http://www.scrumalliance.org/articles/367-its-ordered–not-prioritized

I read this article and I have to say this chap is far too clever for me! The article makes something very simple seem very complicated!

Personally I think it’s a semantic point. I agree that the backlog should be ordered, rather than putting things into groups of priority 1, 2, 3, for example. But I also think the word ‘prioritised’ can also mean to put it in priority order and that’s perfectly valid too.

I also think that the idea of building a house roof-first because the roof is the highest priority isn’t a good example. My personal interpretation of priority would not allow that. It would be an earlier priority to build some walls to put the roof on, and an early priority to lay some foundations so the walls stay up. They are higher priorities, not because they carry more business value in themselves, but because they are important things that the roof is dependent on.

Anyway, that’s my take. But certainly we’re agreed on one thing. The product backlog should be a list of the things you want or need to do to the product, in the order you want or need to do them.

Kelly.

thx for good introduction on the flow.

One small issue that is often spoken about the last months, the product backlog should not be prioritized but ordered.

A huge difference as it is explained in this article: http://www.scrumalliance.org/articles/367-its-ordered–not-prioritized

I enjoyed this, Kelly – thanks!

Victor (@vhernandez)