Agile Scope Creep and the Golden Ratio –
Balancing Project Flexibility and Controllability
Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic
Cohesion Consulting
1
Responsiveness (Flexibility) Vs
Robustness (Controllability)
• In the history of software development, a struggle has
existed between building a Responsive Software
product and building a Robust Software product
[Rosenberg, Stephens, Collins-Cope].
• A Responsive software product is capable of quickly
reacting to changes in software requirements while
being developed; it is often the prime attribute of
adopting agile methodologies.
• The potential drawback of high responsiveness is the
loss of robustness when reacting quickly also
introduces undetected defects in the software.
Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic
Cohesion Consulting
2
Responsiveness (Flexibility) Vs
Robustness (Controllability)
• A Robust software is designed with a lot of care and
upfront considerations so that the software overall
architecture remains resilient to changing or new
requirements.
• The potential drawback of high robustness is the loss of
agility due to a slower pace of development as more
time is usually spent up front putting in place risk
mitigating measures such as: requirements gathering
and analysis tasks, Requirements traceability matrices,
design documents, unit tests, customer acceptance
tests, defect tracking software, etc…
Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic
Cohesion Consulting
3
Scope Creep
• Scope creep is a deviation from an initially agreed-
upon set of requirements that the software
development team must implement.
• This presentation does not consider scope creep a “bad
thing” by default unless it goes above a given threshold
that we are going to determine later on.
• Responsive software development or Agile
development responds better to moderate scope creep
since one of Agile’s main attributes is its ability to
quickly adapt to new or changing requirements.
Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic
Cohesion Consulting
4
The Limits of Agility (Flexibility)
• Agile software development is now most favored within the
industry. It is considered much more effective than
methodologies that promote Robustness via significant
upfront planning and freezing of requirements with more
analysis and perhaps more design activities upfront.
• This presentation stipulates that there is a defined ratio of
Scope Creep above which Agile approaches (Flexibility) lose
their edge and become less efficient than methodologies
that favor significant Upfront planning and freezing of total
work to do (Controllability).
• This threshold ratio is the famous Golden Ratio!
Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic
Cohesion Consulting
5
The Limits of Agility (Flexibility)
• The presentation demonstrates that:
– if Tagile is the time required to complete a sprint/iteration
initial amount of work with an ongoing addition of work
throughout the entire sprint/iteration on top of the
starting amount of work
– And if Tupfront is the time required to complete an “initially
planned and frozen” amount of work plus a portion of
work added to the planned one without adding any more
work during the effort
Tagile < Tupfront if AdditionalWork <
𝑰𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝑾𝒐𝒓𝒌
𝑮𝒐𝒍𝒅𝒆𝒏 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐
Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic
Cohesion Consulting
6
The Limits of Agility (Flexibility)
• The Scope Creep Rule can be stated as:
– For each unit of work that you complete as part of
an ongoing Agile sprint/iteration effort that starts
with an initially planned amount of work, do not
add more than 62% ( close to 1/GoldenRatio) new
work to your current work, otherwise you would
be done faster if you had first added that
percentage of the initially planned work to the
initial amount of work and then if you had frozen
the total work until all work was fully completed.
Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic
Cohesion Consulting
7
What the Scope Creep Rule does not specify
• The Scope Creep Rule:
– Does not specify how you come up with a
measurement of the size of the initial amount of
work.
– Does not specify how you determine the nominal rate
at which your development team completes a unit of
work.
• The following papers are a great references on
ways of sizing software work :
– ”A Complexity Measure based on Requirement
Engineering Document”
– “Agile in an Imperfect World”
Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic
Cohesion Consulting
8
Scope Creep in Agile Methodologies
• In Agile methodologies, a partially complete
and manageable enough set of Requirements
is selected for implementation during a Sprint
or Iteration to quickly produce a set of
software functionality that can be presented
to the project sponsor to demonstrate
progress and elicit feedback.
Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic
Cohesion Consulting
9
Scope Creep in Agile Methodologies
• Scope Creep in Agile Sprints/Iterations usually
happens because of:
– The identification of additional Requirements very
relevant to the initial set being implemented
– Additional implementation work needed because
the development team better understands the
existing requirements as it works trough them.
Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic
Cohesion Consulting
10
Quantifying Scope Creep in Agile
Methodologies (Flexibility)
• Let’s call W the amount of work that was selected
at the beginning of an agile sprint or iteration.
• Let’s call dw the additional amount of work
discovered during the sprint or iteration that
results from:
– The identification of additional Requirements very
relevant to the initial set being implemented.
– And additional implementation work needed because
the development team better understands the
existing requirements as it works trough them.
Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic
Cohesion Consulting
11
Quantifying Scope Creep in Agile
Methodologies (Flexibility)
• The ratio dw/W is the relative amount of new
work added per completed unit of existing
work.
• If dw=0 then dw/W=0 so there is 0% new
work
• If dw=W then dw/W= W/W=1 so there is
100% new work
Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic
Cohesion Consulting
12
Quantifying Scope Creep in Agile
Methodologies (Flexibility)
• Let P be the overall completion rate if no additional
work is created during the sprint/iteration
• Let Pa = P.(1-dw/W) be the adjusted completion rate
when you have dw additional work.
• If dw=0 then Pa =P.(1-0/W) = P, as expected.
• If dw=1 then Pa =P.(1-W/W) = 0
• Pa = 0 means that if you always end up having the
same amount of remaining work to complete as the
amount you started with, you are constantly working
with no end in sight; it is as though your overall
completion rate is 0.
Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic
Cohesion Consulting
13
Quantifying Scope Creep in Agile
Methodologies (Flexibility)
• Another way of understanding why Pa=0 when dw=W:
– Imagine that you are running on a treadmill, if the
treadmill was not moving then after a step or two you
reach the end of the belt and there is nowhere to go past
it. When the treadmill is moving at the same pace as you,
when you complete a step or two, you can still run the
exact same length of belt as the length you just ran.
– From your reference point, your are running and covering
some distance, but from the reference point of someone
standing next to your treadmill you are not moving.
– Pa=0 is how your progress appears to an outside observer
waiting for you to complete the work ahead of you during
a sprint/iteration.
Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic
Cohesion Consulting
14
Agile Completion Time with Scope
Creep
• So if you start with W amount of work and
your Scope Creep ratio is dw/W then the time
Tagile it takes you to finish the sprint/iteration
total work is:
Tagile =
𝑊
𝑃𝑎
=
𝑊
𝑃(1−
𝑑𝑤
𝑊
)
=
𝑊2
𝑃(𝑊−𝑑𝑤)
Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic
Cohesion Consulting
15
Upfront planning and freezing of total
work
• With Upfront planning and freezing, the
development team spends a lot of efforts
identifying, quantifying and planning the amount
of work needed to complete the implementation
of a set of Requirements.
• It is important to note that if an Agile project
strictly enforces Freezing the Requirements
selected for each sprint/iteration prior to
beginning work, it behaves like the “Upfront
planning and freezing” approach over the scope
of the Sprint/Iteration development work.
Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic
Cohesion Consulting
16
Scope Creep in Upfront planning and
freezing of total work
• Scope Creep can also happen in Upfront planning
and freezing of total work.
• In this case, Scope Creep takes the shape of
additional work that will come from new
requirements that the development team is
considering adding to the initially planned set of
Requirements prior to beginning any work.
• In this case no new requirements are added once
planned work begins and until all work is
completed.
Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic
Cohesion Consulting
17
Scope Creep in Upfront planning and
freezing of total work
• The important distinction between Agile scope
creep and ‘Upfront planning and freezing” scope
creep is that the former happens during the
iteration/sprint work while the latter happens
before starting the development work.
• Because of this distinction, both approaches
tackle the complexity and risk added by scope
creep differently. The following slides will clarify
this point.
Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic
Cohesion Consulting
18
Quantifying Scope Creep in Upfront planning
and freezing of total work (Controllability)
• Let W be an initially planned amount of work
• Let dw be the additional amount of work added to W by
additional requirements
• (W+dw)/W is the ratio of additional work to initial work
• Let P be the overall completion rate of work in Upfront
planning when there are no new additional work.
• Let Pu be the adjusted completion rate in Upfront planning
when dw work is added to W.
• Pu = P.W/(W+dw), Pu decreases as more work is added
upfront because of the added complexity of the total work.
