Tag: Product Owner

Deliver Valuable Solutions through Scrum (Part III)

Leveraging Impact Maps, User Story Maps, and Product Roadmaps to Align Organizational and IT Product Strategy using Scrum

This is the third and final part of a three-part blog series about aligning IT solutions/capabilities to organizational needs via an Agile-Scrum product management approach. You’ll find part one here and part two here.

In this article, I walk through how a Scrum Product Owner (PO), in collaboration with the rest of the Scrum Team and others, might bridge the “Product Management Vacuum” discussed in part II by  leveraging impact maps, User Story maps, and product roadmaps for Product Backlog refinement and release planning.

Part II Recap

In part II, I explained how the PO, as part of the Scrum Team, serves as the linchpin connecting the Scrum Team to the larger organizational product management structure.  The PO is responsible for fostering and maintaining ongoing collaboration between and among the Scrum Team(s), project/solution sponsors and stakeholders, customers, and end users to:

  • Define and maximize IT solution value in terms of expected and realized business/mission value
  • Define a product vision and strategy that aligns with organizational vision and strategy
  • Align the work performed by development teams to product vision and strategy

This product management function bridges what Ralph Jocham and Don McGreal call the “Product Management Vacuum.”   In the absence of a true product strategy, many organizations fill the vacuum with traditional project management activities that focus on managing tasks and people, rather than on defining the product/solution and improving development processes.  This typically leads to wasted effort borne out of disconnects between the Scrum Team, the sponsor organization, customers, and end users.

Finally, I introduced Jocham’s and McGreal’s “Three Vs” construct.  The “Three Vs” – Vision, Value, and Validation – sum up the product definition/management activities POs lead as part of their role.  The “Three Vs” are mutually dependent and reinforcing:

  • Vision drives the creation of value (features/functionality)
  • Value created enables validation of business assumptions behind product development choices
  • Validation informs changes to the product vision

The Official Scrum Artifacts

I am taking the time to clarify that most of the artifacts I discuss in this article are not official Scrum artifacts. The Scrum framework includes three official artifacts:  the Product Backlog, the Sprint Backlog, and the Increment.

The Product Backlog

According to the Scrum Guide, the Product Backlog:

…is an ordered list of everything that is known to be needed in the product. It is the single source of requirements for any changes to be made to the product. The Product Owner is responsible for the Product Backlog, including its content, availability, and ordering.
  • The Product Backlog is the single source of requirements for a product/solution
  • Only the features and functionality compiled and ordered in the Product Backlog make it into the product
  • Helps the PO manage development scope
  • The PO owns the Product Backlog
  • Tracks product requirements evolution as the product and its environment change towards providing greater value

The Sprint Backlog

The Scrum Guide describes the Sprint Backlog as:

…the set of Product Backlog items selected for the Sprint, plus a plan for delivering the product Increment and realizing the Sprint Goal. The Sprint Backlog is a forecast by the Development Team about what functionality will be in the next Increment and the work needed to deliver that functionality into a “Done” Increment.
  • The Sprint Backlog makes visible all the work the Development Team plans to do during the Sprint
  • The highest ordered Product Backlog items become Sprint Backlog items
  • Sprint Backlog items have enough detail for the Development Team to understand what needs to be done
  • The Development Teams owns the Sprint Backlog
  • Only the Development Team can change its Sprint Backlog during a Sprint
  • The Development Team tracks progress and changes in work scope through the Sprint Backlog

The Increment

The Scrum Guide defines the Increment as:

…the sum of all the Product Backlog items completed during a Sprint and the value of the increments of all previous Sprints.
  • The increment is not just what the Development Team develops during the current Sprint. It includes whatever system/solution functionality the team developed in previous sprints
  • Every new Increment must be “Done” at the end of the Sprint
  • A “Done” increment meets the Scrum Team’s Definition of “Done”
  • A “Done” increment is ready for release and capable of providing usable and valuable functionality regardless of whether the PO decides to release it

Product Backlog Refinement

Product Backlog refinement is the management of product requirements by the Scrum Team.  The PO leads Product Backlog refinement in collaboration with the rest of the Scrum Team (i.e., the Development Team and Scrum Master) and with input from product/project sponsors, stakeholders, customers, and end users.  During Product Backlog refinement:

As the product evolves, higher ordered Product Backlog items become more detailed and the estimates become more precise.  With help from the PO, the Development Team defines and decomposes the highest ordered items they plan to work during the next iteration/Sprint into User Stories. The Development Team manages those stories in the Sprint Backlog.

