Houston - We Have a Priority - Natalie Warnert Scrum Gathering Orlando 2016
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
2 gefällt mir•834 views
Presentation from Scrum Gathering Orlando (April 2016) about value mapping and prioritizing from a customer and business perspective using both Kano and ROI analysis using Agile and Scrum principles - Natalie Warnert www.nataliewarnert.com
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Ähnlich wie Houston - We Have a Priority - Natalie Warnert Scrum Gathering Orlando 2016
Ähnlich wie Houston - We Have a Priority - Natalie Warnert Scrum Gathering Orlando 2016 (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Houston - We Have a Priority - Natalie Warnert Scrum Gathering Orlando 2016
- 1. Houston, we have a priority! Natalie Warnert Scrum Gathering Orlando #sgfla April 18, 2016
- 2. Agenda • Natalie’s background • The fight for priority – org levels • Traditional value measurement • Activity 1 & debrief • Customer value measurement • Activity 2 & debrief • Bringing it all together • Questions
- 3. Natalie Warnert • Agile Coach • MA, SPC, CSP, CSM, PSM Web: www.nataliewarnert.com Twitter: @nataliewarnert Email: info@nataliewarnert.com
- 4. Why is value measurement important to me?
- 5. The fight for priority • This is more valuable than that! • Priority can look very different at different levels of the organization
- 6. The fight for priority - Portfolio • Long term roadmaps • Strategy • Performance objectives • Funding allocation
- 7. The fight for priority - Portfolio • Long term roadmaps • Strategy • Performance objectives • Funding allocation • Strength: ROI • Deficiency: being laser focused
- 8. The fight for priority - Program • Roadmap alignment • Features – Top down – Laterally – Bottom up • Dependency management • Funding project/teams
- 9. The fight for priority - Program • Roadmap alignment • Features – Top down – Laterally – Bottom up • Dependency management • Funding projects/teams • Strength: value stream • Deficiency: trying to find the right balance
- 10. The fight for priority - Team • Team roadmap – Enhancements – New functionality – Tech debt – Defects – Dependencies • Constraints
- 11. The fight for priority - Team • Team roadmap – Enhancements – New functionality – Tech debt – Defects – Dependencies • Constraints • Strength: customer factors • Deficiency: the bigger picture
- 12. Brainstorming Activity: 5 min • What issues have you noticed between priority valuation at different levels of the organization? • Who usually ”wins” and “loses” these discussions?
- 13. Traditional Value Measurement val·ue /ˈvalyo͞o/ Verb 1.estimate the monetary worth of (something). “the feature was valued at $45,000” Synonyms: evaluate, assess, estimate, appraise, price www.google.com
- 14. Traditional Value Measurement – Return on Investment • ROI – Net profit/cost of investment = ROI – OR… how much can we profit from this investment (percentage)? – Tangible
- 15. Traditional Value Measurement –Cost of Delay • Cost of Delay – what is the cost of having NOT done this? [value + urgency + risk reduction & opportunity enablement]
- 16. Traditional Value Measurement –Cost of Delay • Cost of Delay – what is the cost of having NOT done this? [value + urgency + risk reduction & opportunity enablement] • If we have an equal cost of delay pick the shortest job first Feature Cost of Delay Duration A $2 2 B $2 1
- 17. Traditional Value Measurement –Cost of Delay • Cost of Delay – what is the cost of having NOT done this? [value + urgency + risk reduction & opportunity enablement] • If we have an equal cost of delay pick the shortest job first • If we have an equal duration pick highest CoD Feature Cost of Delay Duration A $2 2 C $1 2
- 18. Traditional Value Measurement –Cost of Delay • Cost of Delay – what is the cost of having NOT done this? [value + urgency + risk reduction/opportunity enablement] • What if it’s not one or the other? Feature Cost of Delay Duration A $2 2 B $2 1 C $1 2
- 19. Traditional Value Measurement –Cost of Delay • Cost of Delay – what is the cost of having NOT done this? • Weighted shortest job first (WSJF) • Implementation and decision to use CD3 = CoD/Duration Feature Cost of Delay Duration CD3 = CoD/Duration A $2 2 1 B $2 1 2 C $1 2 1/2
- 20. Traditional Value Measurement –Cost of Delay • Cost of Delay – what is the cost of having NOT done this? • Weighted shortest job first (WSJF) • Implementation and decision to use CD3 = CoD/Duration Feature Cost of Delay Duration CD3 = CoD/Duration A $2 2 1 B $2 1 2 C $1 2 1/2
- 21. Activity – 10 minutes • Prioritize the work items into a program roadmap based on monetary measures only • Incorporate Cost of Delay, Duration, Weighted Shortest Job First, and ROI • Left = lower value • Right = higher value Lower Value Higher Value
- 22. Activity Debrief • What was difficult about the activity? • What were the first few items in your prioritization order? Last few? • How realistic is it to get everything done? • Which scope would likely get cut? • What was missing from the conversation about priority and valuation? • Take a picture of your priority arrangement.