• If dw=0 then Pu = P.W/(W+0) = P.W/W = P
Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic
Cohesion Consulting
19
• So if you start with W+dw planned amount of
work, the time Tupfront it takes to complete the
total work is:
Tupfront =
𝑊+𝑑𝑤
𝑃𝑢
=
𝑊+𝑑𝑤
𝑃.𝑊
𝑊+𝑑𝑤
=
𝑊+𝑑𝑤 2
𝑃.𝑊
Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic
Cohesion Consulting
20
Quantifying Scope Creep in Upfront planning
and freezing of total work (Controllability)
Comparing Agile Completion Time (Flexibility) to Upfront
planning and freezing Completion Time (Controllability)
• The question is: for a given Scope Creep ratio dw/W, which
approach completes the total amount of work W first?
• We are comparing:
 Tagile =
𝑾 𝟐
𝑷(𝑾−𝒅𝒘)
to Tupfront =
𝑾+𝒅𝒘 𝟐
𝑷.𝑾
Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic
Cohesion Consulting
21
• Plotting Tagile and Tupfront as functions of dw for W=100 units of work and
P=50 units of work/week gives:
dw=62
Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic
Cohesion Consulting
22
Comparing Agile Completion Time (Flexibility) to Upfront
planning and freezing Completion Time (Controllability)
Flexibility Wins Controllability Wins
• The positive analytical solution to:
Tagile =
𝑾 𝟐
𝑷(𝑾−𝒅𝒘)
= Tupfront =
𝑾+𝒅𝒘 𝟐
𝑷.𝑾
Is: dw = 0
and dw =
1
1+ 5
2
W The Golden Ratio =
𝟏+ 𝟓
𝟐
= W/dw
Tagile < Tupfront if AdditionalWork <
𝑰𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝑾𝒐𝒓𝒌
𝑮𝒐𝒍𝒅𝒆𝒏 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐
Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic
Cohesion Consulting
23
Comparing Agile Completion Time (Flexibility) to Upfront
planning and freezing Completion Time (Controllability)
Check the Online Illustration
Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic
Cohesion Consulting
24
Illustration is explained in further details at the above link!
Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic
Cohesion Consulting
25
Contact didier@pragmaticohesion.com to learn more about
Controlling your Software Delivery Schedule and Cost.
http://pragmaticohesion.com/
Check the Online Illustration

More Related Content

PDF
Keynote: The Phoenix Project: Lessons Learned - PuppetConf 2014
PPT
New Technology Business Case
PDF
Agile Beer - metricas automaticas com jira e actionable agile - allex
PDF
Metrificando o que realmente importa
PDF
Understanding Information Architecture: A Workshop
PDF
Business Model
PPTX
Cohesion & coherence
PPT
Ellipsis in english
Keynote: The Phoenix Project: Lessons Learned - PuppetConf 2014
New Technology Business Case
Agile Beer - metricas automaticas com jira e actionable agile - allex
Metrificando o que realmente importa
Understanding Information Architecture: A Workshop
Business Model
Cohesion & coherence
Ellipsis in english

Viewers also liked (9)

PPT
Cohesion and coherence
PPTX
Burj Khalifa
PPTX
Substitution and ellipsis
PPTX
Cohesive devices
PPT
Cohesion And Coherence
PPT
Coherence And Cohesion
PPT
Cohesion Types
PDF
Coherence and cohesion
PPT
Cohesion and coherence
Cohesion and coherence
Burj Khalifa
Substitution and ellipsis
Cohesive devices
Cohesion And Coherence
Coherence And Cohesion
Cohesion Types
Coherence and cohesion
Cohesion and coherence
Ad

Similar to Agile scope creep and the Golden Ratio – Balancing Project Flexibility and Controllability (20)

PDF
CSCW2015 review
PPTX
Agile project tracking - burn up charts
PDF
Your Strategy Guide for Managing Project Scope
PDF
The promise and peril of Agile and Lean practices
PPT
adosadaojdoisadaodiaosdijasodiasodjowqidoqidjowqdwq
PDF
Implications of Adopting Agile Processes
PDF
Pdu session challenges in agile
PDF
#Fundamental understanding of agile - By SN Panigrahi
PDF
Learning shot 'how to measure performance in agile projects'
PDF
Impact of eLearning Scope Creep_ A Project Manager's Guide.pdf
DOC
Extending Agile to Suite Big Projects
PPTX
Effective Software Design
DOCX
Using Flow To Improve Testing - Paper for Lean Systems Conference 2011 Procee...
