Delivering Business Value with Agile Approaches to Requirements, continued

This post is a continuation of a previous post found here.

Changes Dave believes are coming with respect to agile-run projects and my own commentary on these:

• Requirements engineers make decisions, they are not just documenters. Expect to see that product owners are the BAs. They will less often be called systems analysts, and more often called product owners. A few years ago, we shifted from calling our requirements team members “Business Analysts” and started calling them “Product Managers” because that’s really what they have to do – own the product, even if it’s just an internal IT system.


• BAs/Product Owners will be empowered to make decisions and not just sit around waiting on sign-off. They must be experts in the business. They must work with development, not just document for them. Once they do this, they can start to make very smart decisions about what should or should not make it in the product.


• Agile is not a fad, even NASA is doing it. That said, we will see variations on agile as it grows and evolves.


• The development team can add value about requirements, so collaborate with them. They don’t all just want to gold-plate scope or push back on what’s in or out – they love to build products, so use that to your advantage.


• The business is not always right, so you still need to ask questions. BAs/Product Owners must push back when something doesn’t make sense.


• Agile is actually seen to increase the value of requirements – just make them more solution focused, and not just about doing lots of documentation.

And finally, Dave made my favorite quote from RE’09: The difference between UML 1 and UML 3 is that we moved the stick hands from being straight out to angled downwards. He can make jokes like this since he actually worked on it!

Delivering Business Value with Agile Approaches to Requirements

I attended a keynote at RE’09 in Atlanta that I wanted to go back and post a summary of and my thoughts on. And just to be completely honest, this is a rarity. For whatever reason, I really tend not to get much value out of keynote talks – either they are too technical, the speaker isn’t great at well, speaking, or they are so out there I cannot engage in it. Today was different though, it was captivating for me. This one was given by Dave West of Forrester Research. The talk was titled “Developing Business Value with Agile Approaches to Requirements”.


To be fair, he had my attention at the first slide – it was a picture of a dog doing agility. When I talk about agile, I use such a picture too since I personally do agility with my dog! Anyway, the content of the talk proved to be interesting. Some will say it wasn’t anything new. Others will argue with what he said. But for me, his ideas were very tightly aligned with our experiences and ideas about agile and requirements so I like that it built on what I already knew and gave me new ideas to think about. The great thing is he has a much larger pool of resources to survey and confirm his ideas. Here are a few of the points of interest.


He talked to what is being adopted with respect to agile and among those things: Agile itself is being adopted. Scrum practices are as well. He also sees engineering practices such as early testing, integrated builds, and re-factoring. But most of note, he is most commonly seeing a hybrid of approaches– more of an agile than an Agile approach. I think this is relevant as I hear company after company say “agile didn’t work for us”. In reality for many companies it probably doesn’t in its purest of form. Or perhaps it requires trying it more than once, learning from mistakes (do we really think Waterfall worked the first time either?!?!).


Some really positive things he believes we are seeing now include frequent delivery, increased business involvement with more collaboration, and changes in team organization towards smaller teams and more of a team focus in general. His thought on when agile is best used: Complex projects where there are problems to be solved and the solution is unknown.


Dave spoke to the common friction points between traditional requirements approaches and agile:

• Delivers requirements vs collaboration on the product
• Where in the process you engage vs. iterative
• Requirements that are out of date, long/hard to read, solution focused, take way too long vs. collaborative and timely requirements

Some of the issues that you must be careful about with agile: Often the customer has no time because they are doing their day-job (the one you are trying to help in some way with software!). There are often many customers to involve in the requirements efforts, not just one or two to quickly jot down stories with. The customers are often distributed so you have to bake in time to work with all of them alone and together. Agile is reliant on good communication but stereotypically, developers don’t communicate well. We cannot ignore analysis - processes require analysis and solutions require thought - so take time to do these.


I will continue this post in a day or so with thoughts on changes that Dave thinks we are starting to see, as well as my personal thoughts on his thoughts!

