Skip to main content

Hardware versus Software

Some hardware producers believe that, while agile methods are important for developing software products, they do not apply to hardware products. In my view, agile methods benefit development of all types of products.

As I mentioned in a previous entry, the benefit of agile development is that you build into your process an efficient means of dealing with mistakes and discoveries that inevitably transpire. You discover requirements you hadn't considered. You find inadequacies in the design. You want to make these discoveries as early as possible in the development process. Iterating on the product development tends to minimize the amount of time it takes to discover problems and inadequacies and recover from them.

Why might agile processes not work for hardware development? In some cases, the cost of a hardware development iteration is much higher than that of a software development iteration. In software, your development staff simply updates code in each iteration. Code costs nothing but the time to write it. The equipment in hardware, on the other hand, costs money above and beyond the time to fabricate and piece it together. If you iterate too much, these costs will add up and exceed the savings you derive from discovering, and adjusting to, mistakes earlier in development.

The cost of iterating clearly does impact the wisdom of using agile methods. However, only in extreme cases does it ever render agile methods inferior to waterfall methods. Furthermore, organizations with no experience with agile methods tend to overlook the many creative ways they can iterate at a low cost. This myopia tends to bias them against agile methods.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Spreadsheets Suck for Prioritizing

The Goal As a company executive, you want confidence that your product team (which includes all the people, from all departments, responsible for product success) has a sound basis for deciding which items are on the product roadmap. You also want confidence the team is prioritizing the items in a smart way. What Should We Prioritize? The items the team prioritizes could be features, user stories, epics, market problems, themes, or experiments. Melissa Perri  makes an excellent case for a " problem roadmap ", and, in general, I recommend focusing on the latter types of items. However, the topic of what types of items you should prioritize - and in what situations - is interesting and important but beyond the scope of this blog entry. A Sad but Familiar Story If there is significant controversy about priorities, then almost inevitably, a product manager or other member of the team decides to put together The Spreadsheet. I've done it. Some of the mos

Use Case as a Black Box

Consider the following use case: Purchase Items Actor: Purchaser Precondition: Purchaser types at least thirty words per minute and has a web navigation efficiency rating of at least 40. Postcondition: For the average Purchaser acting at full efficiency, the number of seconds elapsed is no more than 30 + 20 * n, where n is the number of items purchased. The name of the use case represents a functional requirement. What does the product do, or enable the user to do? Purchase items. What are we to make of the preconditions and postconditions? What relationship do they have to the requirements for the product? Answer: the preconditions and postconditions are the nonfunctional requirements attached to the functional requirement . Another way of expressing the nonfunctional requirement would be as an attribute and associated constraint: Usability: For a Purchaser who types at least thirty words per minute and has a web navigation efficiency rating of at least 40, it shall take no

Henry Ford's "Faster Horse" Quote

You may have heard the ( apocryphal ) Henry Ford quote: If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have said "a faster horse". Over at the On Product Management blog , Saeed gives his take on this infamous quote. He "hates" it, and gives some compelling reasons. Saeed is spot on in his explanations. Personally, I think the quote is great, but it's a matter of interpretation. The valid point of the quote is not that it's a bad idea to facilitate a conversation with your market to better understand it. The valid points are: You must ask the right questions to get valuable answers. You must interpret the answers thoughtfully - often outside their direct meaning - to glean reliable information. Asking questions is not always the best way to "listen" to your market. (E.g., sometimes pure observational studies are more reliable.) Nonetheless, I find the quote is helpful to combat "armchair product management" in the