Product Backlog refinement is an ongoing process.  The Scrum Team decides how and when to refine the Product Backlog.  However, the Scrum Guide recommends the Scrum Team expend no more than 10% of its “capacity” (i.e., the sum of productive hours across the team) on Product Backlog refinement.  Product Backlog refinement is not restricted to specific timeframes or meetings.  The PO can make changes to the backlog at any time or have others do so at his/her discretion.

A Product Management Scenario Example

In part I of this series, I discussed organizational and product visions and strategies generically.  To help visualize how all the parts fit together, I walk through a product definition and management scenario.

Over the last year, an online retailer has experienced a significant loss of market share to competitors.  The company investigated reasons for the drop in returning customers and new registrations.  The findings boiled down to customer dissatisfaction with business service functions across the value chain that negatively impacted the company’s reputation.  While the company enjoyed an early market lead for years, competitors were quickly closing the gap with more innovative customer-centric service options and better delivery performance.  The most significant problems found were:

  • Delivery problems
    • Customers receiving their orders late at a quarterly rate higher than industry average
    • Customer orders lost at a quarterly rate higher than industry average
    • Customers receiving the wrong orders at a quarterly rate higher than industry average
  • Customer service issues
    • Customer complaints about being bounced from one customer representative to another with a lack of continuity between representatives
    • Customer complaints about needing faster and more accessible help with “non-standard” issues requiring additional attention
    • Customer wish for an online customer service feedback option integrated with their ordering experience
  • Falling behind in offering new payment service options (Paypal, Google Pay, etc.)

Management shifted company strategy from a narrow focus on delivering an “outstanding” website experience to improving the entire buying experience, from online shopping to product delivery.  They revamped the company’s vision to match this new value stream-based approach to customer satisfaction and updated their business strategy to support it.

Company leadership recognized that a lack of customer focus caused the company to fall behind competitors and a subsequent decline in customer satisfaction.  To address this, the company changed how it defines its services by instituting a product management approach.  The company started looking at its website as a collection of online service offerings.  Company strategy needed to be tightly coupled to customer needs and demands, changing as the market changes.

The table below breaks out the flow down of strategic vision and business strategy to tactical product vision and strategy I explained in part I of this series.  The area highlighted in yellow is the “Product Management Vacuum” filled by organizational product management and POs in collaboration with the Scrum Team and with input from project/solution sponsors, stakeholders, customers, and end users.  I focus on the strategic goal to increase customer retention and acquisition through better customer service down to the tactical goal of improving the company’s Customer Service System.  Text of that tactical goal and its decomposed elements is colored red.

Table 1: Strategic Strategy to Product Strategy Decomposition

Defining Product Features

Armed with product goals, the PO works with the Scrum Team and others to define features they believe will help achieve them based on their current understanding of the business and market context.  The Scrum Team continually refines that understanding as the Scrum Team releases features to users.  The ultimate validation of the business assumptions behind new features is end-user validation.   New insights shape future features/capabilities and business/mission strategic and tactical strategies.

This picture depicts the interplay between organizational and product strategy validation.
Figure 1: Ongoing Organizational and Product Strategy Validation

Impact Mapping

Impact mapping is a strategic planning technique Scrum Teams can leverage to develop Product Backlog items such as Epics and User Stories as extensions to a defined product strategy. Impact maps are a great tool for visualizing alignment from product vision to coarse-grained product backlog items that Scrum Teams can order and further decompose and refine over time.

