Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Agile Requirements

2,392 views

Published on

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Agile Requirements

  1. 1. Agile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 Ben LindersAgile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 1
  2. 2. Contents / Agenda Introduction Business Quality Cases Factors Agile Requirements ConclusionsAgile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 2 2
  3. 3. Problem Statement IntroductionQuality improvement needed in many organizationsBusiness case • Identification of problem areas • Selected improvement • DecisionQuantified • Costs & benefits • Lead time to resultAgile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 3 3
  4. 4. Quantification problems IntroductionMuch time needed to gather dataDifficult to measure thingsHard to keep management commitmentExpensiveRequired: Business case, with limited but sufficient measurement effort, to gain management commitment and fundingAgile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 4 4
  5. 5. Affiliate Collaboration IntroductionSEI Pittsburgh, PA:Software Engineering Measurement & Analysis GroupEricsson Netherlands:Market Unit Northern Europe & Main R&D CenterThe Software Engineering Institute Affiliate Program providessponsoring organizations with an opportunity to contribute their bestideas and people to a uniquely collaborative peer group who combinetheir technical knowledge and experience to help define superiorsoftware engineering practices.Affiliates: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/collaborating/affiliates/affiliates.html Agile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 5 5
  6. 6. Two models IntroductionDefect Estimation Model Resident Defects in Design Base • Data, tuned with expert opinion Design Process Competence, skills Defects Inserted (documentation, Defect Density Tools, environment code) Estimate Fault Slip Through Detection Rate • Test Process Competence, skills Test Capacity Defects Detected (Inspection, test) Fault Slip Through Tools, environment Defect Classification • Project/Product Quality Resident Defects in Delivered Product (Un)happy customers Process Inputs and outputs Influencing factors Defect Level MeasurementQuality Factor Model • Expert opinion, extend with data • Quick Quality Scan • Prediction Fault Slip Through • Improvement AreasAgile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 6 6
  7. 7. Measuring quality Business CasesInsertion: Where are defects made? How to prevent?Detection: Where are defects found? Early/economic removal?Quality: How many defect are left in the product at release?Agile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 7 7
  8. 8. Process View Business Cases Resident Defects in Design Base Design Process Defects Inserted Defect Density Competence, skills (documentation, Tools, environment code) Detection Rate Test Process Competence, skills Defects Detected Fault Slip Through Test Capacity (Inspection, test) Tools, environment Defect Classification Resident Defects in (Un)happy customers Process Delivered Product Inputs and outputs Influencing factors Defect Level MeasurementAgile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 8 8
  9. 9. Fault Slip Through Business Cases Lead ??? Time Cost ??? FST Quality ???Fault Slip Through = Number of defects detected in integration & customer test that should have been detected earlier “Should” implies that the defect is more cost effective to find earlier. Agile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 9 9
  10. 10. Quality Phase Performance Quality Factors Defect Insertion Management FactorsQuality Factor:Influencing quality of thedelivered product Defect Detection Agile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 10 10
  11. 11. Management Factors Quality FactorsManagement Context forTechnical ActivitiesDirect:• Project Management• Process ManagementIndirect:• Strategic & Operational Line ManagementAgile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 11 11
  12. 12. Defect Insertion Quality FactorsTechnical Activitieswhere defects inserted• Root Cause Analysis• Defect Prevention Agile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 12 12
  13. 13. Defect Detection Quality FactorsTechnical Activitieswhere defects detected• Early Detection• Economy of Test• Release QualityReduce Defect Slippage Agile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 13 13
  14. 14. Quality Factors - Requirements Quality FactorsPurpose Process Requirement Maturity Management • Predict Quality Capability Requirement • Leading indicator Stability CommitmentSources Requirements • Research Performance Roadmap Quality • Expert opinion • Experience Root Scope Requirement Cause Stability Definition Analysis Capability Agile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 14 14
  15. 15. Quality performance assessment Agile Req.Survey based upon Quality Factors • 34 respondents from management & technical roles • 4 management areas & 7 technical areas2 sub questions for each quality factor: • How relevant is the factor when we want to improve quality? “little if any,” “moderate,” “substantial,” or “extensive,” • How well are we doing currently? “poor,” “fair,” “good,” and “excellent.”Agile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 15 15
  16. 16. Findings Requirements Agile Req. Process Requirement Maturity Management Capability Requirement Stability Commitment Requirements Performance Roadmap Quality Root Scope Requirement Cause Stability Definition Analysis CapabilityAgile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 16 16
  17. 17. Pilot “Business Case for Quality” Agile Req.Context: • Process management • Quality steering • Starting with AgilePilot: Agile for Requirements • Calculate value of process change • Run the pilot • Evaluate the resultAgile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 17 17
  18. 18. Improve: Requirements Stability Agile Req.Requirements Stability – Inverse of the amount of requirement changes over time. (The less changes, the higher stability.)Agile deployment • Backlog with Prioritized User Stories • Product manager as Product Owner • (Pre-) Planning game • Architecture team • Stand up meetingsAgile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 18 18
