Does your Definition of Done allow known defects?
Clearvision's Head of Agile Services, Andy Carmichael, discusses how to avoid confusion around your Definition of Done.
Is it just me or do you also find it odd that some teams have clauses like this in their Definition of Done (DoD)?
… the Story will contain defects of level 3 severity or less only …
Of course they don’t mean you have to put minor bugs in your code – that really would be mad – but it does mean you can sign the Story off as “Done“ if the bugs you discover in it are only minor (like spelling mistakes, graphical misalignment, faults with easy workarounds, etc.).
Done or Done-But?
I saw DoDs like this some time ago and was seriously puzzled by the madness of it. I was reminded of it again at a meet-up discussion recently – it’s clearly a practice that’s not uncommon.
Let’s look at the consequences of this policy.
Potentially for every User Story that is signed off as “Done” there could be several additional Defect Stories (of low priority) that will be created.
It’s possible that finishing a Story (with no additional user requirements) will result in an increase in the Product Backlog size! (Aaaagh…)
You’re either never going to finish or, more likely, never going to fix those Defects in spite of all the waste that will be generated around recording, estimating, prioritising and finally attempting to fix the defects (when the original developer has forgotten how he coded the Story, or has been replaced with someone who never knew it in the first place).
What should happen then?
Clearly the simple answer is that if you find a bug (of whatever severity) before the Story is “Done”, fix it. You haven’t finished until it works – just avoid double-think, like I’ve finished it even though the product now contains new defects.
Can there be exceptions to this?
Those who think quality is “non-negotiable” would probably answer “no”, but actually (whether acknowledged or not) we all work with a concept of “sufficient quality”. It is inherent in ideas like “minimum viable product” and “minimum marketable feature”.
Zero defects is a slogan, not a practicable policy for most product developments. Situations where we find defects that are hard to fix when working on a User Story bring this issue to the fore.
So here’s what I recommend Product Owners do. Firstly, don’t sign off a Story if it contains defects!
Secondly if defects are found choose to do one of the following:
Insist it’s fixed. Always preferred, and should nearly always be followed. Occasionally however it is too expensive, but unless the cost of fixing it is greater than the time already spent on the Story I would always recommend fixing. (We discuss below the problem of “deadlines”.)
Accept it’s not a defect… At least not a defect that will ever get fixed (unless it’s found and added to the Backlog by users). This doesn’t feel right but it is more honest than adding items to the Product Backlog that will never be prioritised.
Agree the defect is actually a different Story. It’s a functionality that will be covered elsewhere even though it is part of the same Epic or Feature. The original Story will not be released without all the functionality of that Epic/Feature, so it will be fixed before release. Note that this option depends on a well understood concept of Epic/Feature and appropriate release policies around it.
What I am arguing here is that our Definition of Done trumps deadlines, Sprint boundaries and Sprint “commitments”. I believe it is confusion in this area that leads teams to adopt misguided DoDs.
That confusion in turn results in the need for “maintenance teams” that clear up after development teams have scattered defects through the product, or in the common practice of dumping defects into massive Defect logs that will never be cleared, even if the development continues for decades!
As +Liz Keogh has observed, deadlines should really be renamed “sad-lines”. If they’re missed nobody’s dead; maybe a few are sad!
It is not that such planned dates are unimportant. Of course they are not. It is that agreed dates should not have greater importance than agreed quality.
These “Done-But” policies are most common in development departments where the concept of commitment (“look me in the eye and tell me you will complete these Stories by this date”) is considered more important than Done, i.e. that completing a Story means it will be at the quality agreed.
The Scrum Guide replaced the word “commitment” with “forecast” in a recent revision for a reason – commitment should be what a team member brings to the overall goals of the organisation, not to a date that at best was derived from very limited information.
Of course in reality, both commitment to dates and a particular Definition of Done must be subservient to the overall business goals. We can move a release date for an Epic/Feature to a later (or earlier) date if that will better fulfill the overall goals. Similarly, changing the DoD or quality expectations up or down should always be considered in order to improve business outcomes.
Does your Definition of Done allow known defects? If so please come back to me and tell me why… or if you would change it, tell me how?
Interested in learning more about Agile best practices? Clearvision offers a range of Agile training courses, from webinars to classroom environments.
Originally posted at the OpenXprocess blog: http://xprocess.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/does-your-definition-of-done-allow.html
Don’t stop your learning here! Check out Git 101, your free one stop guide to the basics of Git, including a Git cheat sheet to help you on your way!