- 23. Traditional Value Management • WSJF is important, but not as important as how we calculate it
- 24. Traditional Value Management • WSJF is important, but not as important as how we calculate it • Cost of Delay [value + urgency + risk reduction/opportunity enablement]
- 25. Traditional Value Management • WSJF is important, but not as important as how we calculate it • Cost of Delay [value + urgency + risk reduction/opportunity enablement] • And duration…
- 26. Traditional Value Management • WSJF is important, but not as important as how we calculate it • Cost of Delay [value + urgency + risk reduction/opportunity enablement] • And duration… • But it’s an estimation at best
- 27. Traditional Value Management • WSJF is important, but not as important as how we calculate it • Cost of Delay [value + urgency + risk reduction/opportunity enablement] • And duration… • But it’s an estimation at best • And when we estimate in a box (especially with money), we are more often than not WRONG
- 28. Customer Value Measurement • But the customer does not care about value as a measure
- 29. Customer Value Measurement • But the customer does not care about value as a measure • Customer thinks of value as: val·ue /ˈvalyo͞o/ Noun 1. the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something. “this product is of great value” Synonyms: worth, usefulness, advantage, benefit, gain, good, help, merit www.google.com
- 30. Customer Value Measurement • As a…I want…so that…
- 31. Customer Value Measurement • As a…I want…so that… • As a customer/user/subscriber… • I want [certain functionality] • So that I can do something that is valuable to me and gain satisfaction by doing it
- 32. Customer Value Measurement • As a…I want…so that… • As a customer/user/subscriber… • I want [certain functionality] • So that I can do something that is valuable to me and gain satisfaction by doing it – Ease, time-saving – Unique/new/differentiating – NOT so that the company can make money off of me • Intangible
- 33. Customer Value Measurement • Customer cost of delay – What I NEED to do (basic/threshold) – What I WANT to do (performance) – What I haven’t thought to do yet (delight/excite)
- 34. Customer Value Measurement - Kano Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Need FulfilledNeed Unfulfilled
- 35. Customer Value Measurement - Kano Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Need FulfilledNeed Unfulfilled Basic
- 36. Customer Value Measurement - Kano Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Need FulfilledNeed Unfulfilled Basic Performance
- 37. Customer Value Measurement - Kano Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Need FulfilledNeed Unfulfilled Basic Performance Delight
- 38. Customer Value Measurement - Kano Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Need FulfilledNeed Unfulfilled Time Basic Performance Delight
- 39. Activity 2 – 10 minutes • Move feature cards ONLY vertically based on customer value factors • Discuss which buckets each feature could fit into based on what the customer values Lower Value Higher Value Delight: Don’t know I want Performance: I WANT Basic: I NEED
- 40. Activity 2 – Debrief • Which features are now the most important customer value factored in? • Which features are more likely to be lower in priority?
- 41. What is missing? Customer Feeling Money Run a business Build the right thing
- 42. What is missing? Customer Feeling Money Run a business Build the right thing
- 43. ROI vs. Kano (Money vs. Feeling) Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Need Unfulfilled Time Basic Performance Delight ROI (Valuation = Money) Kano (Value = Feeling)Vs. Value Cost
- 44. ROI vs. Kano (Money vs. Feeling) Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Need Unfulfilled Time Basic Performance Delight ROI (Valuation = Money) Kano (Value = Feeling)Vs. Value Cost
- 45. ROI vs. Kano (Money vs. Feeling) Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Need Unfulfilled Time Basic Performance Delight ROI (Valuation = Money) Kano (Value = Feeling)Vs. Value Cost
- 46. ROI vs. Kano (Money vs. Feeling) Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Need Unfulfilled Time Basic Performance Delight ROI (Valuation = Money) Kano (Value = Feeling)Vs. Program (value stream) Value Cost
- 47. Why is value measurement important to me?
