Tag Archives: business analysis

Scott Sehlhorst on Agile and ProdBOK®

Scott Sehlhorst on ProdBOK and Agile

Part of the ProdBOK® Series

Scott, thanks for joining me today.

Let’s begin by talking about the growth of Agile and its impact on product managers. A recent study showed that the majority of organizations are implementing “blended” methodologies (e.g. blending Waterfall and Agile together). What has the impact of this trend been on product managers?

(Scott Sehlhorst) I’ve found there are really two main aspects of the impact.

The first is a “circle the wagons” moment. A blended organization is in the middle of transition – having some teams operating with Waterfall processes while others are trying to move or have completely moved to an Agile cadence of delivery. For teams that operate independently, this is largely a non-event. Each team uses their own process. But in large companies, teams don’t operate independently. Companies are looking for opportunities to solve problems for their customers that span product silos. Teams want opportunities to leverage and coordinate the work that other teams are doing. Product managers in these blended environments need to understand how they can – and can’t – rely on other teams, by understanding the different mechanics of delivery that come with different processes. The mindset that comes to mind first is “how do I protect my team from the weaknesses of that other team’s approach.”

The second aspect is one of figuring out how to contribute strategically to the improvement of the company, by leveraging the work being done by teams using the different processes. A product manager on an Agile team will try and figure out how to inform Waterfall teams and contribute to their development, based on the changes to which the Agile team is adapting. A waterfall team’s product manager will try and find ways to realize the benefits of executing against an established plan, while leveraging the contributions from the Agile teams.

For an individual product manager, this means understanding the nuances of both development processes, their strengths and their weaknesses. The best product managers will be able to contribute to the evolution of the organization – gaining both the benefits of Agile adaptation to changing requirements, and the leverage of contributions from multiple teams solving related problems and developing products in a coordinated fashion.

Is there a particular Agile method that you think has generated the most traction?

(Scott Sehlhorst) My experiences, confirmed by the research I’ve seen, indicate that Scrum has been the market leader in the last couple of years. In early 2013, I’m seeing signs of teams taking the “next” step and exploring Scrumban (a Kanban-infused approach to Scrum), and also some signs of flow – continuous development. Conceptually, as Scrum moved from large releases to smaller iterations as the units of delivery, flow is moving to discrete deliverables as the units of delivery. Development of individual capabilities or features is easier this way, while coordination of development is more difficult.

Flow provides the most benefit, but requires the most discipline from a software engineering point of view. It also has the greatest organizational complications, particularly around coordination and communication. We’ll see how it shakes out in the industry – some big thinkers are pushing on it, and at the end of the day, I expect to see teams that succeed wildly, and some that crash and burn trying to make it work.

What types of challenges do you think the growth of Agile and blended approaches has presented to product managers/owners?

(Scott Sehlhorst) In addition to the organizational complexities I mentioned above, working in an Agile way presents a change in how product managers manage their work. Instead of being primarily in a sequenced do this, then that mindset, product managers need to manage their activities with more parallelism; making incremental improvements across all aspects of their work. This provides the benefit of historically-sequential activities informing the historically-prior activities, making the overall work product better.

A product manager needs to be more cognizant of the interdependencies of their work products for this to gel. For example, getting insights into the feasibility and cost of delivering a capability will better inform the prioritization of that work; as will getting feedback from customers about the value they place on having that capability. It almost seems backwards – finding out how well received, and how difficult to build something is, before deciding when to build it. All product managers do this to some extent, by forming hypotheses in advance, and validating them later. An Agile product manager will be refining those hypotheses with data along the way.

Scott, why did you choose to contribute to the ProdBOK effort?

(Scott Sehlhorst) As a consumer, I want better products and services. Better product managers create products and services that serve the needs of their customers. I believe it’s a critically important role. One of the challenges we face is that product management is not well understood by companies. If we’re able to develop a body of knowledge that helps bring some standardization to the field, I expect that it’ll both help individuals get better at product management, and help companies better apply the practice of product management – thus improving their products and services, and ultimately, my experiences as a customer.