PDF
The Importance of Agile Methodology in Software Development
PDF
PMI-ACP Lesson 12 Knowledge and Skills Nugget 4
PPTX
Managing scope creep in IT projects
PPTX
3 scope Management
PDF
Boston Ruby Meetup: The promise and peril of Agile and Lean practices
PPTX
1. project Management
PPT
Agile softwareengineering
CSCW2015 review
Agile project tracking - burn up charts
Your Strategy Guide for Managing Project Scope
The promise and peril of Agile and Lean practices
adosadaojdoisadaodiaosdijasodiasodjowqidoqidjowqdwq
Implications of Adopting Agile Processes
Pdu session challenges in agile
#Fundamental understanding of agile - By SN Panigrahi
Learning shot 'how to measure performance in agile projects'
Impact of eLearning Scope Creep_ A Project Manager's Guide.pdf
Extending Agile to Suite Big Projects
Effective Software Design
Using Flow To Improve Testing - Paper for Lean Systems Conference 2011 Procee...
The Importance of Agile Methodology in Software Development
PMI-ACP Lesson 12 Knowledge and Skills Nugget 4
Managing scope creep in IT projects
3 scope Management
Boston Ruby Meetup: The promise and peril of Agile and Lean practices
1. project Management
Agile softwareengineering
Ad

More from Pragmatic Cohesion Consulting, LLC (20)

PDF
Applying the integrative propositional analysis (ipa) to the ebmm – triads
PPTX
Viewers locations usa - 30000
PPTX
Viewers locations outside USA - 30000
PDF
Comparing four major organizational cultures and the challenges faced when tr...
PDF
Obstacles to effective knowledge elicitation
PPTX
Viewers locations in the USA
PPTX
Viewers locations outside the USA
PDF
Framework for assessing business analysts situational awareness
PDF
The dynamics of cohesive and inconsistent project requirements and how they i...
PDF
Creating queuing system simulations with enterprise architect sysml parametri...
PDF
The non intuitive impact of software defects on development efforts time esti...
PDF
The dynamic interaction of passed and failed requirements during software tes...
PDF
Balancing software project drivers a rational quantitative approach
PDF
M theory for business analysts - 11 dimensions of empowerment
PDF
Effective Listening - a cornerstone of effective business analysis
PDF
About the benefits and pitfalls of relying on analytical methods
PDF
Deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning and their application in trans...
PDF
34,000 delicious Food and Beverage combinations for your holidays!
PDF
Business analysis compass mapping to the iiba babok v2
PDF
Business analysis and business framework driven projects - Example of the Mic...
Applying the integrative propositional analysis (ipa) to the ebmm – triads
Viewers locations usa - 30000
Viewers locations outside USA - 30000
Comparing four major organizational cultures and the challenges faced when tr...
Obstacles to effective knowledge elicitation
Viewers locations in the USA
Viewers locations outside the USA
Framework for assessing business analysts situational awareness
The dynamics of cohesive and inconsistent project requirements and how they i...
Creating queuing system simulations with enterprise architect sysml parametri...
The non intuitive impact of software defects on development efforts time esti...
The dynamic interaction of passed and failed requirements during software tes...
Balancing software project drivers a rational quantitative approach
M theory for business analysts - 11 dimensions of empowerment
Effective Listening - a cornerstone of effective business analysis
About the benefits and pitfalls of relying on analytical methods
Deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning and their application in trans...
34,000 delicious Food and Beverage combinations for your holidays!
Business analysis compass mapping to the iiba babok v2
Business analysis and business framework driven projects - Example of the Mic...

Recently uploaded (20)

PPT
Geologic Time for studying geology for geologist
PDF
Enhancing plagiarism detection using data pre-processing and machine learning...
PPTX
Configure Apache Mutual Authentication
PDF
Flame analysis and combustion estimation using large language and vision assi...
PPT
What is a Computer? Input Devices /output devices
PDF
Taming the Chaos: How to Turn Unstructured Data into Decisions
PDF
sbt 2.0: go big (Scala Days 2025 edition)
PDF
Five Habits of High-Impact Board Members
PDF
OpenACC and Open Hackathons Monthly Highlights July 2025
PDF
“A New Era of 3D Sensing: Transforming Industries and Creating Opportunities,...
