4.3. Items
Last updated
Last updated
Items are the next level of detail and specificity after Epics. Usually, Epics consist of multiple Items, which are ready to be added to a Sprint, but do not necessarily contain all the individual to dos.
When defining an Item, methods that can be used are, for example, the DEEP or INVEST criteria:
DEEP Criteria
Detailed: it needs to be clear what must be done in a certain Item.
Emergent: the Backlog is dynamic in nature and evolves over time. As more and more knowledge is obtained new Items can be added, others can be removed.
Estimable: the effort it takes to execute an Item or its value needs to be sufficiently estimable. To which extent depends on your business model, e.g. whether you need it for capacity planning or pricing. If it cannot be estimated (yet), the Item is not ready to be added to a Sprint, the contents might have to be defined further or it should be split into multiple Items. Estimation is an art in itself; we therefore suggest that you first stay with the approach to estimation that you are currently use, that should do for your first Agile setup. There are various methods for estimating complexity within the Agile toolkit. For the purposes of this workbook however these go into too much detail, so it won’t be covered here. Estimations by some sophisticated method can be useful but are by no means necessary.
Prioritised: importance (value), urgency, risk, and other criteria can be factors to prioritise an Item over others.
INVEST Criteria:
Independent: it can be implemented as a separate and self-contained Item.
Negotiable: like a contract, it needs to be clear what the specifications are. With clients, the contents of an Item can be negotiated. In essence an Item should be a conversation piece.
Valuable: being aware of the value an Item brings to the customer/client and being able to show it helps you already in the communication with a client and the underlying pricing.
Estimable: as above, the Item needs to be well enough defined to estimate it.
Small (or sized appropriately): this is related to estimable, because the smaller an Item, the easier it is to estimate and the lower the risk of the Item itself and of misestimation it. Also, it should be possible to implement an Item within one Sprint.
Testable: the Item is tested by checking it against the Definition of Done and Acceptance Criteria. The definition of an Item, with the help of these criteria, must be detailed enough that it can be worked on; and can contain the Elements you find in the following chapters (in Chapter 4.9, Bringing it together, you see a full Item in detail). Once this is reached, the Item can be added into a Sprint during Planning (Chapter 6.2). This is important to team members, so they know what is expected of them but even more so when dealing with a client. The better the Items are defined, the easier it is to price them precisely for a client, to manage the client’s expectation, but also to deal with a potential liability if certain aspects are explicitly not part of the Item. As with Epics, it is possible to draft standard Items that already have, for example, a list of Tasks included. This could be a standard checklist for trial preparation or contracts. This ensures that nothing is forgotten and also serves as quality control.
Alice, Fiona and Gabriel look at their work and now see a Goal and Epics written down. The list is shorter than they would have initially expected, but it nevertheless feels like a first significant achievement, even though they know they still have a long way to go in their Agile journey. This comes with mixed feelings. They briefl y consider cancelling the experiment but eventu- ally decide to keep going. They’re still energized and looking forward to pushing the limits, especially Gabriel, who is the newest team member and youngest attorney, arguing in favour and offering to go the required extra mile himself, if necessary. He offers to create the fi rst set of Items to have a better basis for their discussion and to speed up the process.
Given that the next deadline of this specific case is still some days away, Gabriel decides to first finish his work on a different court submission he’s working on. He makes a mental note that he will try to find out how teams deal with multiple projects at the same time; maybe he can ask his expert friend Sara about that?
In the elevator up to their office with Fiona, he jumps right into discussing their case. He recalls their Epic “Establish the facts of the case” which is waiting to be broken down into smaller pieces that can be done within a single Sprint. They come up with a solution that is clear enough for them to think that Alice will be fine with it.
During their exchange, they briefly think about whether this has been the best process. From what they have read, they thought the team should define the work Elements as a team effort. However, given that they have had a hard time finding time together and are all struggling with other tasks, they agree to continue for now. Maybe there are some Agile methods for meetings as well, which Gabriel makes a mental note to check out later.
They had already defined some Items and started working on them, like meeting the client to get the big picture of the case. One of the other Items they discuss for quite a while is: collect the proof. Unnoticed by Gabriel, Fiona starts to frown slightly while he is explaining his reasoning. She just listens, though. After Gabriel finished presenting all the Items he has thought of, Fiona suggests addressing this one. She thinks that it might well not work out as Gabriel has thought of it. Experience does help sometimes. She asks Gabriel a few “whys” and in the end explains her concerns. They discuss and both agree that the Item should rather be: “Set up a table to align the arguments”. They’re positively surprised about how smoothly they’re sharing knowledge, thinking and experience as they go through the process.
Item 1. Meet the client to get the big picture of the case.
Item 2. Draw an overview of all parties involved in the case, including their position and relevance.
Item 3. Identify the people able to provide detailed information on relevant issues and interview them.
Item 4. Discuss with the client the expected position of the counterparty. Item 5: Set up a table to align the arguments before court with the submission/argument, relevant proof, the legal basis, and potential applications to the court.
Item 1. ...
Item 2. ...
Item 3. ...
Item 4. ...
