| RE: [epf-dev] Prioritizing requirements |
|
As per previous mail I sent yesterday on the subject, I
entirely agree that we need to make the Stakeholder the responsible actor for
prioritization of requirements. This is vital and we need to be explicit in this. Should we provide guidance in effective prioritization
techniques? Should there be an explicit step in a task somewhere in
the process that deals with prioritization? If so, where should that be? Plan Iteration is the logical
place from the current structure, but in reality, you will be capturing
stakeholder priorities during the requirements gathering phase, and subsequently
reviewing those priorities in the context of the rest of the requirements at a
later time. Ben > -----Original Message----- > From: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] > On Behalf Of Scott W. Ambler > Sent: 13 March 2007 12:48 > To: Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List > Subject: RE: [epf-dev] Prioritizing requirements > > > On Tue, March 13, 2007 5:44 am, Mark.Dickson@xxxxxxxxx said: > > Thanks Scott. > > > > Having spent some more time looking deeper into the content, it looks > to > > me > > like OpenUP/Basic handles prioritization of requirements in a number > of > > places. I thought I'd share what I have found. Please chip in if I > have > > misunderstood the approach. > > > > In the Requirements task Define Vision, we "Define features of the > system" > > which includes "Work with stakeholders to capture a list of features > that > > stakeholders want in the system, briefly describing them and giving > > attributes to help define their general status and priority in the > project > > ." > > > > In the Task: Plan Project (perhaps not as big surprise...). The PM > "works > > with the team" to map the work items list to time, introducing the > phase > > milestones and deciding on how many iterations are required. We > outline > > the > > features targeted for each iteration "putting the top priority work > items > > first." This is all done with a view to refining on each iteration > rather > > than being set in stone predictive planning, naturally. > > I'm a bit worried about this wording. We need to make it explicit that > stakeholders are responsible for prioritizing the requirements. > > > > > > In the PM task Plan Iteration, "The Role: Project Manager works with > the > > rest of the team, and especially the project stakeholders, to identify > the > > high-priority work items from the Artifact: Work Items List to be > > addressed > > within the iteration." > > Sounds like the PM is responsible for prioritization in this wording. > I'm > not convinced that's the message we should be sending. > > > > > That seems to define the general approach to prioritization as it > stands, > > as far as I can see. At a project level, this seems to be feature- > driven, > > with the stakeholder defining the relative priority of the features. > > That's definitely what we want, but we need to ensure that it says > exactly > that. > > > > > At an iteration level, "the team" (which should include the > Stakeholder) > > decide the items from the work items list that need to be implemented, > > working against the overall plan, phase objectives and the prioritized > > feature set defined in the vision. (As an aside - there might be some > > questions arising from this about the relationship between a "feature" > and > > an item on the work items list such as a scenario. Maybe those > discussions > > have already happened?) > > The definition of work item should address this issue, IMHO. I don't > have > easy access to EPF right now so can't verify. > > > > > We are in the process of writing an architecture step called "Identify > > architecturally significant requirements." This will effectively > define a > > subset of the requirements that need to be delivered in order to > achieve > > the Elaboration Phase milestone. The architectural priority of > > requirements > > should be a factored into the team discussion within "Plan Project" > and > > "Plan Iteration" in determining the overall priority on the Work Items > > List. The implication being that the longer it takes to deliver this > > subset, then the longer it takes to get out of Elaboration and into > > Construction. > > Definitely. A discussion of the relationship between business > prioritization and architecturally-significant prioritization should be > included somewhere. I've found that there is very often a direct > co-relation between architecturally-significant and high-business value, > and that the reworking of the work item list shouldn't be significant in > most situations. > > > > > > Introducing this step should provide a means to balance the > prioritization > > of requirements to meet Stakeholder needs and achieving architectural > > stability. From a purely architectural perspective, it also seems more > > explicitly collaborative than the stark "architect prioritizes the use > > cases" approach in RUP, which was often misunderstood to mean > "Architect > > is > > Planning King" (IMHO). > > Hard to argue with that. > > - Scott > Practice Leader Agile Development, IBM Rational > http://www-306.ibm.com/software/rational/bios/ambler.html > > Refactoring Databases ( > http://www.ambysoft.com/books/refactoringDatabases.html ) is now > available. > > _______________________________________________ > epf-dev mailing list > epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Telelogic Lifecycle Solutions: Helping You Define, Design & Deliver Advanced Systems & Software Learn More at www.telelogic.com
Ben Williams
Ben.Williams@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Telelogic - Requirements-Driven Innovation!
The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment or enclosure, is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential material. Any unauthorized use, review, retransmissions, dissemination, copying or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
|