Allow "Task B" to be dependent on the completion of "Task A" and provide a visual way to see these dependencies in the Taskboard. This will help team members identify which tasks can be worked in parallel vs. serially.

Comments

  • Already exists: "Backlog Items That Depend on This Backlog Item" (see this in details dialog under "relationships" tab.

    I know this isn't the easiest to use functionality, but agile backlogs are supposed to minimize backlog item dependencies. Otherwise you end up with a GANTT chart and back in waterfall.

  • Wait... sorry... responded too quickly. You requested tasks, not stories.

    Different comment then... this is helpful functionality, but I would rather use our "development budget" in other ways.

    I believe a fully mature agile team would not leverage this very often because standups, co-located teams, pairing, appropriately sized stories, automated build/tests, etc will reduce the need for this.

  • I have noticed that some people who embrace Agile still have a lot of Waterfall ideas of how to do things.

    Dependancies of Tasks are really only important if you have tasks being worked on by different people. Asking for this is asking for the tool to replace real-world communication. What is helpful is the ability to sort the tasks in a story into the order in which they need to be executed. The tool already provides that.

    People on the team do ask for this, though. I need a better response to them than 'you aren't mature enough (agile-wise) to use this tool'. Any suggestions? :)

  • Hi John,
    A suggestion for handling that is to remind the team to not "let the tool do the talking". I find myself saying that at least once a week to one team or another, and it does sink in after a while. Another approach with which I've had success is to coach the teams to think of the people who own all the tasks associated with a particular backlog item as a "mini team" that is collectively responsible for getting that backlog item DONE. That seems to foster self-direction and communication required to manage any task dependencies. Hope this helps.

  • I want this - but I also want to make tasks dependent upon one another from different stories and backlogs. For example, I need a server stood up (one team and sory) and I need code delivered from another team. Linking stories is not helpful. I need the actual tasks in the stories linked so people know who work is assigned to for coordination.

  • Sometimes merely numbering them helps (1 - Do x. 2 - Do y.)

  • Where I get frustrated by the lack of inter-task dependency tracking is simple things like an implementation task and a code-review task. When I've got a handful of stories that have code-review work for me to do on someone else's implementation, it's hard to tell from looking at VersionOne that I'm effectively blocked from working on those tasks until the previous tasks are finished.

    It's also not really appropriate to swarm/mob on the implementation work -- part of the goal is to have someone without blind-spots that go with implementation have a fresh look at it.

    Is it appropriate to raise blocking issues on a story just because it has a dependency? If so, that would be the common case here.

    What do other groups do in this scenario?

  • this will really help, to see the interdependency at task level

  • I would not vote for this idea. I think it encourages too much focus & effort on a tiny chunk of work that should be small and ephemeral. Tasks should be less than a day of effort so I can't imagine anyone needing (wanting is a different story) to spend extra calories managing them. Since I can't vote this down (yet), I wanted to at least throw my 2 cents into the fountain. I would not try to support an anti-pattern and waterfall thinking with a new feature. Better to coach the micromanagers who ask for this to higher levels of maturity and mindset. Again, my 2 cents...