to be less efficient than what we were doing before.
re: In our implementation, it
June 16, 2009 by Janusz Gorycki, 39 weeks 3 days ago
Comment id: 2710
Burndowns or any other agile metrics _should not_ be tools for reporting to management. Actually, I would risk a statement that nobody besides the development team and its scrummaster should have a daily insight into the sprint burndown chart. The only thing that _should_ matter to the management is whether or not the team was able to deliver on its contract - i.e. have all stories that the team agreed to deliver were delivered or not.
Tools for management
June 16, 2009 by jackMilunsky, 39 weeks 2 days ago
Comment id: 2711
The burndown is there primarily as a tool for the team to ensure tha they're on track. However to suggest that Management has no visibility into the progress of the project I think in practice is not practical. Managers are not going to wait till the end of the sprint to find out the binary outcome.
Having a burndown for ALL to see is a good thing and it's meant to surface information in realtime so that teams (including stakeholders) have the information they need to inspect and adapt.
RE: Tools for management
June 17, 2009 by Janusz Gorycki, 39 weeks 2 days ago
Comment id: 2712
I am not saying "hide the burndown chart from the manager". What I mean it - burndown is here for the team, not for reporting. It is what it is, it is a mirror of reality and there is no reason to try to make it "pretty". If the team tries to make the burndown look "proper" and sacrifice proper engineering practices in order to "speed things up", bad things are going to happen soon afterwards.
Tools for management
June 17, 2009 by jackMilunsky, 39 weeks 1 day ago
Comment id: 2713
Well it is there for reporting for the team. I completely agree with you that you that the aim is not to make the burndown look good. That's really the whole point of this blog. Thanks for making that crystal if I didn't.
However, I still think it's a reporting tool, information radiator, whatever.
Thanks for your insight.
Jack
a bad workman blames his tools
June 17, 2009 by Piers Saye (not verified), 39 weeks 1 day ago
Comment id: 2714
Interesting points jack and i totally agree about sustaining optimum throughput.
A bad workman blames his toolsbut equally don't give the wrong tool to the wrong workman.
Sprint burndowns are a tool for the team primarily but you cannot expect management to not be interested. i prefer to use them with a project burn up to see a more value based metric.
If the chickens are giving the pigs grief based on sprint burn downs then either the scrummaster isn't doing his/her job properly or the company need to take a look at their commitment to agile and scrum.
Unless velocity drops dramatically and consistently then sole concern of management should be 'have these guys got everything they need to enable them to honour their commitments'.
As for developers suddenly having many more meetings - compared to what? Were you having none and being treated like mushrooms or were you having some but not being involved in the planning? Agile is about getting your hands dirty and then you committing to what you think you can deliver as opposed to being told what you are expected to deliver. That does mean planning meetings, retrospectives and scrums (and possibly a mid sprint planning session if you choose to work that way) - that's about 2 - 3 man days of meetings for a two week sprint . If you think that's too much, try management...
Bad workman blames his tools
June 17, 2009 by jackMilunsky, 39 weeks 1 day ago
Comment id: 2715
Thanks for your awesome comments.
One additional comment I'd like to make after reviewing all the posts and in particular with respect to the following comment
"The only thing that _should_ matter to the management is whether or not the team was able to deliver on its contract - i.e. have all stories that the team agreed to deliver were delivered or not".
If managers don't get to see the burndown then the outcome at the end of the sprint is going to be a big surprise. Hopefully it's good. But often it's not. So if they're seeing the trend they're going to know asap that things are either behind or ahead.
Jack
RE: Bad workman blames his tools
June 18, 2009 by Janusz Gorycki, 39 weeks 1 day ago
Comment id: 2720
The temptation that hardly any manager can resist is to micromanage in times of real (or only perceived) "crisis". So if a managers sees a burndown that goes in the "wrong" direction, chances are they will invariably immediately go into firefighting mode, trying to force everybody to make the burndown line go down in a smooth fashion (seen that happen a lot in my previous job). Big mistake. Managers should be allowed to monitor the burndown, but only intervene at established checkpoints. After all, a sudden spike up of the burndown chart may not necessarily mean that bad things are happening - there is usually some story behind it. If you just monitor this single metrics, you don't have any idea about what's really going on. It is up to the team and its scrummaster (who usually is _not_ the manager) to come up with solutions when things go bad, and basically self-manage the situation.
If worse comes to worst, "the rules" of Scrum dictate that the team simply communicates to the product owner that commitments will not be met and explain the reasons. The sprint can then be aborted and restarted with more realistic goals. Aborting the sprint is not necessarily a bad thing to happen - it is just one more tool for controlling the project's progress.
Temptation to micro-manage
June 18, 2009 by jackMilunsky, 39 weeks 18 hours ago
Comment id: 2726
Hi Janusz,
I agree with you 100%. It's real important that management don't get busy putting pressure on teams as soon as they see the burndown going south.
Teams need to be steadfast in how they communicate back to the business.
Jack
Post new comment