Any final thoughts?

(Scott Sehlhorst) There are several trends that are driving opportunity for products to differentiate and succeed in the market.

Companies are finally starting to get traction with developing insights through statistical analysis of the reams of data that are becoming available, and that trend is showing no end in sight with Moore’s law firmly exhibiting itself in the costs of computation, storage, and transmission of information. The challenge is in understanding how insights gained in one domain or problem space can be applied to others.

As we move from an economy of scarcity to one of surplus, the user’s experience becomes a more relevant factor in selecting products. It’s no longer enough to just solve “the” problem – you have to have a product that solves the problems well, and takes into account the emotional impact for the users. While this may sound fluffy, there are countless examples of products which appear identical on a checklist or a Harvey Ball chart but perform very differently in the market. This overlap of the worlds of user experience and product management will be particularly interesting.

Another big trend, although it may only be particularly relevant in the technology space, is the changes in where and when people do computing – and the resultant changes in the definition of what “computing” is. Mobile devices, form factors, operating systems, and contexts of use are overtaking the (recently) traditional desktop computing paradigm.

People no longer want applications that run on a computer, they want solutions that apply wherever it makes sense. In a way, this is an area where the intersection of Moore’s law impacting what’s possible with the increasing importance of differentiating through providing a better experience, is perhaps the most visceral. What appears to be fickle consumer behavior may just be rapidly evolving market needs intersecting slowly evolving product offerings.

We do live in interesting times!

Greg Geracie is the author of Take Charge Product Management©, the Editor-in-Chief of The Guide to the Product Management and Marketing Body of Knowledge (ProdBOK), and the leader of this initiative. ProdBOK is an industry-wide effort to standardize the practice of product management sponsored by the Association of International Product Management and Marketing (AIPMM).

ProdBOK is a registered trademark of AIPMM.

Richard Larson of Watermark Learning on ProdBOK, Business Analysis and Product Ownership

Leave a reply

ProdBOK, Business Analysis and the Product Owner Role

Part of the ProdBok® Series

Today I’m joined by Richard Larson the President of Watermark Learning. Rich is a well regarded thought leader in the business analyst community.

Rich you’re very actively involved in the Business Analyst (BA) community, as you look across the BA profession where do you see it headed?

(Richard Larson) The BA profession is still evolving. The trend our company is seeing is one of the BA playing a dual role. The first is the traditional one that involves eliciting and documenting requirements. That is still a needed and valuable role on projects, no matter what the methodology. The other role is that of a management consultant, advising and making recommendations to business leaders and decision-makers. Examples of this include creating a business case, guidance in prioritizing requirements on a product backlog, and assessing a system’s value and recommending replacement.

Do you encounter a lot of confusion between the business analyst role and the product manager role? If so, where is this most likely to occur?

(Richard Larson) The second role, which we just touched on, is one that might be a possible overlap. If the BA is acting as a consultant, that role can include devising new products. However, the product manager as we see it, represents the business and the BA complements that role with a systems or IT perspective. A business case for a new product should be “owned” by the business, but much of the analytical work can be accomplished by a BA.

How do you think the ProdBOK will help address these challenges?

(Richard Larson) My opinion here is that ProdBOK will help establish clearer boundaries between the BA and product owner. In the case of requirements definition, the BA may be responsible for eliciting, specifying, and documenting them. But, depending on the organizational structure, the product manager may be the person accountable for those requirements. Also, an aligning of terms and language between the ProdBOK, BABOK, and PMBOK would help the industry. IIBA and PMI worked to align the BOKs, and there is still work to be done there. Perhaps the ProdBOK could be aligned with the other two.

Do you think product development leads should encourage a tighter working relationship between business analysts and product managers?

(Richard Larson) Yes, and I’d add to that a closer relationship with the project manager as well. All three roles fulfill a different purpose and all three are critical for success.

Any final thoughts?

(Richard Larson) To repeat a thought, the product manager and BA roles complement each other. The business area that is responsible for a product “owns” it, including the business case, the product deliverables, and the business benefits accrued by a project. The BA plays an advisor role, analyzing business needs and recommending solutions. The basic relationship of business owner and BA advisor extends to any methodology or framework.

