I'm currently in an organisation where sprints vary between two to four weeks. I'm not keen on this personally as it becomes difficult to gauge velocity, and also tricky for the rest of the organisation to match their schedules with the development team.
On the other hand it does mean that very few stories are carried over to the next sprint, and we can more easily take account of absence, unexpected bugs, and suchlike -- which would normally lead to a sprint being cancelled outright.
I've been involved with teams that have tried the one-week sprint. In practice the amount of overhead associated with sprint planning, test plans, deployment and suchlike meant that we ended up with about two days of actual development time: it was hard to get large strategic work done as a result. I believe that team now work using Kanban and no fixed sprint duration at all, and are much happier as a result.
We determine sprint length per project. If we're running a small project which will last 3-4 weeks running week-long sprints doesn't make any sense there and we switch to almost kanban-like approach.
If we're running a long-term project anywhere between 1 and 2 weeks. What we don't do, however is being absolutely flexible with sprint length in the end it created reporting chaos with us. What we do employ, however is doubling the length of the sprint. Not for the sake of finishing loose ends, but with a goal to complete both sprints load without having to explain why we're going to be rearranging stuff. We still try to avoid that whereever possible.
发布评论
评论（2）
像往常一样：这取决于。
我目前所在的组织的冲刺周期为两到四个星期。我个人并不热衷于此，因为衡量速度变得很困难，而且组织的其他成员也很难将他们的日程安排与开发团队相匹配。
另一方面，这确实意味着很少有故事会延续到下一个冲刺，而且我们可以更容易地考虑缺席、意外错误等情况——这通常会导致冲刺被彻底取消。
我参与过尝试过一周冲刺的团队。在实践中，与冲刺计划、测试计划、部署等相关的开销意味着我们最终只有大约两天的实际开发时间：因此很难完成大型战略工作。我相信团队现在使用看板工作，根本没有固定的冲刺持续时间，因此更加高兴。
As usual: it depends.
I'm currently in an organisation where sprints vary between two to four weeks. I'm not keen on this personally as it becomes difficult to gauge velocity, and also tricky for the rest of the organisation to match their schedules with the development team.
On the other hand it does mean that very few stories are carried over to the next sprint, and we can more easily take account of absence, unexpected bugs, and suchlike -- which would normally lead to a sprint being cancelled outright.
I've been involved with teams that have tried the one-week sprint. In practice the amount of overhead associated with sprint planning, test plans, deployment and suchlike meant that we ended up with about two days of actual development time: it was hard to get large strategic work done as a result. I believe that team now work using Kanban and no fixed sprint duration at all, and are much happier as a result.
我们确定每个项目的冲刺长度。如果我们正在运行一个将持续 3-4 周的小项目，那么运行为期一周的冲刺没有任何意义，我们会转向几乎类似看板的方法。
如果我们正在运行一个为期 1 到 2 周的长期项目。然而，我们没有做的是对冲刺长度绝对灵活，最终给我们带来了报告混乱。然而，我们所做的是将冲刺的长度加倍。不是为了完成未完成的任务，而是为了完成两个冲刺负载，而无需解释为什么我们要重新安排东西。我们仍然尽力避免这种情况。
We determine sprint length per project. If we're running a small project which will last 3-4 weeks running week-long sprints doesn't make any sense there and we switch to almost kanban-like approach.
If we're running a long-term project anywhere between 1 and 2 weeks. What we don't do, however is being absolutely flexible with sprint length in the end it created reporting chaos with us. What we do employ, however is doubling the length of the sprint. Not for the sake of finishing loose ends, but with a goal to complete both sprints load without having to explain why we're going to be rearranging stuff. We still try to avoid that whereever possible.