Skip to main content

One sentence does not make a User Story

I'm working with a large client that has adopted the classic user story format for the backlog.

"As a user, I want some feature  so that I receive this benefit."


Yet, I'm sure that it is not delivering the desired shared understanding that throwing out the classic business requirements document and adopting the scrum/XP user story practice is designed to deliver.

So if your groups user stories have become just a piece of boiler plate language to satisfy some agile coach's requirement - maybe you should reflect upon the desired reason for user stories rather than requirements documentation so many years ago.  User stories do work.  But you have to tell a story.  Few authors are good enough to tell a story in one sentence.

Here Ron is pointing to one of the XP practices that were very successful in replacing the big upfront requirements documents with the concept of stories.  In XP this was the Card-Conversation-Confirmation technique.  In this technique the card and the label or title written upon the card is the place-holder used in planning.  In this way the card becomes a token for the planning game (XP practice similar to Scrum's Sprint planning).  The Conversation is the part of the practice that may be missing if your groups don't find the one sentence description (in classis form) to be sufficient to plan, estimate, design, develop, test, and deploy the user story.


Another group behavior that I've noticed is that the Confirmation aspect of these user stories may be a bullet point list of statements that are not recordings of a dialogue (as described in Ron's XP article).  To improve efficiency of requirements gathering some groups have people working independently and ahead of the development teams to write user stories and acceptance criteria.  This practice can sometimes improve communication and sometime harm the shared understanding that is required for highly productive development teams.  In the C-C-C technique of XP the team and the customer wrote the confirmation statements together, a technique for validating that a shared understand had been reached during the conversation.   This also served as reminders during their demo of the application behaviors that would be observable with working software.

Learn to Tell the Story

The common reframe today is the distinction between telling stories and writing stories. Which is your team doings?  We all are much better at telling stories than at writing stories - it's just how much individuals practice telling stories.  We start at the early age of 3 or 4 and continue to practice for our entire life.  Few of us actually practice writing stories.  Can you see the powerful distinction between these two practices?

When telling stories a great practice is to have one or more people capturing the important points and themes as the teller spins the tale of the feature and the value it will bring to your customers.

User Story Mapping
A higher level abstraction from telling stories occurs in the Story Mapping practice as described by Jeff Patton - Story Mapping is a better way to work with Agile User Stories.

"User Story Mapping is a dead simple idea. Talk about user’s journey through your product building a simple model that tells your user’s story as you do. But it turns out this simple idea makes working with user stories in agile development a lot easier."

The behavior of teams that are being helped by the practice of writing detailed user stories is quite different than the behavior of teams that are being harmed by the practice.  The great thing about Scrum is that this difference should become apparent in a short amount of time - say one or two sprints.  When the shared understanding is being communicated by the written story and the conversation and the team is delivering working tested software that meet the confirmation aspects (acceptance criteria) of the story then one can easily observe the behavior in the demonstration of the working application each sprint.  If that is not happening, then perhaps the story is not being communicated, there is more to a great story than just one little sentence.


You also may want to reconsider the format of the classic user story - because they lack the obvious title that all great stories must have.  Try this alternative format:
<What I Want>
so <Role> can <Business Value>
This format creates a nice handle or title in the "What I Want" phrase.

See Also:
Definition of Done vs. User Stories vs. Acceptance Criteria by Mark Levison of Agile Pain Relief a consultant with lot's of wise content and great practices to teach.
Names should not be needed for user stories - by Mike Cohn
Advantages of the As a User I want - user story template - by Mike Cohn
User Stories Applied - book at Amazon
10 Tips for Writing Good User Stories - Roman Pichler
Good Stories have Great Titles - Lance Kind
6 Brilliant ways to slice user stories by Dominic Krimmer

** Telling User Stories vs Writing User Stories **
A Story About User Stories - The real intention behind user stories - by Ebin Poovathany
Focus on telling user stories -  Charles Bradley
Story Mapping concepts (PDF) by Jeff Patton


Post a Comment

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, …

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…

Refactoring - examples from the book

Martin Fowler's book Refactoring:  Improving the Design of Existing Code has a simple example of a movie rental domain model, which he refactors from a less than ideal object-oriented design to a more robust OO design. Included in this Refactoring_FirstExample.zip Zip file are the Java source code files of the Movie, Rental, and Customer classes. Along with a JUnit CustomerTest class. Using these example source files you too can follow along with the refactoring that Fowler presents in the first few chapters of his book.


Team Performance Model - by Drexler and Sibbet

Many of you have all heard of the Tuckman model of team dynamics (Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing).  It was created in 1966 and has become the most popular model for describing team behavior.  Is it time to level up in your mental model of team dynamics?  Are you ready for a richer more functional model?



Introducing the Team Performance Model by Drexler and Sibbet



Orientation - Why am I here?
"Orientation is about understanding the purpose of a team and assessing what it will mean to be a member.  you need to understand the reason the team exist, what will be expected of you and how you will benefit from membership.  In a new team, these are individual concerns, because the group is only potentially a team.  that is why these concerns are illustrated as occurring in your imagination at an intuitive level.  As a team leader it is important to provide time and space for people to answer these internal questions themselves."

Keys to when Orientation challenges are resolve…

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…