An example of Blueprint in Use on an Agile Project

I attended a talk by folks from BluePrint and Lexis Nexis at BAWorld on Tuesday at BAWorld: Boston called "Requirements Definition for Agile Projects". The first bit of the talk was just an intro to agile and why it is useful on the projects. The part that I found most interesting was from Kathleen McGoey who owned business analysis on lawyers.com - she effectively gave a verbal case study of their team using agile and Blueprint to deploy this site. This was refreshing because she was brutally honest about the state of their organization 2 years ago, some of her dislikes about other tools, and their experiences with agile not going well. However, she also then talked about how their culture is changing now and what is working really well. This talk was great because it was effectively a great sales-pitch for Blueprint, but it was given by an actual user....and you could tell she was being honest about it.

Blueprint is meant to be a BA tool. They are closely partnered with HP and it integrates to Quality Center for QA use as well. From a quick glance of things she mentioned or showed, it looks like it allows you to manage the list of features in a backlog, low-fidelity wireframes, diagrams that look a lot like visio, export to Word, and import from Excel. We are still using Borland's Caliber happily, but I'm obviously always looking at all the tools on the market to see what people are really liking and/or disliking, what new features are coming about, what's easy to use, etc.

A bit about the lawyers.com project - they were executing 3-12 week sprints and the requirements definition is about 2 weeks ahead of sprint cycles. She made a very wise comment - templates and processes are good to an end, but only if the BA knows what they are doing already. She spoke of junior analysts who are given templates and when you look at their work products you think “Oh no! what are you doing!”. I think we’ve all probably seen that. You can use the templates and processes to train them, but they aren’t enough, but they aren’t enough.

Another neat thing she briefly mentioned was the idea of doing something like pair-programming, but where the pair consists of a BA and a user experience expert – so together they are designing the wireframes. I haven’t tried it, typically our individuals are doing both activities.

Anyway, it was good to hear the “how it works” story from Lexis Nexis. And I haven't used Blueprint myself, but I am certainly interested to hear others' experiences with the tool, so please comment if you have used it.

Six Ways To Be An Agile Adolescent

Do you get along with everybody? Are you universally loved in your office?

Then you are a failure.

There are those that are born great and those that are told they are great guys. Especially working in an Agile environment, the requirements stakeholder has to be… well…

A screaming, pouting adolescent.

They don't call it a scrum for nothing: It's a battle. If you're not arguing, not giving voice to every seemingly petty impulse, you're not doing your job. But don't worry, I can help you tap into your inner child. Start with these techniques:

1. The Eye Roll: This classic we all mastered as teenagers-- stop a line of BS before it starts (you should know it when you see it, you're the adolescent, after all).

2. Belch if You're Bored: You should never be bored in a scrum. If you're bored you're not on task. If you're in a meeting [which should be a warning sign in and of itself] try a combo: belch, then eye roll, then moan "What are we doing here?" Sartre would approve.

3. The Pedantic Reductionist Humiliation (PRH): When you need to prove a point, paint the picture out in irreducible terms and make other people say it back to you, ESPECIALLY if they don't want to. Chase people down and pin them; the rhetorical equivalent of "quit hitting yourself".

4. Appropriation of the Winning Argument: This is a great technique. If you find yourself wrong, just switch sides immediately and congratulate yourself.

5. The Schizoid Handshake: When things get really heated, wax philosophic and say "I really appreciate the interaction here. This intellectual energy is critical to creating a good product." Feelings don't get hurt as easily if everybody thinks they're part of an exclusive group, like hanging with Dorothy Parker at the Gonk**.

6. Forget Everything by Monday: Remember everything that happened in the trailing 48 hours then forget about it (this includes grudges) unless it is a plotter printout posted on a wall in your immediate work area.

The only nice thing about the business of being a child is that, while perhaps unpleasant, your role is critical.

Without you, things stop moving.

What does "requirements sign-off" mean in agile?

