title: How granular should tasks within a story be?
body: <p>We've been recently implementing Scrum and one of the things we often wonder is the granularity of tasks within stories.</p>
  
  <p>A few people inside our company state that ideally those tasks should be very finely grained, that is, every little part that contributes to delivering a story should represent a task. They argument that this enables tracking on how we are performing in the current sprint.</p>
  
  <p>That leads to a high number of tasks detailing many technical aspects and small actions that need to be done such as create a DAO for component X to persist in database.
  I've also been reading Ken Schwaber and Mike Beedle's book, Agile Software Development with Scrum, and I've taken the understanding that tasks should really have this kind of granularity; in one of the chapters, they state that tasks should take between 4 to 16 hours to complete.</p>
  
  <p>What I've noticed though, is that with such small tasks we often tend do overspecify things and when our solution differs from what we've previously established in our planning meetings we need to create many new tasks or replace the old ones. Team members also refrain from having to track each and every 
  thing they are doing inside the sprint and creating new tasks since that means we'll have to increment our total tasks in our burndown chart but not necessarily adding a task that aggregates value. </p>
  
  <p>So, ideally, how granular should tasks be inside each story?</p>