1 / 22

Ville Heikkilä Anas Jadallah Kristian Rautiainen Günther Ruhe

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

navid
Download Presentation

Ville Heikkilä Anas Jadallah Kristian Rautiainen Günther Ruhe

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Rigorous Support for Flexible Planning of Product Releases —A Stakeholder-Centric Approach and its Initial Evaluation Ville Heikkilä Anas Jadallah Kristian Rautiainen Günther Ruhe

  2. Ville Heikkilä, Kristian Rautiainen Aalto University School of Science and Technology Software Process Research Group Anas Jadallah, Günther Ruhe University of Calgary SE Decision Support Laboratory Ville Heikkilä

  3. Contents • Introduction and research problem • Process description and case study • Key findings and discussion Ville Heikkilä

  4. Introduction • Release planning by PM or PO • Too many stakeholders for F2F • Stakeholder CentricRelease Planning (SCERP) Ville Heikkilä

  5. Objective function F(x) = k=1…K(k) [n: x(n)=k WAP(n)] Releaseplanningproblem f(2) f(3) f(N) Features . . . k(1) k(2) Releases (1) = 9 (2) = 5 x(1)=1, x(2)=1 x(3)=2, x(N)=2 . . . S(1) S(2) S(q) Stakeholders Cap(k,r) f(1) λ(1) = 7 λ(2) = 2 λ(q) = 4 Resources r(1) r(2) r(3) Ville Heikkilä

  6. Case study www.agilefant.org www.releaseplanner.com Roadmap Release Iteration Hartbeat Ville Heikkilä

  7. SCERP Step 1: Selection of criticalstakeholders and pre-selectionof candidate features Step 2: Prioritization of features Step 3: Collective effort estimation Step 4: Calculation of optimizedrelease plan alternatives Step 5: Prioritization of alternativeplans 1 2 3 4 5 Ville Heikkilä

  8. SCERP Selection of critical stakeholders and pre-selection of candidate features 1 2 3 4 5 Ville Heikkilä

  9. Case study Selection of critical stakeholders and pre-selection of candidate features 1 2 3 4 5 • Done by the product owner • Two most important companies using Agilefant • 10 of 73 backlog items selected Ville Heikkilä

  10. SCERP Prioritization of features 1 2 3 4 5 Ville Heikkilä

  11. Case study Prioritization of features 1 2 3 4 5 • Stakeholder invitation • 19 of 33 participated in the end • Cumulative voting • Criteria: value, urgency and dissatisfaction • Voting done in ReleasePlanner • Time taken by voting wasrecorded Ville Heikkilä

  12. SCERP Collective effort estimation 1 2 3 4 5 Ville Heikkilä

  13. Case study Collective effort estimation 1 2 3 4 5 • Only 2 active developers • Collaborative effort estimation • Full time equivalent (FTE) developer Ville Heikkilä

  14. SCERP Calculation of optimized release plan alternatives 1 2 3 4 5 Ville Heikkilä

  15. Case study Calculation of optimized release plan alternatives 1 2 3 4 5 • Two next releases • Release weights 9 and 5 • Capacity 22 FTE-days • ReleasePlanner created 5 optimized release plan alternatives • Product Owner created a manual plan Ville Heikkilä

  16. SCERP Prioritization of alternative plans 1 2 3 4 5 Ville Heikkilä

  17. Case study Prioritization of alternative plans 1 2 3 4 5 • 10 stakeholders • 5 plans + manual plan • Match score • “Perfect match” (9) • “No match” (1) Ville Heikkilä

  18. Plan optimization output Ville Heikkilä

  19. Survey • 6-choice attitude scale • “I understood feature X” • Attitudes towards method • Free text field Ville Heikkilä

  20. Key findings • Stakeholders understood the features and their priorities varied considerably • Stakeholders understood and liked the method • SCERP is time-efficient for the stakeholders • Optimized plans were more acceptable than the manual plan • List of candidate features was insufficient • Not enough difference between criteria Ville Heikkilä

  21. Discussion • Does SCERP work? • Does SCERP scale? • Was the case success? Ville Heikkilä

  22. Questions? Ville Heikkilä

More Related