The diagram below depicts the use of an impact map to decompose the product vision and product objectives for the Customer Service System.  One or more coarse-grained Product Backlog items support each product objective.  These backlog items will collectively form the initial version of system requirements.  Over the course of Product Backlog refinement and Sprint Planning, the Scrum Team refines these items into User Stories.  Each backlog item includes of three elements:

  • Actor – The role for whom the backlog item is for.  The beneficiary of new feature functionality
  • Impact – The desired outcome from using the feature functionality
  • Deliverable – The new feature functionality that will help the actor achieve the desired impact

We avoid creating compound requirements.  In other words, each backlog item is specific to one role, one deliverable, and one impact.  These are high-level requirements, so the Scrum Team will identify, through their decomposition, different flavors of the same type of actor (e.g., administrator vs. regular user), related impacts for different flavors of actor, and related deliverables/features.  It is important to remember that these are system/solution-level items.  Too much specification now is counter-productive.

This is an impact map example.
Figure 2: Impact Map

Product Backlog

Product Backlog Recap

After defining a set of course-grained requirements, we create the initial version of the Product Backlog.  The Scrum Team writes requirements in the form of Epics and User Stories.  User Stories are backlog items the Development Team estimates will take no more than one Sprint to complete and make ready for release, while Epics are estimated to take more than one Sprint.  The Scrum Team decomposes Epics into User Stories as part of Product Backlog refinement.

At this point, we do not know how long it will take to complete each backlog item, so we do not know which items are Epics vs. User Stories.  It is likely that these coarse-grained items will be Epics but I call them User Stories and group them under “themes.”  The concept of themes is not part of the Scrum framework but they can come in handy when structuring the Product Backlog.  Scrum does recommend adding backlog attributes to group items when multiple Scrum Teams are working from the same backlog.

The Product Backlog table below maps each backlog item to the desired impacts and product objectives listed in in the impact map.  The product objectives become the value measures by which we measure whether each item’s feature delivers the expected business impact/outcome.  I highlighted the Actor and Deliverable elements in each User Story.

This table represents a Product Backlog
Table 2: Initial Product Backlog

Based on the coarse-grained User Stories listed in the table above, the Scrum Team knows enough about what it plans to build to provide the Customer Service System’s tactical plan.

Table 3: Tactical Goal Decomposition with Tactical Plans

User Story Sizing and Product Backlog Ordering

I will not go into detail about how to size and order Product Backlog items in this article.  However, I will highlight some key points that support the topics covered in this article:

  • The Scrum Guide refers to estimates rather than sizes.  However, the most popular estimation techniques in Scrum leverage the concept of “relative sizing.”  Instead of attempting to estimate how long it will take to complete a User Story, Scrum Teams use techniques like Planning Poker to estimate the story’s “size” relative to the other Product Backlog items.  Relative sizing is faster to do, more intuitive, and becomes increasingly more accurate as the Scrum Team “matures” than estimating in hours.
  • As part of the Scrum Team, the Development Team is solely responsible for all estimates.  The PO provides the business/mission context the Development Team needs to estimate the relative size of each Product Backlog item.
  • Typically, Scrum Teams estimate User Story sizes in “story points”, with “larger” stories earning higher point estimates.  Often, the point scale used is the Fibonacci Series or a modified version of it.  Story points are heuristically determined, numerical representations of User Story complexity, risk, uncertainty, and level of effort combined.
  • By tracking the number of User Story points the Scrum Team completes across multiple Sprints (at least three Sprints), the team determines its “velocity.”  Scrum Team velocity is a heuristic measure of a Scrum Team’s throughput (not productivity).  It is the rate at which a team delivers fully completed, tested, and accepted User Stories during a Sprint.
  • Scrum replaced Product Backlog “prioritization” with “ordering.”  Ordering better connotes the concept of ongoing backlog refinement.  Rather than periodically prioritizing backlog items according to vague business value categorizations, like High, Medium, and Low, and awarding multiple items the same priority, the Scrum Team continually orders backlog items based on their business value, risk, cost/size, and dependencies.
  • As User Stories rise in order, the Scrum Team fleshes out story details, provides more precise story point estimates, and decomposes larger stories into smaller stories the team can complete during a Sprint.

User Story Mapping

What are User Story Maps?