  19. 19. Improve: Scope Stability Agile Req.Scope Stability – Impact of major changes in projects that are related to changes in the product roadmap, including stability of the products to be developed, development teams involved in projects, and major changes in project funding or delivery dates.Agile deployment • Backlog • Responsibility of Agile teams and Product Owner • (Pre-) Planning game • RetrospectivesAgile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 19 19
  20. 20. Improve: Requirement Definition Agile Req.CapabilityRequirements Definition Capability – The skill and experience level of the people doing requirements definition (e.g., product managers).Agile deployment • (Pre-) Planning game • Stand up meetings • Collaborative Culture • RetrospectivesAgile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 20 20
  21. 21. Steering Agile Quality Agile Req.• Estimate latent defects after demo (planning game)• Collect defects during test (after demo).• Classify defects: • “introduction phase“ • “should have been detected phase”• Root cause analysis: Prevention• Decide improvement actions and communicate• Re-estimate and predict release quality.Agile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 21 21
  22. 22. Results Agile for Requirements Agile Req.• Very low number of requirement defects• Previous projects also had a low number• Based upon the data no conclusion could be drawnRoot Cause Analysis: • understanding requirements increased: planning game & stand-up meetings. • Improvements from retrospectives increased cooperation between development team and product owner.Requirements quality performance increased! Agile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 22 22
  23. 23. Conclusions ConclusionsQuicker Business Case: • Quality Factors/Performance • Fault Slip Through • Combining data and expert opinionImproved Requirements Performance • Agile increased requirements quality • Less defects after release • Increased flexibility and collaborationAgile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 23 23
  24. 24. More information ConclusionsPublications: • Building Process Improvement Business Cases SEI Technical Note: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/09tn017.cfm • Controlling Project Performance by Using the Project Defect Model in proceedings PSQT West Conference 2005 • The Business Benefit of Root Cause Analysis in proceedings SM/ASM conference 2003 • SPI, the agile way! To be presented at the SPIder conference, october 2009 www.spiderconferentie.nlContact: • Email: benlinders@gmail.com • http://www.linkedin.com/in/benlindersAgile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 24 24
  25. 25. Backup SlidesAgile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 25 25
  26. 26. Solution IntroductionTechnologies • Bayesian Belief Networks (BBN) • Monte Carlo Simulation • Root Cause Analysis • Cost of Quality, Defect SlippageSix Sigma DMAIC Approach • Modeling Business Cases • Research Quality Factors & quantify Quality Improvement • Validate “Business Case for Quality”Agile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 26 26
  27. 27. Building a business case Business Cases Quality Quality Fault Quality Factor SlipBBN Quality Factor Phase Through Performance Factor Quality Factor Historical Industry Project Data DataMonte Current Improved Quality Phase Quality PhaseCarlo Performance Performance Subjective Expert OpinionAgile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 27 27
  28. 28. Bayes Belief Network (BBN) Business Cases • Probabilistic graphical model, to model uncertainty • Diagnose and explain why an outcome happened • Predict outcomes based on insight to one or more factors Used: • Modeling Quality Factors • Predicting Quality Phase Performance • What if ScenarioAgile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 28 28
  29. 29. Monte Carlo Simulation Business Cases • Compute a result based on random sampling • Modeling distributions of data • Can make uncertainty visible Used: • Calculate value of process changesAgile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 29 29
  30. 30. Quality Prediction Business CasesCurrent Model: Estimation • Extrapolate past performance • Based on inserted/detected defects • Plan & trackWanted: Prediction • Causes of defects • What if Scenarios All models are wrong • Decision taking Some models are useful DemingAgile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 30 30
  31. 31. Step 2: Defect Prediction Business CasesFault Slip ThroughDefect found in a (later) test phase that should have been found earlier “Should”: More Cost effective (economical)Predict Defect Reduction • Determine process impact • Simulate quality change • Predict savingsPilots • Agile • Model Driven DevelopmentAgile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 31 31
  32. 32. Quantify Quality Improvement Quality FactorsConnect defect data with Quality performance • Maximum quality factor => Industry best in class Published industry data from various sources • Distribution: Linear (keep it simple)Extend BBN to calculate remaining defects after each phaseResult: Model for “what if scenario’s” • Calculate defects in release products, when quality performance improves • Cost of Quality data to calculate savingsAgile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 32 32
  33. 33. Monte Carlo: Quality performance Quality FactorsMonte Carlo simulation • Input from 5 experts • Estimated chance of occurrence and impact on FST (1-5 scale) • Simulation done to calculate impact on quality factors • Result used in BBN model to calculate effect on defect slippageExpected result: • Reduced number of requirement defects introduced • Increased effectiveness of late testing phases • Less defects in products shipped to customers • Cost saving: — Limited saving in the project — Major saving during maintenanceAgile Requirements Agile Consortium Benelux, sep 30, 2009 (C) Ben Linders 33 33

×