I was recently working with a cusotmer on a project using an agile methodology. The organization was moving towards trying to do most of their projects in agile, so the nature of this is that they have a lot of non-agile pieces to their methodology still in place. We were cruising along in defining requirements and development was well into the first sprint, when the project manager told me we had a target date for the requirements to be signed off.

Wait a minute! Hold your horses folks! Sign-off? In an agile project?

I took it upon myself to remind her of the development methodology of choice for our project… and that she was asking me about sign-off in a methodology where it doesn’t really make sense…. one where the users have the right to prioritize whatever features they want in the backlog at any time. So if they forgot some features during our elicitation process, then that’s ok, they just need to figure out where to put it in the prioritized backlog, realizing something else may drop off. She laughed immediately reassuring me she hadn't lost it and that she understood completely, but the corporate process required this! So we began the discussion of what a “sign-off” would mean to us.

In the end, I think we got pretty creative with it. We did have lots of requirements in the form of user stories and other models like process flows, state tables, etc. And we were working closely with the users to elicit and review them. So what we asked them to do was to “sign-off” that at that moment in time, there were no major requirements missing, that they knew about, and there were no major issues with what we’d written down, that they knew about. The key is this means that they did in fact look at them, they participated in the activity and so development is not developing a prototype of something too far off basis. But it also keeps open their right to realize something new they need after they see it, think about it, sleep on it, or whatever.

What I really like about this is approach is that it doesn’t force anyone into a corner where they feel like they are signing away their life over a massive requirements document that they barely understood or that they are signing on a dotted line to say they are mostly perfect and got it all the first time around. So more or less, I think our version of sign-off allows the spirit of agile methodologies to prevail still.

Six Sure-Fire Ways to Make Scrum Fail

I joined a project which was trying to use Scrum.

After a quick read of Agile Software Development with SCRUM by Ken Schwaber and Mike Beedle, I was intrigued. What Schwaber and Beedle had to say passed the “gut check” and I wanted to see it in practice. Their basic arguments which warrant exploring are:

• Software development is unpredictable. You need a project management/process control system which adapts as you learn, and you should evaluate and apply what you are learning on a regular (monthly) basis.
• Developers must be held accountable for delivering what they promise. Developers can only be held accountable if they are empowered to solve problems.

I’d like to share our success story, but what I do have to share is lessons in how to make sure Scrum fails:

1. Interpret “Scrum” to mean there is absolutely no overall project planning or vision. After all, Scrum isn’t an empirical process control model; it’s a license to start development without an end goal in mind.
2. No software architecture! We’re agile; we don’t need no stinkin’ architecture!
3. That thing about removing impediments—it doesn’t apply if it means organizational change, it only applies to the project team. Empower development teams? Well, not if it’s hard.
4. Expect to get it exactly right in the first few sprints. If Scrum really worked, we’d get it right the first time, correct? A shift in team and organizational thinking shouldn’t take any effort.
5. The test team should refuse to play. Moving fast isn’t necessary, testing everything at the end of all the sprints is fine, correct?
6. Interpret the potential for refactoring code to mean that there is absolutely no reason to write good code to begin with, because you can always refactor it!

I joined the project at the beginning of its 3rd sprint, and Scrum was dropped in the 4th sprint. I still think Scrum has a lot of promise, and would like to give it a real try one day.

Related Reading:

Scrum Devleopment Process by Ken Schwaber.

7 Ways to Fail with Scrum by Jeff Sutherland

INCOSE 2008 - Can You Build an Airplane with an Agile Approach?

With all of the buzz about Agile, I have to mention that here at INCOSE 2008, I did not hear a single mention of it (except when I asked about it directly!). Actually, that’s not true, at one point I was excited to see a speaker’s slides which referenced applying agile processes as a step in a project. Then he spoke to the slide and I started to suspect he meant agile in the pure definition of the word, to move quickly. At the end, someone asked him the specific question as to whether he meant the agile software methodology and he clarified that he did not. So I left the conference wondering - with all the discussions about processes at a conference like this, why are they not ever speaking about agile?

Airplanes Are Not Software Requirements

My first guess - this probably relates to some of the core differences between systems and software engineering. I am going to over simplify this and just say that it is about scale. Systems projects are just a superset of software and hardware projects, integrating and deploying some combination of these. The teams of people deploying systems projects are quite large. And many of the projects discussed here are for government or regulated systems where specification and traceability is necessary. I could see how subsets of systems projects could in fact be developed using agile (pure software components), but I’m not convinced that an entire end-to-end project can. To put this in context, imagine you are building an airplane - a very commonly referenced type of systems engineering projects. Can you see this working using agile?

All skeptism aside, I do think that iterative development most certainly could work well on systems projects, and most people here would not argue that. In fact, I would love it if we could find examples of agile working on systems projects, because the number one feeling I get at systems engineering conferences is a craving for lighter processes.

I decided to do a little research outside the conference walls, and low-and-behold, I found a great article on this exact topic – “Toward Agile Systems Engineering Processes” by Dr. Richard Turner of the Systems and Software Consortium. The article is very well laid out, and I highly recommend reading it. He defines what agile is and what he believes the issue why most systems engineering projects are not agile. For example, he suggests that executives and program managers tend to believe that the teams involved have perfect knowledge about systems we are building, so we can plan them out in advance and work to a perfect execution against a perfect schedule.

Agile Can Work With Complex Systems

He talks to how to the agile concepts can work in systems projects. Here are a few examples summarized from his article:

• Learning based: The traditional V-model implies a one-time trip through, implying one time to re-learn. However, perhaps the model can be re-interpreted to allow multiple iterations through it to fulfill this.
• Customer focus: Typically systems engineering processes do not support multiple interactions with the customer throughout the project (just up front to gather requirements). That said, he references a study indicating the known issues with that on systems projects. Therefore, perhaps processes should be adapted to allow for this, particularly allowing for them to help prioritize requirements throughout projects.
• Short iterations: Iterations are largely unheard of because the V-model is a one-time pass through the development lifecycle. That said, iterations of prototyping through testing could be done in systems engineering in many cases. The issue is in delivering something complete at the end of each iteration. He suggests that this is not as important to the customer in large deployments as is reducing risk, validating requirements, etc. This is a great point to rememember the airplane example! Could we have even a working part of an airplane after 2 weeks? What about even the software to run a subsystem on the aircraft?
• Team ownership: Systems engineering is very process driven, so this one is tricky. Dr. Turner puts the idea out that perhaps allowing the systems engineers to drive it instead of the process to drive them, while more uncomfortable for management, might produce more effective results.

So while he does give some suggestions to adapt systems engineering processes to be more agile, I don’t think this will qualify as purely agile. And frankly if it we tried it, I think I'd be fearful to be in the airplane! But to quote Dr. Turner directly “…other hand, agility is much more a state of mind or philosophical approach than a set of rules that have to be followed regardless of appropriateness.” Using that idea, combined with what I saw at INCOSE 2008, I can see some definite opportunities for improvements for the field systems engineering.

Six Requirements Models For Agile Projects

When working on any agile project, most people will agree there is still a need to understand requirements. With the quick iterations of these projects, it’s more important than ever, to use visual models to capture the requirements. When done correctly, they are easier and quicker to create and understand than a list of written requirements. Selecting the appropriate models will vary by project; however, we can suggest a few common choices that work well.

High Level Models
At the beginning of the project, it is important to get a quick picture of the breadth of the project. This picture will help the team determine where to dive for depth. It is really important that these models are done as broad strokes, with just the bare minimum information. To get a sketch of that big picture, consider these models:

• Context diagram – This diagram simply sets the landscape of the project, clearly indicating the scope boundaries.

• Org chart – This is a model that often already exists in the organization. It can quickly help identify all the possible users or user groups that should be included in the project discussions.

• Data flow diagram – This is a quick sketch of the key pieces of data flowing through the system, including where it is created, changed and deleted. The data in this diagram should only be data that is important to the users of the system. They will help to identify the most important data and systems to work with.

