This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Several of my clients have internal struggles about how to internally see the future of the product. The teams want to use an agile approach so they can incorporate learning. The managers might even think this is roadmap reflects an agile approach. There's nothing about this roadmap that's agile. What can you do?
So when does it make sense to customize your agile approach to gain a strategic advantage? Example 1: Startup/Small Organization with Few Products. They offer their product in two versions: Pro and Lite. They want an agile approach, so they started with Scrum. Some of the regular product teams figured out one-day stories.
By providing real-time insights and streamlining complex workflows, project portfolio management tools empower organizations to handle diverse initiatives with precision and agility. It prevents overloading or underutilizing team members, increasing productivity and employee satisfaction.
Once the team completes that highest priority feature(s), the team can release the product. When we release, we can regroup and figure out what to do next for this product. Fork another product. (I I did this with several Lite vs Pro products using this approach.). Opportunities for More Agility.
Back in Part 1 , I wrote about how stage-gate approaches were as agile as we could use at the time. We had one delivery, so our agility was about canceling the project if we couldn't finish it. Once our customers saw demos, they wanted to change things. Opportunities for Agility. So, more agility than a serial approach.
He thought agile approaches would work to “meet” and “enforce” deadlines. I asked Brad these questions: Do you have product or feature teams that are cross-functional and can release alone? ( Component teams create interdependencies and take much more time to finish work.). Why do you have deadlines?
I see many teams and team members who say, “Agile stinks. ” When I ask people what's happening, they say: We're doing an agile death march because someone else already told us what we have to do and the date it's due. And don't get me started on how coaches tend to do life coaching instead of support for agility.)
I have a new book: Project Lifecycles: How to Reduce Risks, Release Successful Products, and Increase Agility. I wrote it because I'm concerned about what I see in too many supposedly agile teams: Crazy-long backlogs and roadmaps. Worse, sometimes the team doesn't demo or deliver. The post Tired of Fake Agility?
By providing real-time insights and streamlining complex workflows, project portfolio management tools empower organizations to handle diverse initiatives with precision and agility. It prevents overloading or underutilizing team members, increasing productivity and employee satisfaction.
In Effective Agility Requires Cultural Changes: Part 1 , I said that real agile approaches require cultural change to focus on flow efficiency, where we focus on watching the work, not the people. If you and your team have been practicing real agility, you might say these ideas barely show any agility at all. That's fine.
In Effective Agility Requires Cultural Changes: Part 1 , I said that real agile approaches require cultural change to focus on flow efficiency , where we watch the flow of the work , not the people doing tasks. Can you create an agile culture for your team even if you can't change how the organization works? 1,2 and so on.
We had (and still have) too many products to keep the same teams on them for a long time. For programs, the team stayed together and moved to a different feature set/internal product until the program finished. We could move to a new product and/or a new team. My job was to smooth the way for people to deliver products.
They've started to use agile approaches. Capitalization for Agile Work. Let me walk you through an example of a 5-person agile team. Let's assume everyone works together, on one project (product, if you prefer). I would add demoing in as value creation, but I'm not sure how accountants categorize feedback loops.
In Costs of an Agile Approach for Hardware Products , I suggested that an iteration-based approach for hardware was too expensive. Agile software teams are cross-functional and interdependent. Many agile software teams have somewhere between four and seven people. This hardware team swarms on a product.
Strategy and Product Feedback Loops About 20 years ago, I taught a project management workshop to IT people. Their products and services did not ship outside the building—their products and services enabled the organization to make money. See Customers, Internal Delivery, And Trust for a recent post about demos and trust.)
You've got interdependencies across the organization for a given project or program to release a product. You can see demos. You need enough insight or prediction to start the marketing campaign or to create training videos or product documentation. Release criteria tells you when a product is done.
Many new-to-agile teams use some form of iteration-based agile approach. Back in Time You Spend in Agile Meetings (near the bottom of the post), I enumerated all the possible meetings. I mentioned how you could integrate the demo work into an iteration if you create a column for the demo.
I discussed the origins of the agile approaches in Part 5. In this post, I'll discuss how you can create an agile approach that fits your context. Why should you create your own agile approach? Because your context is unique to you, your team, project, product, and culture. Remember, an agile approach starts with a team.
That part discusses why managers see agile coaches and Scrum Masters as staff positions, not line jobs. I assume you have some sort of functional product development expertise. If not, why are you in technical product development? This post is about your deep domain expertise, first in product, then in agility.
In Part 1 , I suggested that when we organize by function, the recognition and rewards might prevent a successful agile transformation. In this part, I’ll discuss an option for a product-oriented organization. Consider a Product-Oriented Organization. That includes product ownership. How Many Managers Do You Need?
I started asking if you actually need an agile approach in Part 1 and noted the 4 big problems I see. Part 2 was why we need managers in an agile transformation. Part 4 was about how “Agile” is meaningless and “agile” is an adjective that needs to be applied to something. That would be resilient.
A colleague unfamiliar with lifecycles or agility asked, “How can we use sprints in this approach?” Every sprint delivers working product.” Not the thinking and learning that go into the deliverables where you end up with something demo-able, if not usable.” They do have product goals.
