Another common question that teams new to Scrum ask is what should they do with the story points of an incomplete User Story at the end of a Sprint?. Should the team be 'credited' with those points or not? In the next Sprint planning should the original number of story points be used or an adjusted estimate that reflects the amount of ork left to do on the story? If a story is carried over and completed in the next sprint, are the team 'credited' with the orignal number of story points or the reduced, adjusted amount for the work done in the second sprint?
When asked questions like this, the first question to ask is why the team is carrying over user stories to the next sprint? This should be exceptional circumstances and not the norm. Encourage the team to be smarter and commit to less, deliver what they say would at the end of the sprint. This is how the game of Scrum should be played. When this is done, the problem simply disappears.
In addition, story points should not really be used as a measure of achievement by a team. Delivery of completed user stories and business value is the goal, not delivery of an estimated number of story points of effort. If teams want to compare achievements, it would make much more sense to compare the business value delivered. This is why story points for incomplete stories are not counted at the end of a sprint, and are not 'credited' to the team in any way.
Story points are primarily there to help a team work out how much they can get done in a sprint. They use the average of what they delivered in previous sprints to calculate how much they believe they can deliver in the next sprint. For this reason, if on rare occasions a story is carried over, the team should be granted the full original story points for the story at the end of the next sprint (assuming they do finish the story this time, of course) so that the average velocity calculation more accurately reflects the teams capacity.
However, during the planning of that sprint, the team should use an adjusted reduced estimate of what is left to be done on any story being carried over, based on the tasks left to complete, to help work out their commitment for that sprint.
In addition, story points are often used to show progress towards goals of a release via a turndown chart. Again, for accuracy, the full story point amount should be used for stories carried over.
Dean Leffingwell, Agile Software Requirements, 2011
FDD combines key advantages of other agile approaches with model-centric techniques and
fluid team organisation. This means that FDD easily scales to much larger teams and projects than generally recommended
for other agile approaches. FDD is also characterised by an emphasis on quality throughout the process, and timely,
accurate, meaningful status reporting and progress tracking for all levels of leadership.
Domain-Driven Design comes as a bit of a surprise to those who have been taught
that agile software development and especially eXtreme Programming do away with the need for analysis and design
techniques like object modeling and notations like the Unified Modeling
Language (UML). It is actually very obvious that any software team working in a .Net language, Java, Objective-C,
C++ or any of the object-oriented dynamic languages such as Python or Ruby has an object model at the heart of their
The premise behind eXtreme Programming is that the cost of making changes to software does not need to grow
exponentially more expensive throughout a project or product development life-cycle. That the cost of change does
increase exponentially over-time is attributed to unnecessary complexity added early in the project product life-cycle;
complexity that provides the flexibility to address all the changes that might be asked for in the future.