The agile movement’s goal of delivering valuable software is a fantastic core idea. The problem is that ‘value’ is difficult to quantify in and of itself. We discuss in this blog, Measuring Values and Success from Agile Point of view. Nonetheless, I believe it is critical to think in terms of value in software development in order to overcome some of the fluffiness associated with the phrase.
If we don’t come up with practical solutions to deal with ‘value,’ it may become meaningless; just another buzzword, another way of convincing people that it’s time to move on to the next fad. Not only is it impossible to define worth, but it is also unnecessary, if not downright undesirable. It is preferable to assess whether we are providing value (effectively).
What we thought success was
For many years, we were led to believe that software development can be deemed a success provided three criteria are met: deliver (1) all promised needs (2) on schedule (3) within budget. It’s mirrored in the well-known software development iron triangle.
This led us to believe that in order to be effective, we needed to thoroughly examine, specify, and describe all needs in advance, as well as obtain formal approval and sign off on them before we could begin programming. The underlying incentive is to achieve the first of the ‘requirements,’ which we were informed define success.
This previously acquired data is then used as input into thorough and rigorous calculations for the delivery component, frequently with some ‘contingency’ thrown in for good measure. The fundamental motivation is to set and fix the other two factors of success, time and budget, as we were informed.
The outcome is included in a strategy, which is frequently supplemented by risk mitigation methods and other exception procedures. Implementation can -finally- begin once this plan and all of its components and clauses have been authorised and signed off. Then, clearly, it’s only a matter of sticking to the plan in order to succeed. Deviations from the plan, while ostensibly occurring from time to time, are unlikely to pose any serious issues because ‘change request’ instances are designed to handle such situations (meetings, documents, approvals, and sign-offs).
Unfortunately, many people still believe that this is the only method to secure the success of software development.
However, things aren’t that simple. The installation of the aforementioned extra safety nets is already a sign that, despite our resolve, this technique isn’t providing us with the assurance it purports to provide. Despite the safety nets, meticulous planning, and seemingly flawless blueprints, many projects are simply terminated (29 per cent according to the Standish Group’s 2011 Chaos Report) or fail to achieve the commonly acknowledged success criteria of scope+time+budget (57 per cent).
Some, on the other hand, are truly effective in delivering on the three forecasts (14 per cent). However, success ignores the fact that, in order to meet the success requirements, quality is frequently decreased to unacceptable levels; this is why it’s important to include it as a fourth variable in the iron triangle. Success ignores the fact that the elapsed time may have gone according to plan, yet many have been extremely slow in terms of commerce. It’s worth noting that it’s not uncommon for projects to deploy software 12-24 months after they begin!
Success ignores the fact that by the time the product is actually ready for use, no one finds much ‘value’ in the features, leaving them useless, or in the way the features are implemented functionally. There have been more inventive ideas for them, or better technology means to accomplish them have been discovered. It relates to the discovery that 64% of features created in this manner are rarely or never used.
The three characteristics that they said defined “success” fail to do so. Even if they are reached, they merely represent the success of the program’s ‘delivery’ to the market, not how the software is received or appreciated in the market, let alone how the strategy aids us in responding to changes or new market needs. The three factors fail to demonstrate the product’s value; they simply state that a version of the software was released under specific predetermined conditions.
Success is determined by what we say.
With collaboration, communication, gradual progress, and continual improvement, Agile avoids the fallacy of traditional, upfront predictions and descriptions. Through time-boxed repetitions, all hazards are confined in time. Within the process, time-boxing allows for adaptation and adjustment.
As part of cross-functional development activity, the agile movement emphasises the significance of active business involvement. The agile movement emphasises the importance of frequent market releases to discover what is actually valued. Regular input from actual users is the best risk reduction strategy.
Scrum, as the main agile software development methodology, is built on the premise that software development is far too complicated for a predictive approach. Scrum encourages empiricism in software development, relying on frequent inspections to determine the optimal course of action. Inspections, on the other hand, are meaningless if the information being reviewed is incomplete, opaque rather than transparent, and if the examination is not performed under-recognised and agreed-upon criteria and definitions.
The adjustments are aimed at not only the software being developed, but also the tools, engineering methods, relationships, the process, and the three variables they say characterize success, namely budget, scope, and time. Scrum is unconcerned with the misunderstood concept of a “project.” The term “project” is usually used to convey the idea that success is only achievable if the software is delivered on time, on budget, and with all of the expected features. Scrum focuses on incremental product maintenance and the software product (which has a role and an object for its owner and backlog). The foundational belief is that software development success is defined by the ability to satisfy and impress feature consumers at a reasonable price, at a cost that has an effective return, and with creation taking place in a way that is sustainable for all people involved in the product’s ecosystem.
Yes, we can…measure
In terms of survival, prosperity, and leadership, an organization’s ability to deliver value in an environment of perpetual change, evolution, innovation, improvement, and re-invention is becoming increasingly important.
The value of software or software requirements is difficult to determine because it is dependent on context, time, technology, market, and business area. It also can’t be reduced to a single variable. Predicting value doesn’t make much sense either, because the market can only validate it.
But, if the value is what defines success, how can we tell if we’ve achieved it?
The Agility Path framework was created by Scrum.org to assist organisations in increasing their agility and moving toward a value-driven existence.
The illusory objective of calculating and anticipating value, or comparable wizardry, is not the focus of Agility Path. The outcome of an organization’s work is quantified with metrics in Agility Path, which helps them think about how that end is accomplished. Organizations receive a clear indicator of whether or not they are providing value. If the metrics indicate that they aren’t, they have a lot of areas and domains to look into and make changes to by installing, deleting, or enhancing methods, tools, and procedures. It’s how the Scrum framework is used to manage the change process and the organization’s transformation to boost agility.
The metrics provide the transparency required to determine which areas of adaptation have the most impact. Consider company KPIs like employee and customer satisfaction, revenue, agile investment, and so on. Consider delivery capabilities parameters like cycle duration, release frequency, faults, and so on.
All of the metrics are combined to provide an overall Agility Index for the company. This Agility Index reflects the organization’s effectiveness in delivering value. Time, place, and context are all tied to one Agility Index. It makes no difference what the exact figure is. The importance of evolution cannot be overstated. The parameters that make up the foundation are important. The insights provided through measurements are crucial as a source of improvement.
There is no magic here; only hard work.
There is no secret formula for calculating value, and even when attempting to calculate the value to guide development goals, it is merely a guess, an assumption that must be confirmed (or refuted) once the product is on the market. It’s impossible to know for sure.
The best we can hope for is to use metrics to capture the outcomes of our actions and to repeat those measurements on a regular basis. We look for patterns and trends (and prefer that over a naked, singular figure). We connect that to how we work, make changes to how we operate and track the results of that expected improvement. That is something we do incessantly. By learning and adjusting, we continue to improve. We make the best of what we have.
This flexibility primarily aids organizations in responding to change more effectively and quickly; it promotes openness to change rather than ignoring or blocking it. Organizations learn that there may be different possibilities to respond once the thinking is established and new ways of working are implemented, embracing change as a source of information. Finally, businesses begin to innovate in order to stay ahead of the curve and effect change (for the others to follow). As a result, an agile approach harnesses change for the customer’s competitive advantage as well as the agility of the company.