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