The biggest trap is thinking something has to be perfect to be done. Imperfect or untested things can also be done. Call them AS-IS if you need to label it.
> … tested with multiple rounds of feedback and iteration, the PR is merged, your team’s related work is also done, and it is live in production and available to the users.
This article essentially wants perfection as a definition of “done.”
Part of my motivation for writing this was wondering what would be the solution to what I see as a lot of failed engineering careers of folks in 30s and 40s. I know a lot of them, genuinely great engineers - but somewhere down the line, their expectations of their life shifted, but what they did with their time did not - resulting in dissatisfaction.
Hence, a suggestion to focus on the objective value being created vs. individual engineering tasks as a better barometer of progress.
I believe some of the objections (especially mine) are conflating your intent with Agile/Scrum "definition of done." Personally, and honestly as a humble suggestion, I would like to see this discrepancy in perception addressed in the article. Indeed, the problem is mine, but a minor nudge in the right direction would have changed my response immensely.
Is the story done? Of course. There is nothing else to do on that story because we broke things down into these minuscule story cards.
Is the feature done? Probably not. If you want to hold the “done” classification on the minuscule story until the roll-up of all the feature’s stories are “done“, merged, QA tested, deployed to staging, PM tested, deployed to users, and actually used … well, our “momentum” is gonna look terrible.
At some point I have to get this off my plate and move on. If you want this team’s engineers to babysit their stories until they land in users’ laps, that’s not gonna work. If you want all the stories to sit in operations’ hands until that point, you’re screwing their metrics.
I replied to your other reply to me. I don't know where my message actually belongs - here or there. I will leave it at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48907739 because I can't decide >.<
> Done isn’t when your work is over. Done is when value is created in the world.
I don't get what the context behind this is? What's the intended goal of gatekeeping the word "done"?
For me, I normally come up into "is it done?" as a question when working on tickets in something like jira/trello/etc and there's some "done" column to move things to. Is "value in the world" useful for that context?
Like, "Oh yeah, Craig's finished implementing the API endpoints as per the spec, but we're leaving it in active until the front end team integrate it and it starts delivering real world value".
Yes, it's a bit tongue in cheek and exaggerated to highlight a common shortcoming in typical engineering parlance.
My aim was to encourage:
- More precise language in engineering discussions
- Greater accountability
- Avoiding procrastination
- Keeping your eye on the ball and not just on your PR getting merged
I had an instructor, at a software project management course I attended, who kept saying "We need to know what 'done' looks like."
That's something that I've adopted as a personal mantra.
It doesn't just mean have all the proper boxes been ticked. It also means we're done adding stuff. Time to take out the 600-grit sandpaper, and start finish work.
Yes, this is closest to what I was going for. So much of traditional engineering language and ceremony ignores a lot of things that go with getting something done but never get spoken, measured, or rewarded.
The biggest trap is thinking something has to be perfect to be done. Imperfect or untested things can also be done. Call them AS-IS if you need to label it.
> … tested with multiple rounds of feedback and iteration, the PR is merged, your team’s related work is also done, and it is live in production and available to the users.
This article essentially wants perfection as a definition of “done.”
Directionally, yes.
Part of my motivation for writing this was wondering what would be the solution to what I see as a lot of failed engineering careers of folks in 30s and 40s. I know a lot of them, genuinely great engineers - but somewhere down the line, their expectations of their life shifted, but what they did with their time did not - resulting in dissatisfaction.
Hence, a suggestion to focus on the objective value being created vs. individual engineering tasks as a better barometer of progress.
I believe some of the objections (especially mine) are conflating your intent with Agile/Scrum "definition of done." Personally, and honestly as a humble suggestion, I would like to see this discrepancy in perception addressed in the article. Indeed, the problem is mine, but a minor nudge in the right direction would have changed my response immensely.
> So please tell me again, are you done?
Yes. I am done.
Is the story done? Of course. There is nothing else to do on that story because we broke things down into these minuscule story cards.
Is the feature done? Probably not. If you want to hold the “done” classification on the minuscule story until the roll-up of all the feature’s stories are “done“, merged, QA tested, deployed to staging, PM tested, deployed to users, and actually used … well, our “momentum” is gonna look terrible.
At some point I have to get this off my plate and move on. If you want this team’s engineers to babysit their stories until they land in users’ laps, that’s not gonna work. If you want all the stories to sit in operations’ hands until that point, you’re screwing their metrics.
Simply put: it ain’t that simple.
Perhaps we should.. break the wheel? :)
I replied to your other reply to me. I don't know where my message actually belongs - here or there. I will leave it at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48907739 because I can't decide >.<
> Done isn’t when your work is over. Done is when value is created in the world.
I don't get what the context behind this is? What's the intended goal of gatekeeping the word "done"?
For me, I normally come up into "is it done?" as a question when working on tickets in something like jira/trello/etc and there's some "done" column to move things to. Is "value in the world" useful for that context?
Like, "Oh yeah, Craig's finished implementing the API endpoints as per the spec, but we're leaving it in active until the front end team integrate it and it starts delivering real world value".
Yes, it's a bit tongue in cheek and exaggerated to highlight a common shortcoming in typical engineering parlance.
My aim was to encourage: - More precise language in engineering discussions - Greater accountability - Avoiding procrastination - Keeping your eye on the ball and not just on your PR getting merged
My take (several years old now) https://www.agendashift.com/done
I had an instructor, at a software project management course I attended, who kept saying "We need to know what 'done' looks like."
That's something that I've adopted as a personal mantra.
It doesn't just mean have all the proper boxes been ticked. It also means we're done adding stuff. Time to take out the 600-grit sandpaper, and start finish work.
Yes, this is closest to what I was going for. So much of traditional engineering language and ceremony ignores a lot of things that go with getting something done but never get spoken, measured, or rewarded.
If you wait til the deadline then you create synergies and alignment with management as to whether it’s done.
LinkedIn leaking out.
Or maybe just someone who's done with scrum.