Advertisement

Why We Need a Granularity Concept for User Stories

  • Olga Liskin
  • Raphael Pham
  • Stephan Kiesling
  • Kurt Schneider
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 179)

Abstract

User stories are a widespread instrument for representing requirements. They describe small user-oriented parts of the system and guide the daily work of developers. Often however, user stories are too coarse, so that misunderstandings or dependencies remain unforeseeable. Granularity of user stories needs to be investigated more, but at the same time is a hard-to-grasp concept.

This paper investigates Expected Implementation Duration (EID) of a user story as a characteristic of granularity. We want to find out, whether it is suitable as a quality aspect and can help software teams improve their user stories.

We have conducted a study with software engineering practitioners. There, many user stories had a relatively high EID of four or more days. Many developers state to have experienced certain problems to occur more often with such coarse user stories. Our findings emphasize the importance to reflect on granularity when working with user stories.

Keywords

user stories user requirements requirements quality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bjarnason, E., Wnuk, K., Regnell, B.: Are you biting off more than you can chew? A case study on causes and effects of overscoping in large-scale software engineering. Information & Software Technology 54(10), 1107–1124 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cao, L., Ramesh, B.: Agile requirements engineering practices: An empirical study. IEEE Software 25, 60–67 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cockburn, A., Highsmith, J.: Agile software development, the people factor. IEEE Computer 34(11), 131–133 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cohn, M.: User Stories Applied: For Agile Software Development. Prentice Hall (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohn, M.: Agile Estimating and Planning. Pearson Education (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coughlan, J., Macredie, R.D.: Effective communication in requirements elicitation: A comparison of methodologies. Requirements Engineering 7(2), 47–60 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haugen, N.C.: An empirical study of using planning poker for user story estimation. In: Agile Conference 2006, pp. 9–34 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Imaz, M., Benyon, D.: How stories capture interaction. In: INTERACT 1999, IFIP TC.13, pp. 321–328. IOS Press (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mahniç, V., Hovelja, T.: On using planning poker for estimating user stories. Journal of Systems and Software 85(9), 2086–2095 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miranda, E., Bourque, P., Abran, A.: Sizing user stories using paired comparisons. Information and Software Technology 51(9), 1327–1337 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Patel, C., Ramachandran, M.: Story card based agile software development. International Journal of Hybrid Information Technology 2(2), 125–140 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schwaber, K., Beedle, M.: Agile Software Development with Scrum. Prentice Hall (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tamrakar, R., Jørgensen, M.: Does the use of Fibonacci numbers in Planning Poker affect effort estimates? In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Evaluation & Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2012), pp. 228–232 (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wake, W.C.: INVEST in Good Stories, and SMART Tasks. XP123 (2003), http://xp123.com/articles/invest-in-good-stories-and-smart-tasks/

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olga Liskin
    • 1
  • Raphael Pham
    • 1
  • Stephan Kiesling
    • 1
  • Kurt Schneider
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Engineering GroupLeibniz Universität HannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations