Be the first to like this
This case is based on the lease management system example in Boehm & Turner’s Balancing Agility and Discipline , pages 84 – 89. Please start by reading that information.
Consider the following situation: The lease management system project has modified its XP approach to include a few plan-driven elements. Most notably, they now use high-level architecture plans, improved milestone completion criteria, and design patterns. However, the project remains true to its XP beliefs. For example, they will continue to use more complete and accurate “as-discovered” criteria for determining milestone completions and to reprioritize story cards at the beginning of each development increment. The project team estimates the duration of each iteration as part of the iteration kickoff meeting; they are no longer tied to fixed-length cycles of development and deployment, since analyses showed that fixed-length XP cycles were inappropriate for large, complex systems like the lease management system. However, the team is committed to approximately one-month iteration cycles and will take on only the number of tasks that they esitmate they can complete in that amount of time.
The CIO is holding the project’s manager, Tarak Srinivas, responsible for timely completion of iterations on the system, because new lease management capabilities must be available to stakeholders when promised. The system must, of course, continue to be highly reliable and meet user needs as described in the story cards (which do get modified, as described in Balancing Agility and Discipline 84 – 89).