As we know in the world of Agile project management the requirements
for the system or product being developed by the project(s) are listed
in the Product Backlog. The Product Backlog and prioritization of the
requirements listed in the Product Backlog is the responsibility of
the Product Owner. The Product Backlog is then used as input to
identify the list of tasks that defines a Team's work for a Sprint.
And we know this is called the *Sprint Backlog**.*
So, in my humble opinion the role of Stakeholder in Open/UP is too
broadly defined to be responsible for the prioritizattion of
requirements and in this lies the root cause of the problem we are
trying to solve here.
Take care,
Russell Pannone
_________________________________
Method Architect and Method Developer
RUP/RMC 7.x Certification, UML Certification, ITIL Foundation
Certification
IBM Software Group, Rational
San Jose - CA 95141
Tel: +1 (408) 463-5286
"Change the way you look at things, and the things you look at change."
Inactive hide details for Ricardo Balduino/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUSRicardo
Balduino/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS
*Ricardo Balduino/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS*
Sent by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
03/13/2007 08:40 AM
Please respond to
Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers
List <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To
Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
RE: [epf-dev] Prioritizing requirements
I agree that we have a good coverage on prioritization of work - all
prioritization is done in a collaborative way in OpenUP. My concern is
that explicitly assigning a task to Stakeholder saying "stakeholders
prioritize requirements" could potentially decrease the visibility of
this collaboration. Besides, there is the business priority and
architecturally significance that should count when prioritizing work
to be performed in an iteration.
We may need some rewording here and there, and perhaps a guideline
explaining how prioritization of work happens in OpenUP (the "aha
moment" Brian mentions).
Cheers,
Ricardo Balduino
Senior Software Engineer
IBM Rational Software (www.ibm.com/rational)
EPF Committer (www.eclipse.org/epf)
*Mark.Dickson@xxxxxxxxx*
Sent by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
03/13/2007 07:38 AM
Please respond to
Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To
Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
RE: [epf-dev] Prioritizing requirements
Ben
I agree that we need to be explicit about requirements prioritization.
A guideline on this topic that distils the approach into a single place
would be very useful. The current distribution of the various contributing
steps seems reasonable, i.e.
The Analyst role captures (not decides) the initial prioritization of
features against the Vision from the Stakeholder
The Architect role calls out the subset of architecturally significant
requirements that need to be built to produce a stable architecture
The PM role captures (not decides) the overall priority of the known
requirements as determined by the team (including - and especially - the
Stakeholder?) during Plan the Project
The PM role facilitates (not decides) the re-appraisal of priorities by
the team and the work items that need to be delivered to meet them
during Plan the Iteration
How does that sound?
cheers
Mark
Mark Dickson
Executive Consultant
EAS Practice
m 0780 1917480
w www.xansa.com
e mark.dickson@xxxxxxxxx
"Ben Williams"
<Ben.Williams@tel
elogic.com> To
Sent by: "Eclipse Process Framework Project
epf-dev-bounces@e Developers List"
clipse.org <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
13 March 2007 Subject
15:14 CET RE: [epf-dev] Prioritizing
requirements
Please respond to
Eclipse Process
Framework Project
Developers List
<epf-dev@eclipse.
org>
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
Product Manager, Lifecycle Solutions
Telelogic UK Ltd, Northbrook House, Oxford Science Park, Oxford, OX4 4GA,
United Kingdom
Phone: +44 (7710) 637 067
Fax: +44 (1865) 784 286
Mobile phone: +44 (7710) 637 067
Ben.Williams@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.telelogic.com
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.
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
Whilst this email has been checked for all known viruses, recipients
should undertake their own virus checking as Xansa will not accept any
liability whatsoever.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
protected by client privilege. It is solely for the use of the
intended recipient.
Please delete it and notify the sender if you have received it in
error. Unauthorised use is prohibited.
Any opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and not
necessarily the organisation.
Xansa, Registered Office: 420 Thames Valley Park Drive,
Thames Valley Park, Reading, RG6 1PU, UK.
Registered in England No.1000954.
t +44 (0)8702 416181
w www.xansa.com
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