PDF
Comparative analysis of machine learning models for fake news detection in so...
PDF
Architecture types and enterprise applications.pdf
PDF
Convolutional neural network based encoder-decoder for efficient real-time ob...
PDF
A contest of sentiment analysis: k-nearest neighbor versus neural network
PDF
Produktkatalog für HOBO Datenlogger, Wetterstationen, Sensoren, Software und ...
PPTX
TEXTILE technology diploma scope and career opportunities
PDF
UiPath Agentic Automation session 1: RPA to Agents
PDF
Getting started with AI Agents and Multi-Agent Systems
PPTX
GROUP4NURSINGINFORMATICSREPORT-2 PRESENTATION
PPTX
AI IN MARKETING- PRESENTED BY ANWAR KABIR 1st June 2025.pptx
Geologic Time for studying geology for geologist
Enhancing plagiarism detection using data pre-processing and machine learning...
Configure Apache Mutual Authentication
Flame analysis and combustion estimation using large language and vision assi...
What is a Computer? Input Devices /output devices
Taming the Chaos: How to Turn Unstructured Data into Decisions
sbt 2.0: go big (Scala Days 2025 edition)
Five Habits of High-Impact Board Members
OpenACC and Open Hackathons Monthly Highlights July 2025
“A New Era of 3D Sensing: Transforming Industries and Creating Opportunities,...
Comparative analysis of machine learning models for fake news detection in so...
Architecture types and enterprise applications.pdf
Convolutional neural network based encoder-decoder for efficient real-time ob...
A contest of sentiment analysis: k-nearest neighbor versus neural network
Produktkatalog für HOBO Datenlogger, Wetterstationen, Sensoren, Software und ...
TEXTILE technology diploma scope and career opportunities
UiPath Agentic Automation session 1: RPA to Agents
Getting started with AI Agents and Multi-Agent Systems
GROUP4NURSINGINFORMATICSREPORT-2 PRESENTATION
AI IN MARKETING- PRESENTED BY ANWAR KABIR 1st June 2025.pptx

Agile scope creep and the Golden Ratio – Balancing Project Flexibility and Controllability

  • 1. Agile Scope Creep and the Golden Ratio – Balancing Project Flexibility and Controllability Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic Cohesion Consulting 1
  • 2. Responsiveness (Flexibility) Vs Robustness (Controllability) • In the history of software development, a struggle has existed between building a Responsive Software product and building a Robust Software product [Rosenberg, Stephens, Collins-Cope]. • A Responsive software product is capable of quickly reacting to changes in software requirements while being developed; it is often the prime attribute of adopting agile methodologies. • The potential drawback of high responsiveness is the loss of robustness when reacting quickly also introduces undetected defects in the software. Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic Cohesion Consulting 2
  • 3. Responsiveness (Flexibility) Vs Robustness (Controllability) • A Robust software is designed with a lot of care and upfront considerations so that the software overall architecture remains resilient to changing or new requirements. • The potential drawback of high robustness is the loss of agility due to a slower pace of development as more time is usually spent up front putting in place risk mitigating measures such as: requirements gathering and analysis tasks, Requirements traceability matrices, design documents, unit tests, customer acceptance tests, defect tracking software, etc… Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic Cohesion Consulting 3
  • 4. Scope Creep • Scope creep is a deviation from an initially agreed- upon set of requirements that the software development team must implement. • This presentation does not consider scope creep a “bad thing” by default unless it goes above a given threshold that we are going to determine later on. • Responsive software development or Agile development responds better to moderate scope creep since one of Agile’s main attributes is its ability to quickly adapt to new or changing requirements. Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic Cohesion Consulting 4
  • 5. The Limits of Agility (Flexibility) • Agile software development is now most favored within the industry. It is considered much more effective than methodologies that promote Robustness via significant upfront planning and freezing of requirements with more analysis and perhaps more design activities upfront. • This presentation stipulates that there is a defined ratio of Scope Creep above which Agile approaches (Flexibility) lose their edge and become less efficient than methodologies that favor significant Upfront planning and freezing of total work to do (Controllability). • This threshold ratio is the famous Golden Ratio! Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic Cohesion Consulting 5
