Scopes of Agile Business Development

Discuss about the Usage of Agile Business Development.

Purpose of this Document:

Agile Business Development has been sharing the common goals of process in order to develop business. This is done through identifying solutions and business needs (Abrahamsson et al., 2017). Current organizations have adopted the usage of business analysis and agile development for delivering better results.

Scope of this document:

The various scopes of are highlighted below.

• The organizations related to agile should be adaptable.
• Values must be added to the organization through solving business issues.
• The leaders must provide solutions to various business problems and constant development to businesses.

 Background:

“Griffith 2020 Digital Strategy” has recognized cognitive computing as a future research area. The project started through creating a Chat Bot along with Microsoft. It has reacted to various queries related to common Service Desk through various messaging platforms.

As the concept is proved, the following phase is to deploy Bot into their production. Here, the scope is available for finding future directions of Bot.

The business goals are identified below.

Putting employees behind the wheel:

With the help of consent of customers, the agents are able to use various cognitive technologies for analyzing and searching data sources of customers. It has been ranging from driving history top credit scores. As empowers with this data, agents can make various offers aligning with needs and finances of customers.   Different cognitive systems are goof at pulling data altogether. This also helps in assessing information and presenting relevant answers to different users. Thus can make Griffith 2020 Digital strategy s more confident and undertake business decisions affecting revenue and performance.

Detecting product safety problems to avoid expensive recalls:

As analyzing of product performance is considered, the cognitive analytics has been very much incomparable. Through monitoring crash reports and usage data, the cognitive technologies have been identifying source of device malfunctions. Further it has been determining the best course of proper actions (Larson & Chang, 2016).

Cognitive solutions improving performance:

Problems like poor health can hinder performance. Here, the cognitive technologies have been helping people to fight with disease with cognitive analysis.

Due to fast demand of changes in technology, the agile methodologies can be used in the current case of cognitive computing. This is helpful to alleviate uncertainties of business requirements. Here the necessity to deliver quality software economically and timely is the main issue (Schönig et al., 2015). The outcomes that are to be retrieved in this Agile manifesto are listed below.

• Reacting to change on the current plan
• Making customer collaboration over various contract negotiation
• Using software instead of comprehensive documentation
• Interactions and individuals over tools and processes

Stakeholder definition:

Here the stakeholders have been denoting the individuals, teams or any overall organization interested or concerned for any organization. They can be impacted or get affected by policies, objectives and actions of the organizations. Here, the primary stakeholders can be unions, suppliers, owners, government, employees, directors and creditors. Every stakeholder has not been same (Grefen et al., 2017). The customers of any company are entitled for fair trading practices. However, they never get entitled to the similar considerations as the employee of the companies. Further, example of negative effect of stakeholders includes when the companies cut costs or plans any round-of layouts.

Stakeholder Communication:

Business Goals

The various approaches of stakeholder communication for the current Agile Business Analysis are identified below.

Taking timely decisions:

The stakeholders have been prepared to share business knowledge with team and make pertinent and time decisions about project scope and necessity priorities.

Inclusive modeling:

One needs to adopt inclusive modeling methods that are based on UCD or User-Centered Design and involving participatory design principles (Bider & Jalali, 2016).

Management needs IT knowledge and skills:

The senior managers effectively supporting the project must understand techniques and technologies that the team has been using.

Taking enterprise view:

One requires working with project teams as the system requires integrating with various other systems. Some of the initial architectures envision would be helpful to drive this.

Never hand-off to maintenance group:

Maintain developers with the necessity to work with learning systems. Some original efforts from team members have been able to transfer knowledge to the new members of the overall team (Gregory et al., 2015).

The product requires using two of the Agile tools. These are discussed hereafter.

Kano analysis:

The Kano model has stated that customer satisfaction has never been the simply proportional to the one-dimensional feature. Instead it is the product that includes extra attributes like the “exciter” and “must-have” features (Krawatzeck & Dinter, 2015). This Kano model has classified customer requirements into following categories.

Reverse attributes:

They have been not very common. It has indicated to the added functionalities that results in dissatisfaction. It referred to added functionalities resulting in dissatisfaction. The reverse attributes results in customer dissatisfaction and not having the attributes to raise customer satisfaction.

Indifferent attributes:

Here, the customers have been indifferent to those features. They have not been paying attention and unaware of those features (Eva, 2014). The attributes have been little and having no outcome for the customers.

Delight or excite attributes:

Here, the features results in rise in customer satisfaction while implemented and never causing dissatisfaction while implemented. They are never expected by customers and often stratifying the latent necessities. The products are differentiated from different competitors at the place.

