Skip to main content

SCRUM- Who should write a user story

Traditionally user stories (or requirements) were written by Business analysts. They used to prepare big documents after months of study. It was a herculean task. I used to get such UI/Functional specification documents. I have fixed a lot of bugs because I missed few text in such 1000 + pages document. This is not the only interesting part. Some of the requirements were so weird that I often wondered why I am creating the features which no one is going to use. If I had the option I would have recommended a better option. If the BA’s misunderstood some requirements & customers failed to correct those few words in the epic requirement then we will have a nice situation.

In the agile world the story is different. Product Owners are primarily responsible for user stories. But can anyone else also contribute? Yes. Definitely yes
In actual environment many users write user stories. The first requirement may come from end user. The PO, tech architect, scrum master, BA’s... anyone can update this but ultimately it is the PO who is responsible for the backlog.
User stories should be written in a non -technical manner from the perspective of an end user
e.g.
As an x user I should be able to xyz actions.

This user story will be further sliced. The PO (or story writer) shouldn’t spend months is defining the backlog. After fine tuning the stories to an extent this should be put to review to the scrum team. The entire scrum team should work on these stories to understand it perfectly. Any technical constraints /limitations should be noted down & presented to customer. Scrum emphasizes this team work. It’s better to have 5 brains working together than one. The most important section out of these discussions/workshops will be the condition of acceptance (COA’s). Generally these COA’s are not technical. NFR’s can be added as constraints to these conditions.
Labels:

Comments

Anujith said…
Yes, PO and team can work together to fine tune user story. But can it be made part of a time boxed sprint activity, like the team analyzing the initial requirements on a sprint, and provide the results on sprint review (can be either verbal or documented or prototype). This can help both the team and PO to have better understanding of the requirements. Whats your take on it?

Anujith
December 27, 2011 at 5:50 AM
Abhilash Chandran said…
Usually it happens like this only. PO provides few details about the upcoming story. Team asks for a timebox during which they do some sort of spike/exploration work to understand the feature (both technically and feature wise). The result of this spike is presented during sprint review. Consider documenting the findings if someone has to refer this in future. This spike work usually improves the knowledge of team & PO.
Queries are sent to the customers if their opinion is required. Personally I have seen some good suggestions coming up which even the customer didn’t think of & certain other situations we had to educate the customers about the risks involved in implementing the feature. This collaboration resulted in good knowledge and helped the PO to create a better story which the team understands perfectly with the single aim to provide better service/application to customer increasing their ROI. 
December 27, 2011 at 6:26 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

PDCA & SCRUM (or Agile); Why is it important?

The PDCA (Plan DO Check Act) cycle was made popular by Dr. W. Edwards Deming. This is a scientific cyclic process which can be used to improve the process (or product). This is cyclic in nature and usually time boxed. Plan  This is the first stage of the process. During this step the team discusses the objectives, the process and the clear conditions of exit (conditions of acceptance). This stage sets the measurable and achievable goals for the team. DO Team works together to achieve the objective set in the planning phase. Team works with the set of agreed process. Check Once the implantation is done team regroups and verifies the output and compares it to the agreed conditions of acceptance decided during the planning phase. The deviation, if any, is noted down. ACT If any deviation in planned tasks is observed during the Check stage, a root cause analysis is conducted. Team brainstorms and identifies the changes required to prevent such deviations in future. Team also
Post a Comment
Read more

Product Backlog: Should you write everything in user story format?

I like user stories a lot. They help everyone talk the same language and results in a better product. User story alone does not constitute product requirement. User story is supposed to be a place holder for discussion which should happen between the team, Product Owner and the customer. This discussion result in a common understanding which along with the user story content is the product requirement. This format captures the essence of requirement without confusing the readers User Story is only one of the many different ways in which requirements can be represented. This is not mandatory in any Agile “process”. But many have made this mandatory. I have seen many spending countless hours trying to write the requirements in user story format when they could have easily written that in simple one-line sentence in few minutes.   I have seen team members refusing to even discuss the requirement until product owner rewrote the requirement in user story format. Once I
Post a Comment
Read more

Why is potentially shippable product quality important

Agile teams work in iterations. During this period, they are supposed to work on product increments which can be “delivered” at the end of iteration. But how you know that the correct product was delivered? Many teams have different kinds of acceptance criteria and Definition of Done (DoD). But in many cases, this “done” is not the real “done” there might be some testing pending, some integration or review pending or anything else which prevents the actual use of the product increment. Many of these teams will need additional iterations to finish hardening their products. Many teams will implement different types of “gates” or approval steps to move to next stage. The free flow of product will be interrupted. They might end up doing mini waterfall within their agile process. Many don’t even realize this. This results in poor quality and requires additional effort to “harden” the product. Potentially Shippable Product increment The acceptance criteria and DoD should be modified
Post a Comment
Read more