A current issue in our industry pertains to the roles on Agile projects. Some are of the opinion that the BA has no role on Agile projects, and some say the BA should play the role of product owner. We at Watermark Learning think that the product manager should play the product owner role, not the BA. As stated above, the BA adds value through the advisor role, grooming the product backlog, and analyzing and recommending solution options. The product manager is the decision-maker in the end, not the BA.

For more information about Watermark Learning, please visit www.WatermarkLearning.com.

Greg Geracie is the author of Take Charge Product Management©, the Editor-in-Chief of The Guide to the Product Management and Marketing Body of Knowledge (ProdBOK), and the leader of this initiative. ProdBOK is an industry-wide effort to standardize the practice of product management sponsored by the Association of International Product Management and Marketing (AIPMM).

ProdBOK is a registered trademark of AIPMM.

Let Your Voice Be Heard! Participate in The Study of Product Team Performance, 2013

Leave a reply

Participate in this year’s annual study and let your voice be heard!

The survey is open from January 15th through March 3rd.

Each year Actuation Consulting and Enterprise Agility undertake a global study of product team performance. This is the second year of our study and the amount of industry interest and participation continues to increase. Let me give you an example.

This year we doubled the amount of professional associations, vendors, and promotional partners supporting the survey.

The study is designed to closely examine the factors the improve or impede product team performance. Undertaking a study of this nature requires that we work hard all year round to develop a wide array of relationships that help support the goals of the study.

This year our sponsors include:

- The Association of International Product Management and Marketing (AIPMM)

- The International Institute of Business Analysis’s Chicagoland Chapter (IIBA)

- The International Project Management Association (IPMA)

- The Product Development and Management Association’s Chicagoland Chapter (PDMA)

- And Planbox (a provider of Agile project management software)

In addition to our sponsors, we also enjoy the support of a wide variety of promotional partners. These include: the Chicago Product Management Association and PCamp, Global Product Management Talk, Lee Lambert of the Lambert Consulting Group, Orange County Product Managers, the Project Management Institute’s Chicago Chapter, the ProjectTimes, Product Management Talk, the Silicon Valley Product Management Association (SVPMA), the Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA), and the User Experience Professionals Association (UXPA).

As you can see our ever expanding list of partners encompass product management, project and program management, user experience, business analysts, development managers and engineers. Wait a second, where do you cover development managers and engineers you ask?

We’re fortunate to have added Ron Lichty co-author of Managing the Unmanageable as the newest co-author of our study. Ron joins author Steven Starke, David Heidt, and I as the primary drivers of the study. Since joining our team, Ron has been working to ensure active participation from engineers and development managers. I want to take this moment to publicly welcome Ron!

So, as we enter our second year of conducting this study we now have all the core roles covered and we anticipate increasing last years level of participation significantly. Please take a moment and share your thoughts with us. We want to hear from you and learn more about the effectiveness of your product team!

You can take the survey today by clicking here. The survey is open through March 3rd.

The study findings will be made widely available through all of our sponsors and promotional partners and at Actuation Consulting’s website. You can download a free copy of last years findings by clicking here.

Four Ways Executives Align Product Teams

Leave a reply

Part of the Product Management Facts Series

Earlier this year we conducted research into the dynamics of product team performance. As part of this research we asked a question about the mechanisms being used by executives to drive alignment across the core product team.

For the purposes of the study we defined “core team” as being composed of product, project, and program managers, business analysts, product owners, brand managers, engineers, and product design professionals.

The question we posed was “In which of the following ways does your organization support aligning members of a core product team?” Global respondents were offered five choices.

Strong executive support for the core product team
Shared organizational goals and objectives linking the team
Bonus compensation linked among core product team members
Product production process mapped so that all the team members understand their role and handoffs
None of the above

Based upon the responses there are three mechanisms that are commonly used to achieve alignment and one that is used less frequently.