One dimensional or linear or performance attributes:

More performance attributes results in more customer satisfactions. Here, these are the features where the customers have been more interested. This is the price where the customers have been willing to pay depending on the attributes (Balijepally & Nerur, 2015).

Threshold or basic attributes:

It denotes to the bare-minimum features that the products have needed to meet customer demands. They are important for the survival of the products. The features have never be alone increasing customer satisfaction and not implemented to those features leading to customer satisfaction.

Agile Methodologies in Cognitive Computing

Product Roadmap:

The product roadmap is the powerful method to analyze how products have been likely growing, aligning to stakeholders and acquiring budget to develop products (Serrador & Pinto, 2015). However, creating of effective roadmap has not been simple. This has been especially in the context of agile where the changes take place very unexpectedly and frequently. The approaches are demonstrated below.

Focusing on benefits and goals:

As Griffith 2020 Digital strategy, faces agile and dynamic environment, with new technologies or competitors, the company must work with the roadmap that is goal-oriented.

Performing necessary preparation works:

Describing and validating product strategies as one creates the roadmaps and decides how the strategies can be best implemented (Cooper & Sommer, 2016).

Stating a coherent story:

The product roadmap must express a coherent story regarding the growth of business product. Every release must be created on the previous ones and move closer to the vision.

Keeping that simple:

The temptation must be resisted to add too many details to the roadmap. The roadmaps must be kept simple and easy to understand. The realities must be captured and the rest must be left out (Dupont et al., 2017). This must be done focusing on the goals. The features of the roadmap must be coarse gained and derived from the aims.

Securing the string buy-ins:

Here the best roadmap has been worthless as the people need to develop and market and sell products that are never to be bought in. Here the best way has been to create agreement to collaborate with primary stakeholders for creating and updating products roadmaps.

The Agile requirements are described below supported by two Agile tools:

Agile Tool 1: Easy backlog grooming:

It helps in easy prioritizing of bugs and stories of users. Here one or more issues are to be selected and then they are dropped or dragged for backlog. Quick filters are to be created for surfacing challenges with vital attributes.

Grooming of backlogs is done as type product owners or rest of the team reviews items regarding backlog. It ensures that the backlog comprises of proper items that are prioritized. The activity takes place regularly and has been scheduled officially to meet the ongoing activities (Duncan, 2015). Here, the activities occurring during the refinement of the backlog can include eradication of user stories that has been no longer appearing relevant. This also includes creating new user stories responding to the newly discovered necessities. Further, there has been re-assessing relative priority of stories (Smits, Pivert & Yager, 2016). Then there has been assigning estimates to stories that have needed to be the received one. Next there has been correcting of estimates under the light of newly found data. Further, there has been splitting of user stories that has been of high priority.

Stakeholder Communication Approaches

A vital aspect of the process of product backlog under Agile Scrum is the activity of story decomposition.  Here the user stores are broken down into more smaller and manageable processes (Sangari & Razmi, 2015). The various methods are demonstrated below.

Method 1: CRUD Method

This includes creation, reading, updating and deleting operations in stories.

Method 2: Business Rules

Various user stories have included different implicit and explicit rules of business. It has been providing the way to break down stories. There rules can be found out through finding product owners regarding how the story must be tested. It uncovers notable business rules.

Method 3: Steps of Workflow:

The users stories have often involves work flow or various logical step-by-step methods. Those steps are the self-contained elements of value (Dingsøyr et al., 2018). The added benefits to this prove is the developed understanding of process and products.

Scrum boards has been used to see that every work under any particular sprint. The scrum boards of Jira Software can be used as the tool to customize the unique workflow of the team. Here one can easily incorporate thing such as swimlanes for different projects, assignees and epics. As the sprint ends, a quick snapshot can be gained to every problems that are been finished (Bass, 2015). This also includes unfinished issues that automatically move into backlog to get addressed in the further sprint planning and meeting.

The tools of sprint are a particular length iteration of work. This has been generally up to a couple of weeks in length. Here the tasks must be scoped fully and then prioritized while the meeting of sprint planning goes on. In this way the teams starts as the sprint begins. The features have been keeping track of all the tasks being tacked in every sprint. This helps the team in staying focused on every task at hand (Dattero et al. 2017).

The agile project management has been focusing on the constant development, flexibility of scopes, and input of teams and delivery of needed quality products. The approaches of agile project management has been including scrum as the system. This is the XP or extreme programming to create quality upfront and leaning the thinking to eradicate the wastes (Gill, 2015).

