"It takes longer to define the requirements than it does to code, and once coded they change mid-sprint"
I've experienced one -or- the other of those, rarely both. The only times I've experienced both were due to product owners who wanted to be managers, to bring 'leadership', and so insisted on wasting my time with meetings that didn't actually lead to well defined stories.
If I've had a product owner who wasn't a waste of space, who met with the customer(s), actually understood what they needed, and then met with us to help define a story, then while that story might take a good 10-20 minutes to fully flesh out with good acceptance criteria, it almost never changed during the sprint. We might, on the demo and/or release of the feature, realize modifications were in order, but that wasn't because we did things incorrectly at first; we did them correctly, with something releasable, and useful, and that allowed us to learn something that helped us to refine it.
However, more often I've had product owners who are wastes of space. They'll slap a story together, maybe with acceptance criteria of a line or two, maybe nothing, and then hand it off to the devs to go do. We roll our eyes, make some assumptions for all the missing details, do something, demo it to the customer, and get "That's not what I wanted! Change it!"
The former is infinitely preferable. Even if it's a highly complex feature, that takes a while to get understanding and consensus on, it almost never changes once we do and the devs, customer, and product owner are all on the same page. The problem is it requires a product owner who doesn't suck, and the reality is most of them suck.
We recently lost two or three bigger costumers because of stuff like this.. No one talked to the actual users.. The program was full of functions, workflows and solving problems no user wanted to get solved.
They just never used the programs only for situations like : we have (another new useless feature, please test)
Uh, for me sad part is when I try to make those people write stories in more detail like "what should happen if data fails to load", "what should be default state", "Ok we have adding for an element, how we handle deletes". I got question "So should we go back to the waterfall?". Because we are so agile that not everything should be specified up front. But they do not get the scope, single story does not fall into waterfall...
The story is the last possible moment of decision making before the developers go and develop something. Obviously it may need further refinement at a later date once you have learned something. But, by definition, you now know -everything that can be known before development starts-, because development is about to start. As such, anything, -anything- that remains unspecified, is, again, by definition, undefined. It may be worth explaining that if failure conditions remain undefined, then you will ignore them for convenience, because whatever you decide to do will almost assuredly be wrong. If the product owners want -any- say in what it does in the event of something going wrong, and don't want it to be a surprise, and require even more work, then now is the time to say something.
I've experienced one -or- the other of those, rarely both. The only times I've experienced both were due to product owners who wanted to be managers, to bring 'leadership', and so insisted on wasting my time with meetings that didn't actually lead to well defined stories.
If I've had a product owner who wasn't a waste of space, who met with the customer(s), actually understood what they needed, and then met with us to help define a story, then while that story might take a good 10-20 minutes to fully flesh out with good acceptance criteria, it almost never changed during the sprint. We might, on the demo and/or release of the feature, realize modifications were in order, but that wasn't because we did things incorrectly at first; we did them correctly, with something releasable, and useful, and that allowed us to learn something that helped us to refine it.
However, more often I've had product owners who are wastes of space. They'll slap a story together, maybe with acceptance criteria of a line or two, maybe nothing, and then hand it off to the devs to go do. We roll our eyes, make some assumptions for all the missing details, do something, demo it to the customer, and get "That's not what I wanted! Change it!"
The former is infinitely preferable. Even if it's a highly complex feature, that takes a while to get understanding and consensus on, it almost never changes once we do and the devs, customer, and product owner are all on the same page. The problem is it requires a product owner who doesn't suck, and the reality is most of them suck.