• High-level process flow – Let’s start by saying this is nothing fancy or complex. The flow diagram should describe the major obvious steps. Again, the purpose is to sketch it simply, to give the big picture. In no way is it meant to be comprehensive or detailed.

Imagine one of your iterations requires bringing in new users to the team. These four models will give them an opportunity to quickly see the big picture of what this project is and where it is going, without having to read a 200 page spec (since there isn’t one!). You can also use them with your users to prioritize the most important pieces of the system for the iterations.

Models in the Iterations
Once you have prioritized the work for the first iteration, the two most popular models are likely to be:

• User stories – You can write these for the most important parts of the flow. They will be less detailed than the traditional use cases, supplying just enough depth to be developed.

• Wireframes – These will be connected to high-risk user stories, when sketching an interface might be a good aid to help the users explain what they need. These should be done in a quick modeling tool, or just by hand.

There will be other models. Sometimes you won’t even use these. The common theme in all of them is to create a visual representation of the requirements because it is faster to create and read. And with them all, only do the bare minimum necessary.

Four Ways To Improve Agile Requirements Management

One of the challenges of Agile projects is ensuring that the requirements remain “Agile”. While requirements are not necessarily neglected on Agile projects, an Agile project may erroneously take a waterfall approach to requirements.

Here are some simple techniques to adapt your requirements management effort to an agile project. The quotes at the beginning of each section are from the “Principles Behind the Agile Manifesto” at http://agilemanifesto.org .

1. Communicate Requirements Often And Effectively

“The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation.”

Two problems with email is that it is inefficient and easy to ignore. Email thread discussions can be long, tedious, and annoying. Despite the advances in emoticons over the past several years, it is also impossible to interpret non-verbal communication in email.

Resolutions to discussions around requirements, scope, and implementation will be resolved much quicker and to the satisfaction of more stakeholders through a meeting or hallway conversation.

If moderating a large number of email discussions is part of your current requirements process (for example, after the initial draft of the requirements doc is published), perhaps it’s time to schedule regular meetings at key points during the release cycle.

Established method: Email discussion

Suggested method: JAD, daily stand –ups

2. Use Collaboration Tools For Requirements Management

“Business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project.”

This is related to the other “C”—Communicate.

Communication on a project should be visible to all stakeholders in the project. Changes to requirements should be pushed out quickly and universally, without having to remember whether the developer who started last week is on the dev@mycompany.com mailing list.

Manage requirements in a central location where all stakeholders have immediate and easy access. An internal website for requirements and product management information is a much more efficient way of reaching your audience than emailing copies of documents to your stakeholders.

If possible, include collaborative tools like wikis and discussion boards as part of your website.

Established method: Word documents attached to emails

Suggested method: Wiki/Web page with automated change notification

3. Add Models And Wireframes To Your Requirements

“Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility.”

If applicable, use wireframes or mockups with callouts as a supplement to your requirements.

This is especially useful on projects which call for enhancements to existing interfaces. A wireframe with brief text descriptions is easily consumable, and conveys a large amount of information very efficiently.

Include more detailed descriptions of wireframes and mockups in your user stories, and publish it on your internal product management website (see #2 above).

Established method: Design document/specification; Text-only documents.

Suggested method: Internally-hosted website with wireframes and bulleted descriptions

4. Keep User Stories Simple

“Simplicity--the art of maximizing the amount of work not done--is essential.”

Ensure your user stories describe one and only one feature, and only the functions necessary for that feature.

Looking through a large, monolithic document which describes multiple features to be implemented across several releases wastes time.

Breaking your user stories down into descriptions of the most basic functions required for a feature also helps maintain release discipline.

Resist the temptation to include requirements for “nice to have” or “future” functionality. This clutters the user story with unnecessary information.

Established method: Large document which describes many features

Suggested method: Wiki page/website with a single page devoted to a single feature. Include links to related features.