I'd have to disagree with the previous answer of there not being any value in the tasks. I myself prefer the electronic methods such as: - Calenders : Not only do they say what needs to be done but also when and how long it might take - Task List : Just like the traditional todo list. - Scope Items : Turning the items in the scope spreadsheet into deliverables.
Having physical tasks on cards (tried that) or on the whiteboard in the LLP (did that for a while) is technically better, because you're able to always get to the information quickly. However if your development team is distributed, especially when then PM is in another part of the world, you're going to end up having to duplicate data electronically. The tasks themselves add value to the development house in that they provide good historical data about how long certain tasks take. This information is extremely valuable in building the Scope Matrix of future projects, and as such affect the costing and delivery time. As a side benefit, you'll be able to see by historical trend which asset (i.e. developer) is able to perform and at what efficiency. E.g. If you give a developer a Database task to do and they were inefficient then you'll know next time that database tasks should either be given to someone else or during the down time between projects, said asset should spend time upgrading the database skills.
So important is historical task recording that sometimes clients will ask to see the tasks and how long they took as verification of "the bill". When clients are charged by the development house's hourly rate for work, they want accountability for every hour (or part there of) spent. We used to fill out these sheets with the tasks and the durations to send along with the invoice to the client; and sometimes they would question it.
In teams very new to Scrum, devs can split stories in to tasks to get a better idea of estimates, collaborate on work, etc. For this reason, whatever the devs prefer should be the way forward. Usually a dev will prefer to put tasks on a card, or a whiteboard, or something close to the workspace, but some devs do prefer electronic systems. I find the act of moving a card or writing on a board gives a sense of commitment to a task or story, so I prefer this.
Sometimes the PM prefers to have the tasks so that he can see if a story is 65% done, etc.
Every single time I've seen this it ends up with the PM telling the devs off for not finishing their stories when they said they would, or saying, "It was 85% done yesterday! How can you not have finished it?" This happens a lot with new teams, where devs often prefer to do the easy bits first, or they don't know how to integrate their work with others' yet.
The thing is, there is no value whatsoever in the tasks! It's only possible to get useful feedback by delivering the stories, even if they don't represent completed features but just slices through the system. The tasks themselves are only valuable for the iteration until the stories are completed, so no historic record is needed. PMs who value the tasks often end up with part-done stories and nothing to release or showcase.
For this reason, I would try not to duplicate the tasks for my recording efforts, but just to let the devs make the tasks themselves and put them wherever they want to. It's easy enough to count tasks manually for a burn-down.
发布评论
评论（2）
我不得不不同意之前的答案，即任务没有任何价值。我自己更喜欢电子方法，例如：
- 日历：他们不仅说明需要做什么，还说明何时以及可能需要多长时间
- 任务列表：就像传统的待办事项列表一样。
- 范围项目：将范围电子表格中的项目转变为可交付成果。
在卡片上（尝试过）或在 LLP 中的白板上（曾经这样做过一段时间）在技术上更好，因为您始终能够快速获取信息。但是，如果您的开发团队是分布式的，特别是当 PM 位于世界的另一个地方时，您最终将不得不以电子方式复制数据。这些任务本身为开发公司增加了价值，因为它们提供了有关某些任务需要多长时间的良好历史数据。这些信息对于构建未来项目的范围矩阵非常有价值，因此会影响成本计算和交付时间。附带的好处是，您将能够通过历史趋势了解哪些资产（即开发人员）能够执行以及效率如何。例如，如果您给开发人员一个数据库任务，而他们效率低下，那么您下次就会知道数据库任务应该交给其他人，或者在项目之间的停机时间内，该资产应该花时间升级数据库技能。
历史任务记录非常重要，有时客户会要求查看任务以及他们花了多长时间来验证“账单”。当客户按开发公司的每小时工作费率收费时，他们希望对所花费的每个小时（或其中的一部分）负责。我们过去常常在这些表格中填写任务和持续时间，然后与发票一起发送给客户；有时他们会质疑这一点。
I'd have to disagree with the previous answer of there not being any value in the tasks. I myself prefer the electronic methods such as:
- Calenders : Not only do they say what needs to be done but also when and how long it might take
- Task List : Just like the traditional todo list.
