Talk:Burndown chart

Burn down charts have applicability and value entirely independently of Scrum. ie. It makes no sense to merge this page with Scrum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.96.11 (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.91.37.219 (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I like having this as a separate page - it would be nice to see an image of an example burn down chart however. Tobyberesford (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not about "burn down charts" having applicability outside scrum; it's about whether "burn down charts" constitutes an independent, encyclopedic subject. My feeling is that this will never be a full encyclopedic article; the subject is too small. And it's not about "liking a separate page". The Scrum article itself is quite thin and shallow; I suggest peoples' time would be better spent adding material to it instead of creating a bunch of stubs. The call for a merge is fully justified. I will press forward with a merge unless someone can provide a real justification. Jimg (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have read over this page and related Agile pages, including the Earned Value link. This is all seems inconsistent with agile, as a burn down chart requires that the main steps in the entire project be understood to the point that they can be defined and some planning work done. This is in conflict with the agile articles here that discount initial planning as unnecessary. 99.233.21.54 (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the above. While the idea of knowing what the total work is on an agile project is valid, burn charts are used extensively in all types of Agile to interface with management and other stakeholders. While other methodologies now use the burn down, its title is most closely associated with XP/Agile. This article is likely to remain a stub and so in my opinion should probably be incorporated into one on Agile. Perhaps Burn Down should be retained as a redirect to a Burn Down section in an Agile article section. Is the burn down chart is specific to Scrum? Cify (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that burn charts are used more generally in agile software development and are not necessarily part of any particular brand (scrum, XP, etc.), so I don't see this as part of the Scrum page. I also think that they are more generally useful even outside software development. Imagine a burn-down of the effort required to plant sod/grass in my back yard. If I plot a burn-down with number of pieces of sod on the y-axis and hours on the x axis, a burn-down could be a great tool to measure my progress. I think there's much more to say on the topic, as various styles of burn charts have been introduced. In particular, burn UP charts are, I think, now gaining more popularity, since burn-down charts merge scope changes with progress. (You often see burn-downs used within an iteration because the presumption is that scope does not change once the iteration starts. I find that this is wishful thinking, but that's for another day). Perhaps this topic should be more generally about burn charts (both directions) as project management tools (losing the terms "iteration" on the x-axis label and any references to scrum/agile). Another issue I have here is the presumption that the y-axis is task time. My "pieces of sod" example aside, in my agile projects, I use abstract measurements of effort (story points), and so a more general term should be used to represent the y-axis (e.g. instead of time, use "remaining effort" or something like that.) --Awible (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing variability in time estimates

This section is full of blah. Makes no sense and is talk for its own sake. Should be removed. Anyone against? Craigwbrown (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)