- 48. Wrap Up • Value is both a verb and a noun (like Agile) • Think about making money and the customer – balance between importance • Development tier (level) can help influence decisions
- 49. Questions? Thank you! www.nataliewarnert.com Twitter: @nataliewarnert Email: info@nataliewarnert.com #sgfla Please fill out your feedback for the session!
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Prevent crashes Limited resources of time and money. -Has anyone experienced this type of thing Stability, security, and flashiness. We work the entire year to build up the site and then at the busiest time turn off a lot of the new functionality to improve performance and prevent issues. Ended up with a list of 30 critical defects and had to choose which ones we would be allowed to fix and get into the final builds of the freeze (which were pushed off a few extra days). At that point, how do we justify the value? defects differently than we looked at new functionality in general. So we looked at what was important for the freeze – security, stability, executive investment/interest, moron factor (spelling error on cart page)…this was a new way to look at what NEEDS to be done – why can’t it expand to program level roadmaps? Is it always about dollars earned? Dollars saved? No – there are many other things to consider…
- We will always have conflict on what is the most important as long as we have finite resources. How often have you had a sprint or PI planned and then something “happens” or someone gets an idea or another business does something we need to keep up with? There are different goals and motivations driving what should be “one” strategy, but it never is a single strategy. Product owner, other product owners, tech leads, product manager, architects, executives Chicken and egg question? Do we make money and invest it to make the customer happy or do we make the customer happy and therefore we make money? Different areas in the development stack look at value differently.
- Value return to the company Where is the money coming from and going to--- disconnect with what is actually being built on the ground/team level Where should I invest this money? What features should I buy from which teams? What product line is doing well and should we invest in? Those lines that are performing the best and are probably focusing on their users so that makes for a difficult decision – feed those teams or invest in teams that are not doing as well? Finite resources drive the need to make these decisions.
- Laser focus and understanding the lower level issues that are contributing to some of the priority discussion we see at a higher level. Constraints that teams feel are not felt at the portfolio level – they are usually extrapolated and are harder to get to the root issue (example? Dependencies between teams, arch/infra constraints, devops and RM issues) They do not understand how their actions impact and disrupt at the program and team level – reprioritizing of features, pet projects, needing to “see” to believe, not attending demos and then later trying to incorporate feedback – all of this delays value delivery.
- Level does not exist in most companies – can utilize collective personas (JTBD and user journeys). They can see the picture at multiple levels and understand what is driving value and what is not but often get stuck resolving most disagreements and managing expectations Discuss – ORV wants to know where their money will be spent and how much of a feature they will be funding and when they will see it -PG & A does not put in enough money but their features need to be done first from a program and product dependency perspective. This is often shown at the program level and directly affects team and portfolio, program is stuck in the middle Budgeting and funding decisions are leading to poor directional decisions based on short term returns and a less than ideal user experience Poor budgeting models based on funding projects v. teams can contribute to this issue of building the wrong thing and not managing expectations
- Can understand and see how things are implemented the value they could bring as well as managing the expectations of many different levels in the organization. It is difficult to balance expectations, budget, and value, though as things are constantly changing.
- Teams are at the close level. They know what is being built and how it will affect the customer (or how it will not). They know how it will affect themselves. Often teams feel the constraints very closely because they feel the need to deliver everything because priority decisions cannot happen. Or when priorities change there is a lot of throw away work. How many times is the solution “hacked” together? How many times does it “work on my local machine?” Does it work for one area and not integrate with other solutions or with other things? How many firedrills when another team did something similar or is thinking about doing something similar?