APM Framework:

It has been defining APOM framework denoting series of steps taking projects from the starting vision to the final product delivery. Here, there has been five distinct phases of the framework of Agile Project Management (Heikkilä et al., 2015). It has been occurring under project developments. The phases of APM framework includes envision, speculate, explore, adapt and closure.

Agile Tools for Product Development

Conclusion:

The above report has shown how agile models have been based on the iterative software development. The study has been helpful to understand how the agile methodologies have been inviting developers to get engaged in testing instead of distinct quality assurance team. They are suitable to change environments due to new practices and principles enabling project teams to create product in less time. It is understood that communication between customer and developer has been difficult as the developer group devoid of experienced developers. The methodologies analyzed would exhibit the optimum results while there is any strong communication present between customers and developers. As there is any scope of misunderstanding proper requirements of customers, the method is the optimum approach for the solution. This takes place as the budgets and deadlines are tight.

References:

Abrahamsson, P., Salo, O., Ronkainen, J., & Warsta, J. (2017). Agile software development methods: Review and analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.08439.

Balijepally, V., & Nerur, S. (2015). Understanding the Structure of Agile Software Development Using Text Analytics: A Preliminary Analysis.

Bass, J. M. (2015). How product owner teams scale agile methods to large distributed enterprises. Empirical Software Engineering, 20(6), 1525-1557.

Bider, I., & Jalali, A. (2016). Agile business process development: why, how and when—applying Nonaka’s theory of knowledge transformation to business process development. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 14(4), 693-731.

Cooper, R. G., & Sommer, A. F. (2016). The Agile–Stage?Gate Hybrid Model: A Promising New Approach and a New Research Opportunity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(5), 513-526.

Dattero, R., Galup, S. D., Kan, A., & Quan, J. (2017). It Pays to Be Agile. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 57(3), 252-257.

Dingsøyr, T., Dybå, T., Gjertsen, M., Jacobsen, A. O., Mathisen, T. E., Nordfjord, J. O., … & Strand, K. (2018). Key Lessons from Tailoring Agile Methods for Large-Scale Software Development. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.05118.

Duncan, S. (2015). Requirements: The Master Class LiveLessons: Traditional, Agile, Outsourcing (Video Training). Software Quality Professional, 18(1), 34.

Dupont, D., Beresniak, A., Sundgren, M., Schmidt, A., Ainsworth, J., Coorevits, P., … & De Moor, G. (2017). Business analysis for a sustainable, multi-stakeholder ecosystem for leveraging the Electronic Health Records for Clinical Research (EHR4CR) platform in Europe. International journal of medical informatics, 97, 341-352.

Eva, M., Hindle, K., Paul, D., Rollaston, C., & Tudor, D. (2014). Business analysis. D. Paul, D. Yeates, & J. Cadle (Eds.). British Computer Society.

Gill, A. Q. (2015). Distributed agile development: applying a coverage analysis approach to the evaluation of a communication technology assessment tool. International Journal of e-Collaboration.

Grefen, P., Rinderle, S., Dustdar, S., Fdhila, W., Mendling, J., & Schulte, S. (2017). Charting process-based collaboration support in agile business networks. IEEE Internet Computing.

Gregory, P., Barroca, L., Taylor, K., Salah, D., & Sharp, H. (2015, May). Agile challenges in practice: a thematic analysis. In International Conference on Agile Software Development(pp. 64-80). Springer, Cham.

Heikkilä, V. T., Damian, D., Lassenius, C., & Paasivaara, M. (2015, August). A mapping study on requirements engineering in agile software development. In Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), 2015 41st Euromicro Conference on (pp. 199-207). IEEE.

Krawatzeck, R., & Dinter, B. (2015). Agile Business Intelligence: Collection and Classification of Agile Business Intelligence Actions by Means of a Catalog and a Selection Guide. Information Systems Management, 32(3), 177-191.

Larson, D., & Chang, V. (2016). A review and future direction of agile, business intelligence, analytics and data science. International Journal of Information Management, 36(5), 700-710.

Sangari, M. S., & Razmi, J. (2015). Business intelligence competence, agile capabilities, and agile performance in supply chain: An empirical study. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 26(2), 356-380.

Schönig, S., Cabanillas, C., Jablonski, S., & Mendling, J. (2015, June). Mining the organisational perspective in agile business processes. In International Conference on Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling (pp. 37-52). Springer, Cham.

Serrador, P., & Pinto, J. K. (2015). Does Agile work?—A quantitative analysis of agile project success. International Journal of Project Management, 33(5), 1040-1051.

Smits, G., Pivert, O., & Yager, R. R. (2016, July). A soft computing approach to agile business intelligence. In Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE), 2016 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 1850-1857). IEEE.