  • 6. The Limits of Agility (Flexibility) • The presentation demonstrates that: – if Tagile is the time required to complete a sprint/iteration initial amount of work with an ongoing addition of work throughout the entire sprint/iteration on top of the starting amount of work – And if Tupfront is the time required to complete an “initially planned and frozen” amount of work plus a portion of work added to the planned one without adding any more work during the effort Tagile < Tupfront if AdditionalWork < 𝑰𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝑾𝒐𝒓𝒌 𝑮𝒐𝒍𝒅𝒆𝒏 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐 Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic Cohesion Consulting 6
  • 7. The Limits of Agility (Flexibility) • The Scope Creep Rule can be stated as: – For each unit of work that you complete as part of an ongoing Agile sprint/iteration effort that starts with an initially planned amount of work, do not add more than 62% ( close to 1/GoldenRatio) new work to your current work, otherwise you would be done faster if you had first added that percentage of the initially planned work to the initial amount of work and then if you had frozen the total work until all work was fully completed. Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic Cohesion Consulting 7
  • 8. What the Scope Creep Rule does not specify • The Scope Creep Rule: – Does not specify how you come up with a measurement of the size of the initial amount of work. – Does not specify how you determine the nominal rate at which your development team completes a unit of work. • The following papers are a great references on ways of sizing software work : – ”A Complexity Measure based on Requirement Engineering Document” – “Agile in an Imperfect World” Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic Cohesion Consulting 8
  • 9. Scope Creep in Agile Methodologies • In Agile methodologies, a partially complete and manageable enough set of Requirements is selected for implementation during a Sprint or Iteration to quickly produce a set of software functionality that can be presented to the project sponsor to demonstrate progress and elicit feedback. Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic Cohesion Consulting 9
  • 10. Scope Creep in Agile Methodologies • Scope Creep in Agile Sprints/Iterations usually happens because of: – The identification of additional Requirements very relevant to the initial set being implemented – Additional implementation work needed because the development team better understands the existing requirements as it works trough them. Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic Cohesion Consulting 10
  • 11. Quantifying Scope Creep in Agile Methodologies (Flexibility) • Let’s call W the amount of work that was selected at the beginning of an agile sprint or iteration. • Let’s call dw the additional amount of work discovered during the sprint or iteration that results from: – The identification of additional Requirements very relevant to the initial set being implemented. – And additional implementation work needed because the development team better understands the existing requirements as it works trough them. Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic Cohesion Consulting 11
  • 12. Quantifying Scope Creep in Agile Methodologies (Flexibility) • The ratio dw/W is the relative amount of new work added per completed unit of existing work. • If dw=0 then dw/W=0 so there is 0% new work • If dw=W then dw/W= W/W=1 so there is 100% new work Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic Cohesion Consulting 12
  • 13. Quantifying Scope Creep in Agile Methodologies (Flexibility) • Let P be the overall completion rate if no additional work is created during the sprint/iteration • Let Pa = P.(1-dw/W) be the adjusted completion rate when you have dw additional work. • If dw=0 then Pa =P.(1-0/W) = P, as expected. • If dw=1 then Pa =P.(1-W/W) = 0 • Pa = 0 means that if you always end up having the same amount of remaining work to complete as the amount you started with, you are constantly working with no end in sight; it is as though your overall completion rate is 0. Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic Cohesion Consulting 13
  • 14. Quantifying Scope Creep in Agile Methodologies (Flexibility) • Another way of understanding why Pa=0 when dw=W: – Imagine that you are running on a treadmill, if the treadmill was not moving then after a step or two you reach the end of the belt and there is nowhere to go past it. When the treadmill is moving at the same pace as you, when you complete a step or two, you can still run the exact same length of belt as the length you just ran. – From your reference point, your are running and covering some distance, but from the reference point of someone standing next to your treadmill you are not moving. – Pa=0 is how your progress appears to an outside observer waiting for you to complete the work ahead of you during a sprint/iteration. Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic Cohesion Consulting 14
