Ideal Iteration Length – A Survey

Recently I put the question of the rationale for a max sprint length of 30 days to one of my LinkedIn groups. Here are the responses:

  • The idea is that anything over 30 days is too large to effectively break down and estimate properly and for everyone to keep that model in their head. It also keeps you focused on the quick evolution of the team to learn through regular small mistakes, instead of remembering what went wrong months ago.
  • The idea is to fail fast and more than 1 month is not fast enough
  • The shorter the sprint and the smaller the stories provides the ability to test early, deliver usable functionality incrementally in small batch sizes, with lower risk.
  • Delivering working software in every sprint over 30 days is called a project. If you keep in mind that the content of the sprint is frozen and that a scrum team should be around 7+-2 people you freeze 7-9 man months or more of work in advance without allowing the customer or product owner to have a say or see a working product in between. This is a huge investment with high risk of error. It also prevent you from reevaluating your way of working often and review your failures and learn from them continuously.
  • For failing faster, 30 days is too long to throw away (worst case).
  • At the beginning, the requirements for that Sprint have been froozen. So the question of Sprint length has also to do with the ability of the Product Owner and Scrum Master to keep these requirements untouched by external influences and to negotiate new requirements onto the Product Backlog for review on the next planning meeting. If you are getting alot of ‘this just can’t wait’, then shorter Sprints are better.
  • You’ll lose the pressure if you start a sprint longer than 30 days. I’ve experienced a 10 days sprint as the best. Try a discussion with the members of a possible fit after you’ve estimated all tasks. Is it realistic to “done” the entire sprint? It’s a challenge to start with a balanced sprint with natural pressure. 30 days sounds a little bit like a lazy PO.
  • I would also add to @Jurrian that for us the 10 days is the right amount. In addition, this helps with user exceptions for urgent changes or issues. It’s an easier sell if I tell them this sprint is set (or even the next one). At the most they typically only have to wait 3 weeks for us to get started on something for them.
  • Dina wisely commented that a shorter sprint duration reduces risk. I would add that shorter sprints force more frequent synchronization and convergence of the different workstreams occurring within a project. If there is any incompatibility between, say, modules of code it would be discovered sooner (and presumably be fixed sooner) thus reducing the risk of having a much bigger incompatibility problem that might arise from longer sprints. I believe this echoes Sachin’s comment that it’s better to fail fast because big problems discovered later than sooner is a recipe for blowing the schedule.
  • We have tried two week sprints and three weeks sprint and the feeling was that three weeks was the perfect length. When we did two week sprints it felt like we where always starting or ending and the teams stress level was too high.
  • Not adding anything really new, but this also comes down to how the human brain works. If you have a term paper due at the end of the semester, you tend to start working on it at the end of the semester. If you had an outline due three weeks into the semester, you’d start working on your Term Paper two weeks into the semester. Slicing into chunks (sprints) helps to prevent all the work slamming down at the end. This goes straight to the Agile Principle of “promote sustainable development.”
  • My Agile coach always recommends starting with one week sprints for new Scrum projects. When you are just starting, how you use Scrum is as much or more important than what is being built. With one week sprints you have a shorter time between learning cycles to adjust things like estimating, how many story points the team takes on and so on.
  • There are three reasons. Two are explicit in Scrum the other isn’t mentioned, but is one of the foundations on which Scrum is based. The explicit ones are feedback and enforced view of reality. The second is removing delays.
  • You want quick feedback. Longer than 30 days does not force you to get it. But feedback exists in many forms. There is the time from getting a request until delivering it. Time from starting a story until it is complete. This is where lessons are learned quickly. I personally don’t like to fail fast, I prefer to learn fast. One does not need to write code to discover the customer doesn’t want it, one needs to write a little where the customer is clear, show it to them, and enable the customer to learn a little bit more. But, if you are going to fail, do it quickly.
