[news.eclipse.technology.epf] Terminating or Reprioritizing Iterations i

[Jim Ruehlin <jruehlin@xxxxxxxxxx>]

What should OpenUP recommend when an iteration is not likely to deliver 
some incremental functionality? For instance, if the team falls too far 
behind, a serious problem arises, or management demands an immediate 
change in focus (implement different requirements than those chosen for 
the iteration)?

We currently recommend re-prioritizing and adjusting the scope of the 
current iteration (Task: Manage Iteration). One issue I can think of 
with this is that it's not Scrum-like, which isn't an awful thing but 
it's inconsistent with other areas of our PM discipline that draw from 
Scrum. Reprioritization also won't necessarily lead to the delivery of 
stable incremental functionality as the items in the current iteration 
are already considered the top priority.

The current OpenUP review that's focusing on consistency recommends 
changing this guidance and terminating the iteration instead. Then the 
reprioritization and concurrance would occur as part of the new 
iteration. This may have the advantage of starting an iteration with a 
clean slate rather than trying to save an iteration that's doomed.

Another option is to suggest both as possible alternatives but endorse 
one of those solutions. Then we need to ask ourselves if a team using 
the process out-of-the-box has the experience to make the right choice.

Does anyone feel strongly about this, or have another alternative?

Jim Ruehlin
jruehlin@xxxxxxxxxx