As ever with Scrum, do the least that you think you need. Too much documentation can become impossible to maintain and will just tie you down.
That said: in a previous role where we had around 15 Scrum teams we had a "war room" where the stories were mapped on a wall-sized whiteboard.
Most of these stories were "epics", as there was an assumption that the individual Scrum teams would break them down into smaller, more manageable stories later.
Initally, no time estimates were associated with these epics, as the objective of the map was to identify the dependencies between the epics and get a rough idea of which team would be best placed to do which epic.
In following iterations we worked out the time estimates and started to pencil in where they would sit in each team's backlog. This led to some shuffling around of the stories but on the whole the initial guess was about right.
By two or three sprints after we had started the "war room" became harder to maintain so we shifted back at that point to an Excel spreadsheet with the epics listed sequentially. However, by that time the product owners and customers had internalised the project plan so there wasn't any need to maintain it.
As described in the article you linked the Story Mapping concept was a result of changing something that did not work well for them. All teams are different and the best thing you can do (in my opinion) is to pick one thing that you (the team) thinks looks promising and try it out for a sprint and talk about it again at the next retrospect. Make adjustments and, try some more and revisit at the retrospect again and so on.
Story mapping is a great planning technique, but I would not use the story map per se for tracking. I would use the Features/Scenarios identified on the map as buckets of functionality, and I would use parking lot charts to show progress on each feature. A good idea here is to identify the minimal functionality necessary for shipping each feature (of course those should be the highest priority stories for that feature), and put a line on the parking lot chart for each feature that shows when that minimal amount of functionality has been implemented. This is a clear way of showing exactly where the product is to external stakeholders.
发布评论
评论（4）
与 Scrum 一样，只做您认为需要的最少的事情。太多的文档可能会变得无法维护，并且只会束缚您。
也就是说：在之前的角色中，我们有大约 15 个 Scrum 团队，我们有一个“作战室”，故事被绘制在墙壁大小的白板上。
这些故事大多数都是“史诗”，因为人们假设各个 Scrum 团队稍后会将它们分解为更小、更易于管理的故事。
最初，没有与这些史诗相关的时间估计，因为地图的目标是确定史诗之间的依赖关系，并大致了解哪个团队最适合完成哪个史诗。
在接下来的迭代中，我们计算出了时间估计，并开始在每个团队的待办事项中列出它们的位置。这导致故事发生了一些混乱，但总的来说，最初的猜测是正确的。
在我们开始两到三个冲刺后，“作战室”变得更难维护，因此我们在那时又转回到 Excel 电子表格，其中按顺序列出了史诗。然而，到那时产品所有者和客户已经内化了项目计划，因此没有任何必要维护它。
As ever with Scrum, do the least that you think you need. Too much documentation can become impossible to maintain and will just tie you down.
That said: in a previous role where we had around 15 Scrum teams we had a "war room" where the stories were mapped on a wall-sized whiteboard.
Most of these stories were "epics", as there was an assumption that the individual Scrum teams would break them down into smaller, more manageable stories later.
Initally, no time estimates were associated with these epics, as the objective of the map was to identify the dependencies between the epics and get a rough idea of which team would be best placed to do which epic.
In following iterations we worked out the time estimates and started to pencil in where they would sit in each team's backlog. This led to some shuffling around of the stories but on the whole the initial guess was about right.
By two or three sprints after we had started the "war room" became harder to maintain so we shifted back at that point to an Excel spreadsheet with the epics listed sequentially. However, by that time the product owners and customers had internalised the project plan so there wasn't any need to maintain it.
Tobias 提供了关于故事地图的另外两个观点：Twitter 的 John Walpole 分享了他们在故事地图方面的经验 我还写了一篇关于故事映射的入门知识。
Tobias here are two other perspectives on story mapping: John Walpole of Twitter shares their experience with story maps and I also wrote a primer on story mapping.
正如文章中所述，您链接的故事映射概念是更改对他们来说效果不佳的内容的结果。所有团队都是不同的，你能做的最好的事情（在我看来）就是选择一件你（团队）认为看起来有希望的事情，并尝试冲刺，并在下一次回顾时再次讨论它。进行调整，尝试更多，并在回顾时再次回顾等等。
As described in the article you linked the Story Mapping concept was a result of changing something that did not work well for them. All teams are different and the best thing you can do (in my opinion) is to pick one thing that you (the team) thinks looks promising and try it out for a sprint and talk about it again at the next retrospect. Make adjustments and, try some more and revisit at the retrospect again and so on.
故事地图是一种很好的规划技术，但我不会使用故事地图本身来进行跟踪。我将使用地图上标识的功能/场景作为功能桶，并且我将使用停车场图表来显示每个功能的进度。这里的一个好主意是确定交付每个功能所需的最小功能（当然这些应该是该功能的最高优先级故事），并在每个功能的停车场图表上画一条线，显示何时需要该最小功能已实施。这是向外部利益相关者准确展示产品位置的清晰方式。
Story mapping is a great planning technique, but I would not use the story map per se for tracking. I would use the Features/Scenarios identified on the map as buckets of functionality, and I would use parking lot charts to show progress on each feature. A good idea here is to identify the minimal functionality necessary for shipping each feature (of course those should be the highest priority stories for that feature), and put a line on the parking lot chart for each feature that shows when that minimal amount of functionality has been implemented. This is a clear way of showing exactly where the product is to external stakeholders.