Methods executives use to drive product team alignment

The most common response (31%) was shared organizational goals and objectives linking the team. In other words, a reliance upon the good will generated by shared goals and objectives that reach across the respective functions in order to drive improved alignment. In actuality though, we often see mixed results using this mechanism as the primary driver of alignment.

While this mechanism can work, it can also be trumped by the “functional” goals and objectives of the department an individual reports in to. In essence, individuals often choose between which of these goals are more important – the functional or the cross-functional – based upon their perspective of which is most important.

The second most frequent response was strong executive support for the core product team at 25%. Active executive engagement with the product team can be an effective way to ensure product team alignment. This mechanism can quickly surface resource issues, functional versus cross-functional conflicts, and a variety of other challenges that can undermine the teams alignment and ultimate success.

The third response was mapping the product production process so that all team members not only understand their role but the handoffs (20%). This is an effective way to ensure tactical alignment across the entire product team. Many organizations do not have a clear definition of product management’s role and responsibilities (we see it all the time!) and don’t take the necessary steps to map out how all the roles fit together. This is important as the product moves through the various production steps (from conception to ultimate retirement).

The fourth response is a controversial one. Approximately 6% of organizations report that they use bonus compensation stretching across all the various team members to drive performance. In other words, pay for performance linking the cross-functional team members to a common goal. The reason I mentioned that this is controversial is that opinions vary widely about the effectiveness of this approach.

The camp that is against the pay for performance approach commonly site a Harvard study that points out that this approach is ineffective. The pro camp states that putting “at risk” compensation at the center of alignment drives increased focus on the cross-functional goals as opposed to the natural bias of individuals to lean toward the functional goals (and the person they report into). In our experience we’ve seen bonus compensation work but it needs to be carefully thought out to ensure it’s an incentive and not a disincentive!

Finally, almost 18% of organizations report that they use none of these mechanisms to drive alignment! Presumably, this means that these organizations are operating solely based upon functional goals to the detriment of the team.

Perfect Partners: Product Management and Business Analysis

Leave a reply

By Greg Geracie and David Heidt

Companies often struggle to maintain a good balance between their market activities and their product development efforts. The fact is – most new products are not ready for prime time. This circumstance leads to products that deliver less value than anticipated or fail altogether. The inability of organizations to effectively bring products to market often creates a significant drag on companies’ ability to innovate and compete in today’s rapidly changing marketplaces.

There are a significant number of reasons why it’s so challenging to effectively bring products to market. Some are external, such as changing market conditions or shifting customer needs. However, many problems result from internal challenges such as overstretched contributors, the wrong mix of skills, poorly understood processes, and misalignment between the core team members in the value creation process.

Professions such as business analysis and project management have boundaries and roles that are well understood. Both have their bodies of knowledge, process groups, and foundational knowledge areas. In contrast and ironically, the product management profession spans 70 years but has yet to fully codify its body of knowledge. The resulting lack of clarity on the responsibilities and boundaries of a product manager often contributes to many of the internal inefficiencies and missed opportunities we see within today’s organizations.

There is often tremendous internal confusion regarding the role, span, and scope of a product manager. Ambiguity in the responsibilities of this role leads to dissonance and tension as the key stakeholders in the value creation process – project managers, business analysts, and lead engineers – struggle to understand what to expect from product management. Given the profession’s historical fragmentation and lack of a solidified standard, where does one look? What are the boundaries of the role and how can we work together more effectively?

Perhaps the best way to start is by defining the role of a product manager and illustrating the product management life cycle. Product managers are responsible for creating and sustaining value throughout the entire life cycle of a product. The focus on creating and sustaining value is what makes product management unique.

This product management life cycle model is the property of The Association of International Product Marketing and Management (AIPMM)©.

The product management life cycle is composed of both stages and phases that chart the course of a product from its conception, the Conceive phase, to its ultimate withdrawal in the Retire phase. The stages and phases are concurrent activities. This framework is universal; it applies equally well to products or services.

Now that we’ve defined the role of a product manager and illustrated the life cycle, we can drill down a bit further and examine why business analysts and product managers are perfect partners.

Stay tuned for part two.