Skip to main content

Demonstration-Based Agile (DBA)

Adopting agile development processes means adopting key practices, usually some combination of the following:
  1. Develop in short iterations.
  2. Release frequently.
  3. Write tests first.
  4. Communicate frequently.
Organizations moving towards agile product development typically face major hurdles as many people are entrenched in old waterfall thinking. How can you most effectively move towards agile in such an environment?

Forget about Scrum, XP, and all the buzz words. Let me introduce a new buzz word.

Start with demonstration-based agile (DBA) on a small scale. With demonstration-based agile, you insist on only one thing:

Regular Demos. The development staff demos the product to the product manager and other members of the team at the end of every week (or some other short period).
It's a lot easier for a team to agree to regular demos than it is to short iterations or frequent releases. Yet regular demos aren't much different. The team must iterate on developing the product and must have something to "release" (as a demo) frequently. Regular demos also stimulate frequent communication. Finally, the team sort of plans "tests" by defining in advance what to expect from each demo.

Some curmudgeons may resist the idea of regular demos, but for many the concept is easier to swallow than all of the agile practices that fall out of it.

Comments

Scheevel said…
I "introduced" scrum to our local dot-net user group last month. Since so few had any Agile experience I didn't know where to start...so I started at the beginning. I started with the Toyota Production System and how Lean Manufacturing was born, from which Lean Software derived giving birth to Agile principles which Scrum implements. Out of all those concepts the most valuable take-away was "short iterations" and "demos at the end of sprint." I think you've got a great idea here. Easy to implement and simple to visualize benefit.
Unknown said…
Simple yet powerful. Thanks for sharing.

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