Viewing Posts by Christian Bisson
by Christian Bisson, PMP, PSPO, PSM
In agile, users are everything. So it only makes sense that users—anyone who will use or interact with your product—should be a team’s main focus. In order for the product to be viable, whatever is produced must bring them value.
But it’s perhaps too easy to forget users when you build your backlog. We often jump too quickly to features, assuming “the users will use this.” But what if we took a step back? Consider taking the following steps:
First, for whom is this product intended? Identifying a target audience will help you determine who you’re building for.
For example, if you expect users who aren’t tech-savvy, then you need to be mindful of how complex the interface or even the wording are throughout.
It’s important to describe these users. One common practice is to create “personas,” which are fictional characters that represent the users. These will help you better understand your audience.
Now that we know our audience, what are they trying to achieve? Instead of jumping from personas to features, stop and think about their goals.
Are they trying to purchase something online? Are they trying to fetch information? Are they trying to plan a trip? The answers to these questions will shape your direction.
We know who is trying to achieve what. The next key step is to define “how” the users are going to achieve their goals.
Let’s assume the user wants to purchase a toy. That user will most likely need to:
Let’s keep it simple. We can extrapolate that this user might be interested in items related to this item, or many other scenarios, but for now, the above is our user’s steps.
Once this is clearly defined, it is much simpler for:
I’ve seen too many teams skip these important steps. Often, people are so quick to execute what is instructed by managers, or by assumptions from the team, that they forget to think about who they are building the product for. The user, of course, will ultimately decide the product’s success. That’s why it’s so important that our product brings value to users.
What do you do to focus on users? How do you verify if you are bringing value to them? Share!
By Christian Bisson, PMP
I recently had the privilege to participate in the 9th Montreal agile coach gathering. Along with meeting great people and having a chance to exchange ideas with them, I had the opportunity to learn about “liberating structures”, a concept developed by Henri Lipmanowicz and Keith McCandless.
Liberating structures are 33 alternative structures for facilitating meetings, work sessions or retrospectives. Unlike conventional structures, such as status reports or presentations, liberating structures are meant to distribute control of the conversation so that all participants are part of shaping direction. This ultimately helps everyone work together while feeling more in control. According to Lipmanowicz and McCandless, conventional structures are either too inhibiting or too loose and disorganzed to achieve this.
Within your organization, liberating structures can be used to organize and facilitate work sessions, retrospectives or other types of meetings. These structures range from simple and fast exercises to those suited for more structured and longer meetings, giving a diversified toolset for various circumstances.
One evening during the 9th Montreal agile coach gathering, everyone gathered into small teams, picked one of the liberating structures randomly, and took 25 minutes to understand and discuss it with the objective of presenting it to everyone else afterward within a three-minute timebox.
Our team picked “critical uncertainties”, which makes you focus on essential and uncertain realities, and then plan strategies according to different possible futures. Among brainstormed ideas, you need to identify the most robust strategies (i.e., the ones that would work with the most possible futures). You can then plan action items based on what was discussed.
Another one that caught my interest is “1-2-4-all.” It is simple and can be used in so many circumstances, yet it is efficient to help a group of people (small or large) communicate and share great ideas.
For anyone out there who is a fan of liberating structures, I’m curious to find out which ones you used, in what context, and how was the result. Please share and discuss!
Debunking 4 Misconceptions About Story Points
by Christian Bisson, PMP
For the sake of my examples below, I assume teams use the Fibonacci sequence.
The Traps of Textbook Scrum
By Christian Bisson, PMP, PSM
The Agile methodology is quickly becoming the standard for IT projects. More specifically, most organizations are using the Scrum framework to bring their software development to the next level.
But it’s implementation often remains a challenge and that’s because Scrum is not one-size-fits-all, and if you follow the manifesto too rigidly you can fall into a few traps.
Here’s a look at two:
1. Lack of Team Experience
If you’re coaching a team new on Scrum, take baby steps. Imagine if you’re teaching someone to play basketball for the first time. You will most likely teach them how to dribble before you teach them how to dunk a ball.
It’s the same with Scrum. If you throw everything in the Agile Manifesto or Scrum Guide at your team at once, chances are the results will be poor, the team will be confused and ultimately they will not enjoy the methodology.
For example, when assigning complexity, start with T-shirt sizes (small, medium, large) instead of the Fibonacci scale. When the team grasps this concept well, adapt accordingly.
2. Potential Waste of Effort
An active sprint is considered sacred for a team. Its scope must not be modified, and any new requests/requirements should be factored into future sprints.
Be that as it may, sometimes there are extreme circumstances where the sprint must be stopped or modified due to new requirements.
For instance, say an amazing opportunity presents itself three days into the sprint, making the current scope of the sprint obsolete. Fixating on the fact that a sprint cannot change and having the team work for the remainder of the sprint on something confirmed to be useless would be a waste.
If this sudden change creates downtime for the team while the new requirements are written and refined, the team could focus on testing new technologies, or working on a proof of concept that could help with the new requirements.
Or sometimes a project faces issues and due to the importance of the client, those issues must be prioritized. People may be pulled out from one team to help another. That will mean that an active sprint’s committed scope may have to be reduced, which is when you have to put aside the textbook for the sake of the organization, and to help out colleagues in need.
Have you ever had to steer away from initial expectations for a project or team’s benefit? Share your story!
by Christian Bisson, PMP
Project success is typically defined as being completed within budget, schedule, and scope, and that has been imprinted so much in project managers’ mind that it blinds them to other important aspects that defines a project’s success.
This aspect of project success seem to be more and more popular, and with reason, if clients are not happy, they will shutdown the projects, or proceed with another organization. If your project is on budget, delivered on time, and does exactly what it should be doing, but the client is so unhappy that they ceases to work with the organization, can you consider the project a success?
For example, if you focus so much on being on budget/schedule/scope, that you decline everything the client asks for without a second thought, chances are the client will not want to work with you long term. On the opposite side, giving everything the client wants and ending up late or 200% above budget is not an acceptable alternative. You or the team will often need to be creative to find ways to balance things out, and properly managing the client’s expectations is also key top this.
Another very important aspect of project success is the value it’s adding. A project that is doing what was planned, but ends up being useless, is not a success.
For example, if you create a great website, the client loves the design, the development phase had only few minor issues that were fixed rapidly so the team is happy, the project is delivered on time, on budget, and does what it’s supposed to do, however, users that go on the website are completely incapable of finding the information they need, and they end up always calling customer service instead, then is that really a success?
It’s important to identify right from the start what metrics will be used to calculate the project’s success, and tie those metrics to features of the website as you go to make sure a feature is not useless or solves an issue that has nothing to do with the project’s objectives..
The organization that has provided the services needed to make the project happen is also a key aspect to look at to define the project success, and unfortunately often due to lack of transparency from management, can be a challenge.
For example, there are projects that the organization’s management know they will lose money on, but for them it is considered a long-term investment to bring more business. If that’s not communicated, the project manager will see the project as a failure because it’s over budget.
It’s important to have visibility on the organization’s goals and expectations around the project in question.
What are your thoughts on the matter? Do you use other aspects to define project success?