Skip to main content
edited tags
Link
Todd A. Jacobs
  • 50.7k
  • 7
  • 60
  • 181
Clarify question and retrofit for the Q&A format; grammatical and semantic edits.
Source Link
Todd A. Jacobs
  • 50.7k
  • 7
  • 60
  • 181

User stories - Can the INVEST Principleprinciples be found in my coffee machine user stories?

I'm trying to undestand better understand the INVESTINVEST properties of user stories. For example, consider thisthese two user stories:

  1. A coffee machine is programmable and it's possible to define different kind of products. A product has a unique name in the product list, a price, and some ingredients (for which is specified a quantity) choosing between coffee, milk, chocolate, and sugar. The coffee machine givegives the user the ability to add, modify, or delete a product and createcreates a configuration with a list of productproducts available to the customer.

  2. The user can choose a product and he can insert an amount of money equal to or greater the price of the product. If the amount is greater than the price, the coffee machine give thegives change to the user.

In thisthese two stories which INVEST property can be found?, and which notcannot?

  From my standpoint this is what iI think couldthe answer should be:

  • Independent: 1 = YES | 2 = YES
  • Negotiable: 2 = NO | 2 = NO (too many detaildetails?)
  • Valuable for users: 1 = YES | 2 = YES
  • Estimable: 1 = NO (too big) | 2 = YES (maybe requirerequires more domain knowledge?)
  • Small: 1 = NO (too big) | 2 = YES
  • Testable: 2 = YES | 2 = YES

Am iI right? Finally do you think isIs it possible to rewrite them following the 3 C's style?

User stories - INVEST Principle

I'm trying to undestand better the INVEST properties of user stories. For example consider this two user stories:

  1. A coffee machine is programmable and it's possible to define different kind of products. A product has a unique name in the product list, a price and some ingredients (for which is specified a quantity) choosing between coffee, milk, chocolate and sugar. The coffee machine give the user the ability to add, modify or delete a product and create a configuration with a list of product available to the customer.

  2. The user can choose a product and he can insert an amount of money equal to or greater the price of the product. If the amount is greater than the price, the coffee machine give the change to the user.

In this two stories which INVEST property can be found? which not?

  From my standpoint this is what i think could be:

  • Independent: 1 = YES | 2 = YES
  • Negotiable: 2 = NO | 2 = NO (too many detail?)
  • Valuable for users: 1 = YES | 2 = YES
  • Estimable: 1 = NO (too big) | 2 = YES (maybe require more domain knowledge?)
  • Small: 1 = NO (too big) | 2 = YES
  • Testable: 2 = YES | 2 = YES

Am i right? Finally do you think is possible to rewrite them following the 3 C's style?

Can the INVEST principles be found in my coffee machine user stories?

I'm trying to better understand the INVEST properties of user stories. For example, consider these two user stories:

  1. A coffee machine is programmable and it's possible to define different kind of products. A product has a unique name in the product list, a price, and some ingredients (for which is specified a quantity) choosing between coffee, milk, chocolate, and sugar. The coffee machine gives the user the ability to add, modify, or delete a product and creates a configuration with a list of products available to the customer.

  2. The user can choose a product and he can insert an amount of money equal to or greater the price of the product. If the amount is greater than the price, the coffee machine gives change to the user.

In these two stories which INVEST property can be found, and which cannot? From my standpoint this is what I think the answer should be:

  • Independent: 1 = YES | 2 = YES
  • Negotiable: 2 = NO | 2 = NO (too many details?)
  • Valuable for users: 1 = YES | 2 = YES
  • Estimable: 1 = NO (too big) | 2 = YES (maybe requires more domain knowledge?)
  • Small: 1 = NO (too big) | 2 = YES
  • Testable: 2 = YES | 2 = YES

Am I right? Is it possible to rewrite them following the 3 C's style?

Removed XP tag as this applies to any method using User Stories
Link
Source Link
Loading