Skip to main content

Scrum Team Metrics (necessary and sufficient)

What metrics would a great Scrum team want to generate and track the trend?

Is the necessary and sufficient set of metrics just velocity?  No - I don't think that is enough.  Can you help me define a short list of metrics, and the reasons for tracking them?

First let's lay out some ground rules.  Who is responsible for generating the metrics?  Are all metrics treated the same, e.g. should each metric have the same visibility?  I'll state the the team is responsible for generating the metrics.  This ensures that the metric has some minimun level of veracity.  When the team believes that the metric does not tell the truth, they should make that visible and change how it is generated.  This is process improvement.  However not all metrics need be treated the same.  Some should be published, some could stay internal to the team.  As the level of trust and autonomy of the team increases the visibility of metrics should naturally become more transparent.

Here's a rough draft list - to get the conversation started.  Add your comments and additional metrics.  We will see if we can crowd source a great list.

Metrics for the Team
  • Story point velocity per sprint
  • Projected capacity (in person-days) of next sprint
  • Projected capability (in story points range) of next sprint
  • Planned capability of the sprint (in story points)
  • Story points done and accepted by PO of the sprint
  • Story's started but not done (in story points and stories)
  • Discovered work added to the backlog (in story points and stories)
  • Scope increase/decrease during the sprint.
  • Technical debt incurred this sprint (in story points)
  • Cost of sprint
  • Impediments discovered/removed/escalated
  • Sprint - pass/fail

Metrics for the Program
  • Release burn up (in story points)
  • Scope increase/decrease (and reasons for change)
  • Projected completion date range (optimistic & pessimistic)
  • Impediments discovered/removed
  • Risk mitigated, (unknown) risk realized

Metrics for the Organization

See Also:  a follow up post Metrics for the Scrum Team

Visualizing Agility: Agile Metrics that Matter by Jay Packlick

ODIM - a metric selection tool; by Larry Maccherone


4 comments

Most Popular on Agile Complexification Inverter

Exercise:: Definition of Ready & Done

Assuming you are on a Scrum/Agile software development team, then one of the first 'working agreements' you have created with your team is a 'Definition of Done' - right?



Oh - you don't have a definition of what aspects a user story that is done will exhibit. Well then, you need to create a list of attributes of a done story. One way to do this would be to Google 'definition of done' ... here let me do that for you: http://tinyurl.com/3br9o6n. Then you could just use someone else's definition - there DONE!

But that would be cheating -- right? It is not the artifact - the list of done criteria, that is important for your team - it is the act of doing it for themselves, it is that shared understanding of having a debate over some of the gray areas that create a true working agreement. If some of the team believes that a story being done means that there can be no bugs found in the code - but some believe that there can be some minor issues - well, …

Elements of an Effective Scrum Task Board

What are the individual elements that make a Scrum task board effective for the team and the leadership of the team?  There are a few basic elements that are quite obvious when you have seen a few good Scrum boards... but there are some other elements that appear to elude even the most servant of leaders of Scrum teams.









In general I'm referring to a physical Scrum board.  Although software applications will replicated may of the elements of a good Scrum board there will be affordances that are not easily replicated.  And software applications offer features not easily implemented in the physical domain also.





Scrum Info Radiator Checklist (PDF) Basic Elements
Board Framework - columns and rows laid out in bold colors (blue tape works well)
Attributes:  space for the total number of stickies that will need to belong in each cell of the matrix;  lines that are not easy eroded, but are also easy to replace;  see Orientation.

Columns (or Rows) - labeled
    Stories
    To Do
    Work In P…

Webinar: Collaboration at Scale: Defining Done, Ready, and NO.

I was invited to participate in a Scrum Alliance Webinar.  Maybe you would like to listen to us in a discussion of techniques to collaborate at scale (remotely and with many people).  The topic is one that I've got some experience in discussions - yet I never seem to get to done...
Collaboration at Scale: Defining Done and Ready and NO for Distributed Teams
With Joel Bancroft-Connors, Agile Organizational Coach; David A. Koontz, Agile Transition Guide; and Luke Hohmann, CEO and Founder of Conteneo, Inc.


14 February 2018 11 a.m. ET (USA).




The Scrum Guide is pretty clear on the criticality of the definition of Done: "When a Product Backlog item or an Increment is described as "Done," everyone must understand what "Done" means. However, the Scrum Guide ALSO says that the definition of Done can "vary significantly per Scrum Team." This leads us to examine when and how the definition of Done should vary, how distributed teams should cr…

David's notes on "Drive"

- "The Surprising Truth about what Motivates Us" by Dan Pink.

Amazon book order
What I notice first and really like is the subtle implication in the shadow of the "i" in Drive is a person taking one step in a running motion.  This brings to mind the old saying - "there is no I in TEAM".  There is however a ME in TEAM, and there is an I in DRIVE.  And when one talks about motivating a team or an individual - it all starts with - what's in it for me.

Introduction

Pink starts with an early experiment with monkeys on problem solving.  Seems the monkeys were much better problem solver's than the scientist thought they should be.  This 1949 experiment is explained as the early understanding of motivation.  At the time there were two main drivers of motivation:  biological & external influences.  Harry F. Harlow defines the third drive in a novel theory:  "The performance of the task provided intrinsic reward" (p 3).  This is Dan Pink's M…

A T-Shaped 21st Century Knowledge Worker

Knowledge workers in the 21st Century must have many areas of deep knowledge, while also be capable of collaboration across multiple other domains with dissimilar T-shaped individuals.  This description of a person is a metaphor.  Compare it to the shape of the "I" in the classic saying there is no "I" in Team.


I first read about Scott Ambler's term "Generalizing Specialist" - but it's so hard to remember the proper order of the words... get it backwards and it has an inverted meaning... T-Shaped is easier to remember. 
A generalizing specialist is someone who:
Has one or more technical specialties (e.g. Java programming, Project Management, Database Administration, ...). Has at least a general knowledge of software development. Has at least a general knowledge of the business domain in which they work. Actively seeks to gain new skills in both their existing specialties as well as in other areas, including both technical and domain areas.  General…