I give you exhibit A:
|Definitely a 'C' for effort - could try harder!|
The stories on my board are represented by stickies and they have traditionally been extremely low rent. Creating a new story takes seconds and have always thought of this being a good thing. The format usually persists and easily adaptable so I have never done it any differently.
Just recently I have noticed that the simplicity of creating cards also means new ones are created often which I am not sure is a good thing....
Are we facilitating the idea that changing items in a sprint is quick and painless? Maybe even that it's a fringe benefit and does not cost anything?
If our goal is to form a set list of work for a sprint then we should be only creating stories once. We can afford to spend a little bit of time on them.
The card should reflect the effort that the team has already expended to get them into a state that we can create software with, which could have had many hours spent on it in refinement and planning by various members of the team.
Does a sticky really represent our investment in that story? Throwing away a sticky does not 'feel' serious but it might represent a significant investment in time and ultimately money.
So I have a new theory: Story Cards should be difficult to create and fantastic to look at.
Is our work really best represented by a dog-earred stickie written in questionable handwriting? Doesn't it deserve just a little bit more?
I think story cards should embody our view of our work and deserve just a little bit of love.
Maybe allow anything that was not part of our sprint planning be a sticky so we can see just how flexible and accommodating our team really is, which is often overlooked by the wider business.