As I’ve written these product role posts, a number of you have asked about how to use component teams. You might have a security team. Maybe a performance team. Regardless of my desire, you have component teams. You want a more agile approach to manage the interdependencies among the teams. You want to be able […]
Many people in the agile community promote a product orientation over a project orientation. That’s possible because an organization has product or feature teams. That works until you have more products than teams. That’s when you might still need projects to accomplish everything. If you keep teams together, you can still use projects in a
An agile approach requires a cross-functional team. That means that everyone on the team focuses on the same intent. That intent might be an entire product. It might be a feature set as part of a larger program. But, the team focuses as a team. That cross-functional team is a product team or a feature
In an ideal agile world, the team would work directly with a customer. When you have a small product that serves maybe three types of customer (new, expert, admin for example), and that customer is down the figurative hall, you might not need any product people. You can create short feedback loops with your customer.
Many of my clients are trying to use short feedback loops in agile approaches. That desire bumps up against their management’s desires for longer commitments. This continuum might help them think through their needs for commitment and innovation. High Need for Product Innovation and Change The more need for product innovation and change, the shorter the feedback loops need
Is it possible to balance the product innovation and feedback we need, with the commitment our management wants? Maybe. I tried to show my thinking for these questions in this series: When does it make sense to ask for or offer estimation and commitments? When does it make sense to ask for more feedback instead?
What if you don’t need to experiment to reduce risks? You may have technical risks in terms of getting it “all” done. Especially for a given release date. In that case, you have a low need for product innovation. Your planning feedback loops can be longer. I’ve seen this occur in some of these circumstances: A
What if you can plan for a few weeks or even a month-plus at a time? You don’t need the extremely short feedback cycles (hours to a day) because you’re not doing high innovation. You don’t need to change what the team does every few days. You can estimate and commit to maybe a month’s
Let me summarize what I’ve been talking about in these posts. The problem I’m seeing is that too many teams and organizations plan too much in too much detail too soon. Instead of architectural BDUF (Big Design Up Front), it’s project planning as BDUF. They expect one single person (a product manager or a product
You’ve started thinking in feature sets. Maybe you’ve experimented with rolling wave plans inside one quarter, so you can change and replan as you need to support your project or program. You’ve discussed flow-based roadmapping as a way to create MVPs and MVEs, release smaller value more often so you can make better decisions. You