Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Agile© copyright 2010. Net Objectives, Inc.
Handling Product
Management Across The
Enterprise
Lean Enterprise
Business
Management
Team
ASSESSMENTS
CONSULTING
TRAINING
COACHING
Lean for Executives
Product Portfolio
Management
Lean Management
Project ManagementKanban / Scrum
ATDD / TDD / Design Patterns
For access to recordings of webinars, seminar pdfs, and much more, register at:
www.netobjectives.com/register
Abstract
What is the flow of information in product
management?
Why do we want to deliver fast?
How do we discover value?
Why is it important to have structure?
Case studies
First Release
Investment
Period
Payback
Period
Profit
Period
Breakeven
from Denne and Cleland-Huang. Software by Numbers
Cas
h flo
w
Time
economics of responsiveness
Staged Releases
First
Release
Invest-
ment
Period
Profit
Period
Pay-
back
Period
Cas
h flo
w
Time
Release 1 Net Return
Staged Releases
Profit
Period
Second
Release
Invest-
ment
Period
Pay-
back
Period
Release 2 Net Return
Cas
h flo
w
Time
Release 1 Net Return
Profit
Period
Investment
Invest-
ment
Period
Pay-
back
Period
Breakeven
Point
Total Return
Cas
h flo
w
Time
staged releases
Cas
h flo
w
BreakevenSingle
Release
First Release
Time
Staged Releases
10
increased profit
PARETO
Bu
sin
ess
valu
e re
aliz
ed
rele
ase
rele
ase
rele
ase
rele
ase
LINEAR
Bu
sin
ess
valu
e re
aliz
ed
rele
ase
rele
ase
rele
ase
rele
ase
MINIMUM BUILD RELEASE
Bu
sin
ess
valu
e re
aliz
ed
Time
rele
ase
rele
ase
WATERFALL?
Bu
sin
ess
valu
e re
aliz
ed
Time
rele
ase
PARETO WITHOUT EARLY RELEASES
BLEND
Bu
sin
ess
valu
e re
aliz
ed
Time
rele
ase
rele
ase
rele
ase
do the most important half first
standard development sequence
More important Less important
do the most important 25% first
standard development sequence
More important Less important
focusing on the known, valuable features
gives greater certainty
produces greater value
lowers risk of mis-building and over-building
Deliver
in Stages when possible
the road well travelled
Ops & Support
Customers
Shared Components
Shared Components
Product Related
Product Related
Product Related
SoftwareRelease
SoftwareProduct
NewRequirements
Development
CustomerProduct Managers
Business LeadersRegional Coordinators
Trainers & Educators
Product Champion(s)
Capabilities
Business
Consumption
Concept
Product Portfolio Management
Consider the Software Value Stream
Managing
here Reduces
induced
waste here
Does “self-organizing
teams” mean you do what
you want?
No
Role of Team in Bigger Picture
Lean Enterprise
Business
Management
Team
MAKE
VALUE
FLOW
MAKE
INCREMENTAL DELIVERY
CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING
QUALITY BUILT IN
Team
VALUE
PRIORITIZATION
BUSINESS ITERATIONS
RELEASE PLANNING
Business
technical
FLOW
Value Stream Visualization
Impediment Impact
Workflow as Process
ACCOUNTABILITY
Manage (limit) queues
Visual controls
Manage flow (process)
Management
Getting the right people to work on the right thing at the right time
Is more important
than doing the
steps faster
what structure
to use?
how much of what you do is
valuable?rework?
Getting
Requirements
Testing
Programming
Design
Integration
Planning
Collaboration
Re-doing
requirements
Working from old
requirements
“Fixing” bugs
“Integration”
errors
Deployment
Building
unneeded
features
Overbuilding
frameworks
What Work Do You Do?
TrainingDocumentation
Essentially
duplicating
components
Long feedback cycles increase the
amount of work to be done.
Shorter feedback cycles decrease the
amount of work to be done.
What organizational structure should we
use to decrease feedback times?
Case study 1Teams
self-organized
by layer
Background
Case Study 2: Military Aircraft
• 7 components on plane
• 70 person dev group (50 devs)
• 7 teams (4-10 each)
• 4 test platforms, 2 simulators, 1 plane
• Challenge was integration extremely
difficult
Dynamic Feature Teams
Resulting Savings
63% increase in throughput
42% decrease in defects
Greater than 22% savings* ($1.73M)
*Was thought to be higher but not claimed due to political reasons
Background
Case Study 3: Coordinating
Teams• Multiple teams
• Specialized
• Each team completed sprints in two weeks
…but value not delivered for months
…and then with challenges
Focus on time
over the
entire value
stream.
MMF
Split MMF
according to
Teams
Teams split according
to components
Teams work on
their parts Teams work on
their part until done
MMF
Eventually integrating
them together
Feedback times for:
Team
Across teams
Customer
Progress bar
2 weeks
6 weeks
8 weeks
MMF
Split MMF
into sub-features
Development teams split
according to components
Teams work on
their part
After one iteration, teams
integrate their components
MMF
Progress bar
Integration still required
but takes much less time
Feedback times for:
Team
Across teams
Customer
2 weeks
2 weeks
2 weeks
Case studyCoordinating
Multiple
Business
Stakeholders
with Multiple
Team
The Simple Case
A1
A2
A1
1. Define Business capabilities
2. CreateMMFs
A1 A1
Development team
Team Product Backlog
A1A1A2A
3. Prioritize MMFs 4. Create high level stories
5. Assign to team backlog
Team(s)
Product Owners
Architecture
Technical Leads
A Harder Case
A1
A2
A1
1. Define Business capabilities
2. CreateMMFs
A1 A1
Application/Component
TeamsTeam Product Backlogs
A1A1A2A
3. Prioritize MMFs 4. Create high level stories
5. Assign to team backlogs
Team(s)
Team(s)
Team(s)
Team(s)
Product Owners
A2A2 A2
Architecture
Technical Leads
Agile At Scale
A1
B1
C1A2
A1
B3
B2
B1
C2
C1
1. Define Business capabilities
2. CreateMMFs B1B1 B1
A1 A1
B2B2 B2
B3 B3 Blo
cked
Team Product Backlogs
Product Managers
Product Owners
Business Stakeholders
B3
A1A1A2
B2B3
C2
A
B
C
3. Prioritize MMFs 4. Create high level stories
5. Assign to team backlogs
Architecture
Technical Leads
Application/Component
Teams
Team(s)
Team(s)
Team(s)
Team(s)
Holistic Approach
Delivery quickly
Discover iteratively
Attend to structure (flow)
Optimize the whole
key points
copyright © 2010 Net Objectives Inc.
Thank You!For access to recordings of webinars, seminar pdfs, and much more, register at:
www.netobjectives.com/register
