It's all about the answers!

Ask a question

Need advice on handling defects with iteration plans


Maren Nelson (611611) | asked Sep 02 '08, 9:22 p.m.
I could use some advice/recommendations regarding how to manage defects in a typical project hierarchy.

We have a new project, one development line, 1 release (so far) with 4 sprints:

Main Development
> Release 1.0
Team X iteration Plan
Team Y iteration Plan
> Sprint 1
Team X iteration Plan
Team Y iteration Plan
... etc for 3 more sprints

Anyhow, we are in the middle of Sprint 3 and about to start working with an external team who will be doing some testing and they will no doubt need to open defects as they find problems.

We'd like to give them simple instructions on how to create a defect in RTC (e.g. what to set fields to)... realizing they may not necessarily know what team is responsible for fixing the bug.

What is a good approach here? Should I create an iteration plan at the Release 1.0 level with a new team that would triage the defects to the right teams? Should the defects stay (and be worked on) at the "Planned for" Release 1.0 level or have another home?

As much as we'd like to have iterative testing, this part of agile development still eludes us, so we are stuck with having post-development test phases. I expect some defects to need fixing in Release 1.0... and others to be deferred into a follow-on release where they can be scheduled along with future development work into future sprints.

Any ideas are welcome.

One answer



permanent link
Christof Marti (681) | answered Sep 08 '08, 3:45 a.m.
You could set up the categories (in the project area editor's Work Item Categories tab) for work items' Filed Against field to show a tree of functional areas that non-developers understand and associate the responsible teams. There you can also hide category subtrees from other teams and outside contributors, such that you can internally use fine-grained categories while not overwhelming those not familiar with the detailed structure. This way you wouldn't need a separate team for assigning work items and can freely use the Planned For field.

If you additionally want to try the approach of having a separate team for assigning incoming work items you could create a team area and associate it with the root category in the categories editor (which applies to work items with Filed Against set to Unassigned) and configure Filed Against to not be required (Process Configuration > Team Configuration > Save Work Item). You could then run a query for all work items owned by that team (set up a query for the Team Area property).

HTH,

Christof
Jazz Work Item team


marenn wrote:
I could use some advice/recommendations regarding how to manage
defects in a typical project hierarchy.

We have a new project, one development line, 1 release (so far) with 4
sprints:

Main Development
Release 1.0
Team X iteration Plan
Team Y iteration Plan
Sprint 1
Team X iteration Plan
Team Y iteration Plan
... etc for 3 more sprints

Anyhow, we are in the middle of Sprint 3 and about to start working
with an external team who will be doing some testing and they will no
doubt need to open defects as they find problems.

We'd like to give them simple instructions on how to create a defect
in RTC (e.g. what to set fields to)... realizing they may not
necessarily know what team is responsible for fixing the bug.

What is a good approach here? Should I create an iteration plan at
the Release 1.0 level with a new team that would triage the defects
to the right teams? Should the defects stay (and be worked on) at
the "Planned for" Release 1.0 level or have another home?


As much as we'd like to have iterative testing, this part of agile
development still eludes us, so we are stuck with having
post-development test phases. I expect some defects to need fixing
in Release 1.0... and others to be deferred into a follow-on release
where they can be scheduled along with future development work into
future sprints.

Any ideas are welcome.

Your answer


Register or to post your answer.


Dashboards and work items are no longer publicly available, so some links may be invalid. We now provide similar information through other means. Learn more here.