Great article Ben!! Very very Practical. Is the way I see things when trying to execute in the chaos. In my philosophy of work, the iteration must be a week long. Anything that lasts more than a week to build, is because:
a) the task is not well defined in scope hiding more tasks in it (kind of a Trojan Horse)
b) A bad task with too many blind spots or dependencies that the team should cover up without strategy .
c) any piece of work of any kind isn't long to execute in more time than a week. If it does, get back to a)
I hear you. I like 1-week sprints as a stress test of how rigorous we're being in our thinking and approach, forcing us to minimize scope and be really thoughtful about what we do and don't do. Eventually I think 2-week sprints is the right balance, so experiments may take a bit longer to build, and a bit longer after that to collect sufficient data, qualitatively and quantitatively, to get results. But speed matters.
Yes. In terms of building something, a week is good. Put it into prod, try it, measure it and have some primal conclusions... the whole process would take 2-weeks. The first week is for tech and the rest is with the whole team.
Great article Ben!! Very very Practical. Is the way I see things when trying to execute in the chaos. In my philosophy of work, the iteration must be a week long. Anything that lasts more than a week to build, is because:
a) the task is not well defined in scope hiding more tasks in it (kind of a Trojan Horse)
b) A bad task with too many blind spots or dependencies that the team should cover up without strategy .
c) any piece of work of any kind isn't long to execute in more time than a week. If it does, get back to a)
I hear you. I like 1-week sprints as a stress test of how rigorous we're being in our thinking and approach, forcing us to minimize scope and be really thoughtful about what we do and don't do. Eventually I think 2-week sprints is the right balance, so experiments may take a bit longer to build, and a bit longer after that to collect sufficient data, qualitatively and quantitatively, to get results. But speed matters.
Yes. In terms of building something, a week is good. Put it into prod, try it, measure it and have some primal conclusions... the whole process would take 2-weeks. The first week is for tech and the rest is with the whole team.
I recommend this "framework" that tries to put it all together https://medium.com/lean-stack/a-3x3x3-perspective-for-getting-your-vision-strategy-and-product-aligned-46aaa3b48922
Really great and insightful article.
Thanks! I appreciate that.
RIP, statistical significance.
Not necessarily. Some of these tests could be statistically significant.