  • 15. Agile Completion Time with Scope Creep • So if you start with W amount of work and your Scope Creep ratio is dw/W then the time Tagile it takes you to finish the sprint/iteration total work is: Tagile = 𝑊 𝑃𝑎 = 𝑊 𝑃(1− 𝑑𝑤 𝑊 ) = 𝑊2 𝑃(𝑊−𝑑𝑤) Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic Cohesion Consulting 15
  • 16. Upfront planning and freezing of total work • With Upfront planning and freezing, the development team spends a lot of efforts identifying, quantifying and planning the amount of work needed to complete the implementation of a set of Requirements. • It is important to note that if an Agile project strictly enforces Freezing the Requirements selected for each sprint/iteration prior to beginning work, it behaves like the “Upfront planning and freezing” approach over the scope of the Sprint/Iteration development work. Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic Cohesion Consulting 16
  • 17. Scope Creep in Upfront planning and freezing of total work • Scope Creep can also happen in Upfront planning and freezing of total work. • In this case, Scope Creep takes the shape of additional work that will come from new requirements that the development team is considering adding to the initially planned set of Requirements prior to beginning any work. • In this case no new requirements are added once planned work begins and until all work is completed. Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic Cohesion Consulting 17
  • 18. Scope Creep in Upfront planning and freezing of total work • The important distinction between Agile scope creep and ‘Upfront planning and freezing” scope creep is that the former happens during the iteration/sprint work while the latter happens before starting the development work. • Because of this distinction, both approaches tackle the complexity and risk added by scope creep differently. The following slides will clarify this point. Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic Cohesion Consulting 18
  • 19. Quantifying Scope Creep in Upfront planning and freezing of total work (Controllability) • Let W be an initially planned amount of work • Let dw be the additional amount of work added to W by additional requirements • (W+dw)/W is the ratio of additional work to initial work • Let P be the overall completion rate of work in Upfront planning when there are no new additional work. • Let Pu be the adjusted completion rate in Upfront planning when dw work is added to W. • Pu = P.W/(W+dw), Pu decreases as more work is added upfront because of the added complexity of the total work. • If dw=0 then Pu = P.W/(W+0) = P.W/W = P Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic Cohesion Consulting 19
  • 20. • So if you start with W+dw planned amount of work, the time Tupfront it takes to complete the total work is: Tupfront = 𝑊+𝑑𝑤 𝑃𝑢 = 𝑊+𝑑𝑤 𝑃.𝑊 𝑊+𝑑𝑤 = 𝑊+𝑑𝑤 2 𝑃.𝑊 Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic Cohesion Consulting 20 Quantifying Scope Creep in Upfront planning and freezing of total work (Controllability)
  • 21. Comparing Agile Completion Time (Flexibility) to Upfront planning and freezing Completion Time (Controllability) • The question is: for a given Scope Creep ratio dw/W, which approach completes the total amount of work W first? • We are comparing:  Tagile = 𝑾 𝟐 𝑷(𝑾−𝒅𝒘) to Tupfront = 𝑾+𝒅𝒘 𝟐 𝑷.𝑾 Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic Cohesion Consulting 21
  • 22. • Plotting Tagile and Tupfront as functions of dw for W=100 units of work and P=50 units of work/week gives: dw=62 Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic Cohesion Consulting 22 Comparing Agile Completion Time (Flexibility) to Upfront planning and freezing Completion Time (Controllability) Flexibility Wins Controllability Wins
  • 23. • The positive analytical solution to: Tagile = 𝑾 𝟐 𝑷(𝑾−𝒅𝒘) = Tupfront = 𝑾+𝒅𝒘 𝟐 𝑷.𝑾 Is: dw = 0 and dw = 1 1+ 5 2 W The Golden Ratio = 𝟏+ 𝟓 𝟐 = W/dw Tagile < Tupfront if AdditionalWork < 𝑰𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝑾𝒐𝒓𝒌 𝑮𝒐𝒍𝒅𝒆𝒏 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐 Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic Cohesion Consulting 23 Comparing Agile Completion Time (Flexibility) to Upfront planning and freezing Completion Time (Controllability)
  • 24. Check the Online Illustration Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic Cohesion Consulting 24 Illustration is explained in further details at the above link!
  • 25. Copyrights (c) 2011-2013 Pragmatic Cohesion Consulting 25 Contact didier@pragmaticohesion.com to learn more about Controlling your Software Delivery Schedule and Cost. http://pragmaticohesion.com/ Check the Online Illustration