I was talking with a colleague the other day about troubles with scope management in an 敏捷 project. She was lamenting problems that were arising with a particular client who was concerned about the progress of the delivery team. Since 敏捷 teams use time boxed iterations and let scope adjust, this shouldn’t be a problem—should it?
There are a number of issues surrounding scope management in an 敏捷 project, many of them are the same as trying to manage scope in a traditional project:
•感知与现实
•如何衡量范围的定义不明确
• Running an 敏捷 project in a non-Agile organization
•基于意愿的计划
不幸的是，敏捷项目并不能消除感知与现实的问题。错误沟通和误解可能会影响敏捷项目，即使团队尝试揭露现实（或至少是现实）也是如此。简短的迭代和可运行的软件可以减少感知/现实方面的差距，但是只要项目由人们交付并由其他人进行评估，差距通常就会依然存在。优秀的项目经理意识到他们必须同时管理现实和感知。
另一个不经常被问到或回答的问题是：范围是什么？是需求，故事或功能的数量吗？是该项目估计的总工作时间或故事点吗？是否已记录在案？由于在敏捷项目中功能可以在项目的整个生命周期内发生变化，因此在什么时候确定范围？这些都是范围的自下而上的度量（因此也是进度）。也许是一种更好的方法，尤其是在一个敏捷项目中，其中的细节故事和功能正在发生变化时，提出一个自上而下的问题：“我们可以在迭代结束时部署该产品吗？”显然，该问题的答案涉及确定功能是否完成，但问题实际上是关于价值，是否要部署足够的价值，而不是是否满足一组详细要求。
Scope issues often crop up when 敏捷 teams confront traditional organizational success measurements. The teams view themselves as being successful on the project and managers are wondering what’s going on since they don’t understand this “iterative” approach. This is somewhat different from the perception versus reality issue; it’s more the clash of two different perceptions (or two realities).
最后，太多的组织订阅了我所谓的“基于意愿的计划”。他们做糟糕的容量规划工作，也就是说，要平衡要完成的工作需求与组织的实际能力。这些经理不了解扩展限制与完全不合理之间的区别，并且扩展的项目计划变成了不合理的基于愿望的计划。在这种功能失调的情况下，敏捷团队仍然会遇到范围问题。
So, 敏捷 won’t fix all your scope problems. 敏捷 can help teams and management look at scope from a different perspective, but the long-held perceptions of scope will be difficult to change in many organizations.