I started this series with many specific concerns about a particular interview question: “The product owner and dev team cannot decide on a sprint goal, even after hours of discussion. Instead, I see assumptions that reveal a divide-and-conquer, and possibly a command-and-control culture, not an agile culture.
If you're creating products of any kind—especially software products—you've got a team sport. Successful software product development is about how well the team learns together. The better the team learns together, the better the product is. See Product Orientation Requires Technical Excellence ).
global chip shortage), and the need for reducing production costs add to the above-mentioned difficulties. . In addition, to stay competitive on the market, business owners will struggle to deliver their products faster and produce more (e.g. The need to shorten the time for product development. Dealing with uncertainty.
Many of my clients are trying to use short feedback loops in agile approaches. High Need for Product Innovation and Change. The more need for product innovation and change, the shorter the feedback loops need to be. I wrote about this in Create Your Successful Agile Project.)
You have an agile roadmap to see where you're headed. Your team hates having to translate the agile planning into more traditional planning. If you're in this pickle, your manager might think your agile team doesn't replan very often. That manager might assume your team uses an agile approach only as a way to deliver.
And at Greycroft, a venture capital firm, investor Teddy Citrin has laid out a veritable map for the further disruption of every consumer products category. Plug-and-play e-commerce technology, search engine optimization, and other distribution solutions are making it ever easier for products to directly reach consumers.
That leads to people using agile approaches to focus on delivery. You might have hypotheses about your market, your customers, or how your current product(s) can offer value. Normally, I like to ask the teams who deliver the product to also do the discovery. After you gather the results, what does the data tell you?
So they ask the product or project leaders to write a business case for each effort. Because experiments manage risk, we need people with these perspectives to create the experiments: A product leader: someone who can see where the company wants to head with this product. Regardless of the product results for that experiment.
In addition, a product leader might approve the feature. Finally, the team, a product leader, or the customer(!) might demo the feature. That defect escaped all your checklists, approvals, and demos. See What Lifecycle or Agile Approach Fits Your Context? It's time to measure and learn from defect escapes.
You know you need more feedback and resilience in your project/program, so you’ve created a product value team to reassess the roadmap on a regular basis. They need to plan on revenue from products and services. If you work at a place new to agile approaches, work on streamlining the releases so you always release once a month.
If you took an agile workshop sometime in the past 15 years, you probably played the “ ball game.” Especially since they've probably suffered through way too many “agile” workshops with more and more games. Show a demo of whatever you complete at the 15-minute mark. Why do I have to play a game?”
Back in Part 1 of this series, I explained all the problems I saw with this interview question: “The product owner and dev team cannot decide on a sprint goal, even after hours of discussion. In Create Your Successful Agile Project , I recommend the team end an iteration in the middle of a week. What should the Scrum Master do?”
But there are several problems with all this planning: These plans require prediction at all levels, from strategy to product to what the team delivers. However, too often, the managers prevent product innovations or strategy changes because they planned so much. Does this sound a lot like what agile teams do? It does to me.
Your customers can't take your product more often than once or twice a year. Because the product doesn't need to leave the building, the teams don't release internally. Nor do the teams demo on a regular basis. The teams miss the feedback loops so critical for an agile approach. Their agile transformation falls apart.
Because features change in value and because some feature sets need to deliver value on a more regular basis, the real roadmap looks more like this graphic, “When the Agile Roadmap Changes.” The product owners got together and created the first month worth of detail. Part 5: Product Value Team. Part 7: Summary.
By product, where they assign a team to a product for a long period of time. By person, where they take one person from here and one person from there, etc, to create enough people to work on the product. Every time the team delivers, the leaders can reassess the ongoing value of the project or product.
The first is that Brooks strongly suggested the idea of a “surgical team” That hierarchical team was a feature- or product-based team. Ten people, seven of them professionals, are at work on the problem, but the system is the product of one mind–or at most two, acting uno animo.”
I see too much micromanagement, even in supposedly agile organizations. ” When we have insufficient trust, morale and the products deteriorate. Instead, we can extend trust and keep innovating for morale and the products. ” Or, when a manager imposes a “standard” agile approach.
In Part 2 , I suggested the product leader/team/some combination, have a conversation to understand the context for the request. The longer the backlog, the less agile you can be, because no one's incorporating learning into the work. That's analogous to your team having production support or other questions for the team.
Many of my clients use an iteration-based agile approach. They have to manage extra work—work they had not estimated—in the form of an emergency or production support. Why are you using an agile approach? I see these problems a lot when the product owner has feature-itis. Still too much?
If you're creating products of any kind—especially software products—you've got a team sport. Successful software product development is about how well the team learns together. The better the team learns together, the better the product is. See Product Orientation Requires Technical Excellence ).
Agile approaches can help a team release more often. When a team releases more often, the product people can replan the product roadmaps. The product people don’t create MVEs or MVPs —they need the entire feature set. We all use bloated products that make our lives miserable every day.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 55,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content