View
24
Download
0
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Rigorous Support for Flexible Planning of Product Releases — A Stakeholder-Centric Approach and its Initial Evaluation. Ville Heikkilä Anas Jadallah Kristian Rautiainen Günther Ruhe. Ville Heikkilä, Kristian Rautiainen Aalto University School of Science and Technology - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Rigorous Support for Flexible Planning of Product Releases —A Stakeholder-Centric Approach and its Initial Evaluation
Ville HeikkiläAnas JadallahKristian RautiainenGünther Ruhe
Ville Heikkilä, Kristian RautiainenAalto UniversitySchool of Science and Technology
Software Process Research Group
Anas Jadallah, Günther RuheUniversity of Calgary
SE Decision Support Laboratory
2Ville Heikkilä
Introduction and research problem
Process description and case study
Key findings and discussion
Contents
3Ville Heikkilä
IntroductionRelease planning by PM or POToo many stakeholders for F2FStakeholder CentricRelease Planning (SCERP)
4Ville Heikkilä
Releaseplanningproblem
. . .Features
Releases k(1) k(2)
StakeholdersS(1) S(2) S(q). . .
λ(2) = 2λ(1) = 7 λ(q) = 4
Resources
Objective function F(x) = k=1…K (k) [ n: x(n)=k WAP(n)]
5Ville Heikkilä
r(1) r(2) r(3)
Cap(k,r)
(1) = 9
(2) = 5
f(1) f(2) f(3) f(N)
x(1)=1, x(2)=1x(3)=2, x(N)=2
Case study
Iteration
Release
Roadmap
Hartbeat
www.agilefant.org
6Ville Heikkilä
www.releaseplanner.com
SCERPStep 1: Selection of criticalstakeholders and pre-selectionof candidate features
Step 2: Prioritization of featuresStep 3: Collective effort estimationStep 4: Calculation of optimized
release plan alternativesStep 5: Prioritization of alternative
plans
7Ville Heikkilä
1 2 3 4 5
SCERP
8Ville Heikkilä
Selection of critical stakeholders and pre-selection of candidate features
1 2 3 4 5
Done by the product ownerTwo most important companies using Agilefant10 of 73 backlog items selected
9Ville Heikkilä
Case studySelection of critical stakeholders and pre-selection of candidate features
1 2 3 4 5
10Ville Heikkilä
Prioritization of features SCERP21 3 4 5
Stakeholder invitation19 of 33 participated in the endCumulative votingCriteria: value, urgency and dissatisfactionVoting done in ReleasePlannerTime taken by voting wasrecorded
11Ville Heikkilä
Prioritization of features Case study21 3 4 5
12Ville Heikkilä
Collective effort estimation SCERP31 2 4 5
Only 2 active developersCollaborative effort estimationFull time equivalent (FTE) developer
13Ville Heikkilä
Collective effort estimation Case study21 3 4 5
14Ville Heikkilä
Calculation of optimized release plan alternatives
SCERP31 2 4 5
Two next releasesRelease weights 9 and 5Capacity 22 FTE-daysReleasePlanner created 5 optimized release plan alternativesProduct Owner created a manual plan
15Ville Heikkilä
Calculation of optimized release plan alternatives
Case study21 3 4 5
16Ville Heikkilä
Prioritization of alternative plans
SCERP31 2 4 5
10 stakeholders5 plans + manual planMatch score
“Perfect match” (9)“No match” (1)
17Ville Heikkilä
Prioritization of alternative plans
Case study21 3 4 5
ID O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 MF01 2 2 3 2 2 3F02 3 3 2 2 3 1F03 2 2 1 3 1 2F04 3 1 2 3 3 2F05 1 3 2 1 1 3F06 1 1 1 1 1 1F07 1 1 1 1 2 1F08 1 1 3 1 2 2F09 1 1 1 1 1 1F10 1 1 1 1 1 1Opt. (%) 100,0 98,9 98,6 97,1 96,8 93,4Match 4,0 4,0 6,0 4,0 5,5 4,0
Plan optimization output
18Ville Heikkilä
6-choice attitude scale
“I understood feature X”
Attitudes towards method
Free text field
Survey
19Ville Heikkilä
Stakeholders understood the features and their priorities varied considerablyStakeholders understood and liked the methodSCERP is time-efficient for the stakeholdersOptimized plans were more acceptable than the manual planList of candidate features was insufficientNot enough difference between criteria
Key findings
20Ville Heikkilä
Does SCERP work?
Does SCERP scale?
Was the case success?
Discussion
21Ville Heikkilä
Questions?
22Ville Heikkilä
Recommended