  • By enforced view of reality, I mean that things will show up to make it difficult to deliver value in 30 days. For example, customers may not want to talk to you that often, build processes may be inefficient, testing and coding may be too separated from each other. By having a time-box in which your work is intended to get completed, those things that work against you will become more visible and painful. These are impediments to your work actually, and instead of avoiding them by making the sprint length longer, you actually need to shorten the sprint to expose these even more. It is also harder to ignore them – if you haven’t tested your code by sprint’s end – it’ll be obvious and irrefutable. Both of these reasons actually tend to call for even shorter than 30 days sprints. Most successful Scrum teams I know of use 1-2 week sprints. In fact, I’d go so far as saying teams with 3-4 week sprints are showing a “smell” of not being engaged enough in solving their problems (not always true, but often true). The third reason, which in many ways is the biggest one, is removal of delays. Since about 2004, I have been claiming that Scrum is a weak implementation of Lean principles. I say “weak” because Scrum does not deal with optimizing the whole and it leaves out a lot of lean-education and management. But one of the key tenets of Lean is to remove delays so value can be delivered quickly. This is critical because delays between steps of work literally create more work ( see Real Tenets of Lean; Avoid Creating Waste by Eliminating Delays at http://www.netobjectives.com/resources/lightning-webinars a short video that is very well worth watching if I say so myself). The time-boxing of Scrum requires teams to complete their work quickly, it encourages swarming as well. This all reduces delays and therefore avoids incurring work that doesn’t need to happen.
  • The combination of feedback, awareness and removal of delays drives us to have shorter feedback loops until the overhead of the sprint overcomes the value achieved by them. For most teams this will be 1-2 weeks. Some teams that discover they don’t need the discipline of the time box will abandon it completely and move to Kanban.
    I might add that a simple value stream analysis will show most that “the shorter Sprint the better”. Scrum contains no technique or method for optimizing end-to-end, and it should not. The retrospective might uncover such a problem, but I generally advice to use Lean thinking to address end-to-end optimization explicitly.
  • On my projects we started off with 2 week sprints and I think this is a good duration to work with.
  • 30 days is also fairly typical ‘management reporting interval’. A Sprint longer than 30 days means that management may not get a ‘status update’ for two months.
  • With experienced teams and a well-defined product backlog, a 30 day sprint may be fine (not my preference). But when the teams are newly formed, new to Scrum or when the product backlog is very dynamic, it’s better, as someone pointed out, to fail earlier and adapt sooner.
  • A two-week sprint is my preference. Just long enough to develop some rhythm and velocity, but not so long that you risk going down the wrong road for a month.
  • 30-days is what is mentioned in early Scrum literature, notably Schwaber’s writings. Nowadays, Jeff Sutherland speaks about most teams worldwide practicing two-week Sprints, for all the reasons mentioned above (shorter feedback cycles, shorter learning cycles, shorter time to see visible results, and quicker visibility of pain-points that need to be addressed).
  • 30 days matched traditional development teams that were new to scrum, or where older technology was not nimble enough for rapid development for all the mentioned reasons especially quick review and feedback. Even with a 30 day sprint cycle, I have usually obtained feedback in shorter cycles before being fully accustomed to scrum. Maybe as technology and teams get more progressive we will see shorter sprint cycles.
  • All above answers are great. I will amend that by having frequent and not too far away reviews that show what was built (the increment) then you are being transparent and providing the visibility to the stakeholders, so everything that was mentioned (risk, done, value) are all observed and demonstrable. Also by repeating the cycle and having a time for inspect and adapt you can become agile. If you do them more than 30 days the people may not remember what happened and will not effectively adapt. BTW 30 days is too much for us, my experience that most teams use a 2 weeks (10 days) sprints.
  • Start with sprints as short as possible… one week or two week sprints. do not overpromise the productowners but in first place underpromise as you need to learn on what you can deliver on shippable products. If one week or two week sprints are not possible to deliver shipable products you can extend the dime of a sprint to for example 3 weeks or 4 weeks.
  • A 2 week sprint has effictevely just 9 days to build and test deliverables as you also need to reserve time for backlog grooming, sprint planning, sprint review and retrospectives. When you start your first sprint just underpromise. The first sprint needs to be succesfull to the productowner to get respect to each other.
  • Planning for 30 days is too long in my opinion. You really cannot promise deliverables and productowners need to wait too long.
Print Friendly

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>