How granular should tasks within a story be? [closed]

Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.

---

This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.

Closed 5 years ago.

Improve this question

We've been recently implementing Scrum and one of the things we often wonder is the granularity of tasks within stories.

A few people inside our company state that ideally those tasks should be very finely grained, that is, every little part that contributes to delivering a story should represent a task. They argument that this enables tracking on how we are performing in the current sprint.

That leads to a high number of tas开发者_运维问答ks detailing many technical aspects and small actions that need to be done such as create a DAO for component X to persist in database. I've also been reading Ken Schwaber and Mike Beedle's book, Agile Software Development with Scrum, and I've taken the understanding that tasks should really have this kind of granularity; in one of the chapters, they state that tasks should take between 4 to 16 hours to complete.

What I've noticed though, is that with such small tasks we often tend do overspecify things and when our solution differs from what we've previously established in our planning meetings we need to create many new tasks or replace the old ones. Team members also refrain from having to track each and every thing they are doing inside the sprint and creating new tasks since that means we'll have to increment our total tasks in our burndown chart but not necessarily adding a task that aggregates value.

So, ideally, how granular should tasks be inside each story?

---

Schwaber and Beedle say "roughly four to sixteen hours."

The upper bound is useful. It forces the team to plan, and helps provide daily visibility of progress.

The lower bound is a useful target for most tasks, to avoid the fragility and costs of overspecification. However, occasionally the team may find shorter tasks useful in planning, and is free to include those. There should be no mandated lower bound.

For example, one of our current stories includes a task to send something to another team -- a task that will take 0 hours, but one we want to remember to finish.

The number of tasks in your burndown chart is irrelevant. It's the remaining time that matters. The team should feel free to change the tasks during the sprint, as Schwaber and Beedle note.

---

On my last assignment we had between 4 and 32 hours per task. We discovered that when we estimated tasks to more than ~32 hours it was because we did not understand what and how to do the task during estimation.

The effect was that the actual implementation time of those tasks varied much more than smaller task. We often also got "stuck" on those tasks or picked the wrong path or had misunderstood the requirements.

Later we learned that when estimated tasks to be that long it was a signal to try to break it down more. If that was not possible we rejected the task and sent it back for further investigation.

Edit
It also gives a nice feeling to complete tasks at least a couple of times a week.
It also gives rather fast feedback when something does not go as planned. If someone did not complete an 8h task in two days we discussed if the person was stuck on some part, if somebody else had some ideas how to progress or if the estimate was simply wrong from the beginning.

---

Tasks should probably take one-half day to a day, maybe as much as two days sometimes.

Think about it this way: on a more macro level, short iterations promote agility by creating small amounts of value quickly and allowing plans to change as business needs change. On a more micro level, the same is true for tasks. Just like you don't want to spend 3 months on a single iteration, you don't want to spend a week on a single task.

Daily standup meetings can give you a clue that your task size is too big. If team members frequently answer "What did you do yesterday?" and "What will you do today?" with the same answer that they gave the day before, your tasks are probably not small enough.

An example of that would be if a team member regularly answers: "I worked on BigComplexFeatureObject today and will work on it tomorrow" for more than one day in a row, that's a clue that your tasks may be too big. Hopefully, the majority of days a team member will report having completed one task and be about to start another.

Short tasks, 4-16 hours as others have said, also give the PO and team good feedback about project progress. And they prevent team members from going down "rabbit trails" and spending a lot of effort on work that might not be needed if business desires change.

A nice thing about having many smaller tasks is that it potentially gives the PO room to prioritize tasks better and optimize delivered value. You'd be surprised how many "important" parts of big tasks can be postponed or eliminated if they are their own small task.

---

Generally a good yardstick is that a task is something you do on a given day. This is ideal, which means it's rare. But it does fit nicely into that 4-16 hour estimate (some take half a day, some take two days, etc.) that you gave. Granted, I don't think I've ever spent an entire uninterrupted day on a single task. At the very least, you have to break for the scrum meeting. (At a previous job a day of coding was considered 6 hours to account for overhead.)

I can understand the temptation of management to want to plan every single granular detail. That way they can micro-manage every aspect of it. But in practice that just doesn't work. They may also think that they can then use the task descriptions to somehow generate detailed documentation about the software, essentially skipping that as an actual task itself. Again, doesn't work in reality.

Agile development does call for small work items, but taking it too far defeats the purpose entirely. It ends up becoming a problem of too much up-front planning and having to put in a ton of extra re-planning any time anything changes. At that point it's no longer agile, it's just a series of smaller waterfalls.

---

I don't think that there is a universal answer to this question that fits every situation. I think that you should try what your collegues are proposing, and after the first sprint or two you evaluate and see if the process needs tweaking to accomodate everyones needs and wishes.

---

That 4 hour figure sounds like a good minimum to me. I like to think in terms of visible results. We don't have a task per line of code, or a label on a screen, or per refactored utility method surely? But when we get to something that someone else can use, like a public class used by someone else, or a set of fields on a screen that allow some useful action then this sounds like a trackable task to me.

For me the key question is "Do we know we've finished it?" with individual helper functions there's a pretty good chance of refactoring and change, but when I say to my colleage "Here, use this" it either works or it doesn't. The task's completeness can be evaluated.