- Can translate the value to persona – sometimes cannot see the entire picture and how it relates to the business
- Are they discussions at all? 3:55
- Noun: regard that something is held to deserve, worth, usefulness Verb: valued at – estimate the monetary worth Run the business
- Tangible makes us feel safe – we can assign a number to it, even if it is a wrong number How often have you heard “just put a number on it?” How often have you said it? How often have you needed to make some numbers match or look profitable, successful, efficient, effective
- How much will we lose if we wait (opportunity cost) Value – cust and business Urgency – is there a deadline? Regulation? Event? RR – is this something that is risky? Competition? Some event (e.g. Holiday) OE – competition? Is there a window? (First to have something, need to match or beat someone else – also urgency).
- B
- A
- WSJF is the implementation of CD3 and the decision to use SAFe and Lean implementation Assuming WIP = 1
- Pick highest CD3 or WSJF
- 4:05 activity start 4:15 activity complete
- 4:20 Should there be one “right answer”? Probably not. Should make some of the features the same or close WSJF and CoD? – check on this?
- Gives us the most value for the least effort to: Gives our customer the most value for the least effort… Tangible = blame, we feel wrong, are we punished? What about how the customer feels?
- Often the components are forgotten about for CoD Look to do something else with the greater than/less than sign – maybe add descriptor in front of/behind value and then effort? Tangible = blame, we feel wrong, are we punished? What about how the customer feels?
- What is lost…? The actual reality of what could happen Gives us the most value for the least effort to: Gives our customer the most value for the least effort… Look to do something else with the greater than/less than sign – maybe add descriptor in front of/behind value and then effort? Tangible = blame, we feel wrong, are we punished? What about how the customer feels?
- Time Risk Scope Value What is lost…? Gives us the most value for the least effort to: Gives our customer the most value for the least effort… Look to do something else with the greater than/less than sign – maybe add descriptor in front of/behind value and then effort? Tangible = blame, we feel wrong, are we punished? What about how the customer feels?
- But it feels good because it’s tangible = blame, we feel wrong, are we punished? This estimate was wrong, we were wrong, we spent too much, took too much time, didn’t get the results. What about how the customer feels?
- Value to the company as a measure. In most cases…
- The ”so that” is not usually so that the company I’m paying can make money. It’s so I can do something. The value is me doing something – the value is a thing, not an amount/measure.
- Though that is usually what happens because that is how the company stays in business. But it is not the first thought of the customer. Intangible and hard to assign a number to…
- Retail example…
- Here is where I tell the story about the auto save…Moron factor Tech debt also fits here – the customer doesn’t notice if we do, but they notice if we don’t Needs to balance because we can only do so much before it becomes a loss and levels out
- What is a performance feature? Filter, ISPU
- Apple Pay – maybe this doesn’t make us a ton of money yet, but if differentiates us
- Time: it becomes commonplace after time and delights/performance turn into base expectations…search, save example, pay with something other than a credit card (before paypal you needed to have a credit card – teenager story when I had to beg to use a credit card to buy things online)
- Add diagram of where factors are here… Explain why I valuated these in this way. Delights – can be a differentiator or can flop, but if you don’t have basic needs met they mean nothing. Start at 4:30 End at 4:40
- 4:45 move on What order were they actually implemented in? ISPU, Save, Save for Later, filters Required Accessories ApplePay Gift packaging Responsive
- What happens when we only look at one? We miss the whole picture (portfolio and team)
- How do I talk about ROI graph? Is it necessary? Should probably label axis… But what about those damn executive pet projects?? How do we show this to folks that are not into cards and valuation in this way? Where do I add relative estimation into this?
- Add image here – label with what the lines are called… Eric But what about those damn executive pet projects?? How do we show this to folks that are not into cards and valuation in this way? Where do I add relative estimation into this?
- Add image here – label with what the lines are called… Eric But what about those damn executive pet projects?? How do we show this to folks that are not into cards and valuation in this way? Where do I add relative estimation into this?
- Add image here – label with what the lines are called… Eric But what about those damn executive pet projects?? How do we show this to folks that are not into cards and valuation in this way? Where do I add relative estimation into this?
- Bring this back around – needed to look at not just what is going to make us money, but also what customers want/need and what will keep the site up and stable. It needs to balance out and by admitting we cannot do everything we are making one step toward progress. Fixed about the top 8 defects and site did not go down.
- Add diagram of where factors are here
- Add diagram of where factors are here