This is the governing body for certification in Disciplined Agile.
LIVE CHAT 24 HOURS PER DAY
Aldo, very good points. We've unfortunately seen this sort of thing too in practice.
We've added these options to the updated version.
My current assignment is with a government department with very rigid lines of reporting. We have Product owners that decides the detailed prioritisation for individual stories and features, but also someone that wears a "Product Manager" hat that determines the larger roadmap for the programme. So my question is this: Should we not mention "Product Manager" as part of the "Prioritise Work: Who" and "Stakeholder Interaction with team" options?
Extra for <There are several reasons why this goal is important>:
Address Changing Stakeholder Needs --> Accept Changes – easier with Shorter Releases
That aspect was also described in XP by Kent Beck. An increased Agility and shorter releases will make to accept changes easier:
NOTE – This aspect is very important because it is a fundamental competitive advantage of an Agile approach in software development.
Address Changing Stakeholder Needs --> Accept Changes – optimizing the whole inter-goals
Options and practices are interrelated, and the optimum is at an upper level: if we prioritize well the work by business and risks, we can accept changes easier: new work it is accepted, and less important work is deferred (scope negotiation). In this case, by managing well the priorities, we do not have invested in low priority work.
In this case <Accept changes> it is relater with <Prioritize the work> ~ goals are inter-related.
Address Changing Stakeholder Needs --> Priorities the work: what induce who, optimizing the whole
We should be careful not to offer less then Scrum: work prioritization must be a negotiation between what is needed and what is possible, between business and development. We also should not confuse ordering with priorities. We have “competing” stakeholders priorities and one resulted order. If the first ordering comes from the business priorities, then this order must be adjusted with technical ordering dependencies. So, imo, one of team / the architect must always be part of the default options in WHO part, because they know the technical dependencies.
I just read in the memories of Richard Feynman about investigation related to Challenger Shuttle how various “business”/” management” representatives override what should be only a technical decision.
We just posted the excerpt for this process goal.
Please add your feedback here.
Thank you very much!
© 2013-2019 Project Management Institute, Inc.
14 Campus BoulevardNewtown Square, PA 19073-3299 USA