- Scope Items : Turning the items in the scope spreadsheet into deliverables.
Having physical tasks on cards (tried that) or on the whiteboard in the LLP (did that for a while) is technically better, because you're able to always get to the information quickly. However if your development team is distributed, especially when then PM is in another part of the world, you're going to end up having to duplicate data electronically. The tasks themselves add value to the development house in that they provide good historical data about how long certain tasks take. This information is extremely valuable in building the Scope Matrix of future projects, and as such affect the costing and delivery time. As a side benefit, you'll be able to see by historical trend which asset (i.e. developer) is able to perform and at what efficiency. E.g. If you give a developer a Database task to do and they were inefficient then you'll know next time that database tasks should either be given to someone else or during the down time between projects, said asset should spend time upgrading the database skills.
So important is historical task recording that sometimes clients will ask to see the tasks and how long they took as verification of "the bill". When clients are charged by the development house's hourly rate for work, they want accountability for every hour (or part there of) spent. We used to fill out these sheets with the tasks and the durations to send along with the invoice to the client; and sometimes they would question it.
这取决于谁关心任务。
在刚刚接触 Scrum 的团队中，开发人员可以将故事分解为任务，以便更好地了解估算、协作工作等。因此，开发人员喜欢的任何内容都应该是前进的方向。通常开发人员更喜欢将任务放在卡片、白板或靠近工作区的东西上，但有些开发人员确实更喜欢电子系统。我发现移动卡片或在黑板上书写的行为给人一种对任务或故事的承诺感，所以我更喜欢这个。
有时，PM 更喜欢分配任务，这样他就可以查看故事是否已完成 65%，等等。
每次我看到这种情况时，PM 都会责备开发人员，因为他们说他们的故事没有完成。会，或者说，“昨天已经完成了 85%！你怎么可能没有完成呢？”这种情况在新团队中经常发生，开发人员通常更喜欢先做简单的事情，或者他们还不知道如何将自己的工作与其他人的工作整合起来。
问题是，任务没有任何价值！只有通过提供故事才能获得有用的反馈，即使它们并不代表完整的功能，而只是系统的一部分。任务本身只对故事完成之前的迭代有价值，因此不需要历史记录。重视任务的产品经理往往会得到一些未完成的故事，而没有任何东西可以发布或展示。
出于这个原因，我会尽量不重复我的录音工作的任务，而只是让开发人员自己制作任务并将它们放在他们想要的任何地方。手动计算任务以进行燃尽图是很容易的。
It depends who cares about the tasks.
In teams very new to Scrum, devs can split stories in to tasks to get a better idea of estimates, collaborate on work, etc. For this reason, whatever the devs prefer should be the way forward. Usually a dev will prefer to put tasks on a card, or a whiteboard, or something close to the workspace, but some devs do prefer electronic systems. I find the act of moving a card or writing on a board gives a sense of commitment to a task or story, so I prefer this.
Sometimes the PM prefers to have the tasks so that he can see if a story is 65% done, etc.
Every single time I've seen this it ends up with the PM telling the devs off for not finishing their stories when they said they would, or saying, "It was 85% done yesterday! How can you not have finished it?" This happens a lot with new teams, where devs often prefer to do the easy bits first, or they don't know how to integrate their work with others' yet.
The thing is, there is no value whatsoever in the tasks! It's only possible to get useful feedback by delivering the stories, even if they don't represent completed features but just slices through the system. The tasks themselves are only valuable for the iteration until the stories are completed, so no historic record is needed. PMs who value the tasks often end up with part-done stories and nothing to release or showcase.
For this reason, I would try not to duplicate the tasks for my recording efforts, but just to let the devs make the tasks themselves and put them wherever they want to. It's easy enough to count tasks manually for a burn-down.