Keep an open mind don’t be biased Agile methodologies borrow a lot from other more general theories e.g. Lean manufacturing and lean development Building classes can be done in random order (mostly)
We follow the method to describe software design patterns. A natural way to describe things. Later on , a workshop where we will apply this.
Bold statements: A better fit! always on time Predictability and Adaptabilityare not opposites
Normally when predictability goes up, adaptability goes down DP says that you can have predictability (to a certain extent) and that adaptability will even go up.
We are not alone We are part of a bigger whole (product release, marketing, …) Time is money
Planning is the Achilles heel of the agile movement We propose an alternative, and improvement By introducing dimensional planning
Especially when there are external dependencies No fallback = no plan B Release planning -> plan for alternative futures We’ll show later how these shortcomings are addressed in dimensional planning
Peddler = Leurder van deur tot deur
Feature Group Level = bunch of features that belong togethern (theme in xp, or an epic) Beyond release planning means: product, portfolio, and strategic planning (the onion)
Gets you from point A to point B But not with everything
Better for motorised (automated) transport
The customers request
Exclusive – pick one The customer decides which dimension she chooses A is everywhere B is not in the asphalted future What if something bad happens? You can reuse some features from different dimensions Not all is thrown away when you change your dimension
Incremental You must go from dirt to cobble to asphalt While on feature group level, you could pick one dimension.
First say what we see here 1, 2 and 3 are feature groups
Plan with dimension visible of not visible (but always present)
Default burndown chart.Advantage: can burn down more features
Advantage: invisible and easy to implement Guaranteed to have finished all your features at some level.
The customers must choose one alternate future
Depth is not always about functionality
Partial solutions: change your solution in the middle of something. Problaby a broken solution when things don’t go as planned. Buffering Splitting userstories: Data boundaries operational boundaries (crud) cross cutting concerns functional – non functional mixed priority
• Not like anything you’ve seen before!
– Forget about other planning techniques
(critical path, buffering, contingency, …)
• Specialized for Software development
– Especially OO development
– No physical boundaries
– No need to respect the natural order!
No adoption of existing planning techniques!
Agile vs Rigid Predictability
• What kind of goals can we set without
• Is it possible that setting fixed goals can
even improve Agility?
• Are there different goals to choose from?
• Do we need different techniques or is there
a universal technique for different
Agile Planning too Rigid
• At the release level (and above)
• At the iteration level
Release planning too Rigid
• There are no alternatives
– Just one backlog (one big pile of features)
– No structure in the backlog (just a sequence)
– No fallback
• Partial solutions
– Scope buffer (DSDM 70% rule)
– Time buffer
• Splitting user stories of mixed priority
– These are new user stories
Dimensional Planning Revisited
• Explicit vs Implicit dimensional planning
• Better fit for customer
• Theory of Constraints
Explicit vs Implicit Dimension
• Implicit dimensions
– Common language
– Less overhead for planning
– Especially useful in iteration planning
• Team knows what a dirt/cobble/asphalted road for a
feature looks like
• [in]frastructure for the [in]dependent
• Info at