Pronto, virou prato feito para extremistas-desastrados-alérgicos-a-planos. Depois de um tanto de mensagens, algumas bem mal educadas (pra variar), Anne apareceu com a seguinte resposta:
"To clarify what I said about wishing we had done more planning up front, what we did do was jump right in with a user story writing workshop. We organized the 100+ stories by business processes and the product owner prioritized enough for the first few sprints. After two complete sprints, our sprint retrospectives reflect that for the customers are pleased with the Scum process. However, the product owner said 'adjusting to agile methodology without the complete picture of project' was a frustration.
"Now, don't jump on me. 'Complete picture' doesn't have to mean a fully verified, validated humongous requirements package. I think we haven't sufficiently defined the scope of the project, which means we haven't sufficiently set customer expectations or figured out how our project impacts other ongoing processes and projects. In addition to better scope definition, I would like to do some simple operational concepts and/or modeling of current processes to (1) help all the customers understand their work processes and be able to explain them better and (2) help them generate ideas for improving the processes, especially with the new and exciting capabilities of the system we're developing. We are replacing an internal data-intense management system in our public sector agency. An agile project in the private sector may not have time for this level of planning. We do, and I think it would be time well spent, as long as we keep in mind the goal of a production-ready system in an acceptable amount of time."
"Dont jump on me"! Hehe. Ninguém deveria. Anne foi didática e precisa. É claro que você pode fazer análise de negócios de uma maneira ágil. Pode não. Deveria fazer. A coisa talvez chegue em um ponto em que a gente tenha que distinguir: ágil adjetivo ou "ágil" substantivo? tsc, tsc..