Monday, October 12, 2009

Sometimes the universe appears multidimensional -- but isn't

Had a knock-down drag-out fight with another architect recently over "status" and "priority".

She claimed that the backlog priority and the status where the same thing. I claimed that you can easily have this.

Priority: 1, Status: Not Started
Priority: 2, Status: In Process
Priority: 3, Status: Completed

See? It's obvious that they're independent dimensions.

She said that it's just as obvious that you're doing something wrong.

Here's her point:
  • If you have priority 1 items that aren't in process now, then they're really priority 2. Fix them to honestly say priority 2.
  • If you have priority 2 items that "somehow" jumped ahead of priority 1 items, they were really priority 1. Fix them to say priority 1. And don't hand her that "in the real world, you have managers or customers that invert the priorities". Don't invert the priorities, just change them and be honest about it.
  • The only items that are done must have been priority 1, passed through an "in-process" state and then got finished. Once they're done, they're not priority 1 any more. They're just done.
  • Things that hang around in "in-process, not done" have two parts. The part that's done, and some other part that's in the backlog and not priority 1.
She says that priority and status are one thing with the following values.
  • Done.
  • Priority 1 = in process right now.
  • Priority 2 = will be in process next. Not eventually. Next.
  • Priority 3 through ∞ = eventually, in order by priority.
Any more complex scheme is simply misleading (Priority 1 not being done right now? Is it a resource issue? A priority issue? Why aren't you doing it?)

5 comments:

  1. Say I have a Priority 1 tasks like say solving my app's use of the enterprise LDAP for security but I cannot progress because the whole LDAP team is in training for the week. Does this mean my Priority 1 is really a Priority 3 because of totally external factors? I'd think my security architecture/implementation would be pretty important to solve early.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'd agree with her: it's easier to keep priorities simple (unidimensonal). Reassessing priorities is indeed a fact of life. I think I first read about this in David Allen's famous Getting Things Done…

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'd agree with her _if_ you have control over all resources necessary to complete your task. But, if you work in a multi-departmental team with non-overlapping / conflicting priorities, *your* priority 1 task may need to wait for someone else's priority 2 task to become a priority 1.
    So, while you wait to get back to your priority 1, you spend time on your 2s & 3s.

    ReplyDelete
  4. IMO, Priority and Status are two different attributes owned by two different roles. The Product Owner owns the Priority and the dev team owns the status.

    ReplyDelete
  5. There is also the public priority, and a persons private priority that don't have to agree in practice.

    Or,
    Tasks may have high priority but cannot be worked on due to resource limitations. You don't wait around, you get something else done which becomes your personal top priority.

    - Paddy.

    ReplyDelete