A Product Backlog is essentially an ordered queue.  As the number of User Stories grows, it becomes increasingly difficult see how all of the stories come together into a system/solution.  This is especially true for solutions that involve workflows.  A list of ordered features, written as User Stories, does not communicate how those features work together and what dependencies exist between them.

Scrum Teams can use User Story maps to organize an ordered Product Backlog across solution workflow steps, Sprints, and releases.  Scrum Teams may use User Story maps in tandem with Product Backlogs to help identify dependencies as part of backlog refinement.  It is a valuable tool to help plan releases as well.

Below is a User Story map example.  The map is a simplified workflow for coarse-grained User Stories #4 and #5 in the initial Product Backlog I discussed earlier in this article.  The User Stories read:

4. As a customer, I want the choice to provide feedback about the customer service I received so that I can communicate whether my issue was resolved to my satisfaction and why.
5. As a Customer Service Representative, I want access to customer feedback about issues I handle so that I learn how best to improve my performance.

The deliverable for User Story #4, listed in the example impact map, is a user feedback form.  However, as described in User Story #5, there is much more to the form then just a webpage to enter data.  The Scrum Team needs to develop a workflow that links multiple roles across the organization.  User Story #5 is likely an Epic in need of decomposition while User Story #4 is likely a User Story the Development Team can finish in one Sprint.  As Product Backlog refinement occurs, the scope of individual stories and of the entire workflow likely changes.

In this workflow, the Customer Service Coordinator reviews incoming feedback submittals, categorizes them, and assigns them to the appropriate part of the organization for resolution/acknowledgement.  Should the initial assignment be inappropriate or fail to yield a satisfactory outcome, the Customer Service Coordinator works across the organization to identify the right people to address the feedback.  Otherwise, the customer receives a response.

Below is a sample User Story map for this workflow.

Table 4: User Story Map Example

Let us walk through the User Story map’s elements:

Table 5: User Story Map Element Descriptions

The yellow cells in the User Story map example represent individual User Stories decomposed from the Epic directly above them in the “Walking Skeleton.”  This decomposition is not one person’s idea of how the Epic should be broken down, not even the PO’s.  It is instead the result of ongoing collaboration within the Scrum Team, informed by project sponsors and stakeholders, customers, and end users, and synthesized into a coherent product vision and strategy by the PO.

Development of a User Story map is an iterative process.  As the solution takes shape iteratively and incrementally, more users, User Stories, business activities, and business tasks emerge, requiring changes to the User Story map and the Product Backlog.  Fundamental changes in approach, predicated by insights learned during product validation, with actual customers and end users, may require changes to the product vision and strategy as well.

Product Roadmap

A product roadmap is a planning tool used to visualize when Scrum Teams estimate they will complete coarse-grained capabilities/Epics and in what order, over a given time horizon.  A product roadmap facilitates planning, not just for the Scrum Team, but also for project stakeholders outside the Scrum Team.  Common uses for product roadmaps include:

  • Communicating status and longer-term plans to organizational decision makers
  • Identifying business/mission dependencies across planned releases
  • Informs longer term business/mission planning (e.g., funding, contracting, agreements with external partners)

A product roadmap is not a schedule.  It is a snapshot of current planning, not a set of fixed milestone delivery dates.  Short-term release timelines (no more than three Sprints ahead) are based on User Story sizing and ordering (done as part of Product Backlog refinement) as well as demonstrated Scrum Team velocity.  The PO bases longer-term release timelines on the rank order of lower-ordered Product Backlog items and current knowledge of dependencies between those items. 

Like everything else in Agile and Scrum, product roadmaps are always subject to change.  As the solution emerges and new learning happens, plans change.  Agile planning is adaptive planning. Rather than creating detailed plans that span months or years, Scrum Teams wait until “the last responsible moment” to plan only the highest-ordered Product Backlog items in detail.

The recommended time horizon for Scrum Team planning is no more than the next Sprint and two Sprints beyond that.  Based on the recommended two to four-week Sprint length, that is no more than 12 weeks.  The amount of implementation detail behind a User Story increases the closer that story comes to being implemented by the Scrum Team.  User Stories planned for the next Sprint are much more detailed, and their estimates are better informed, than lower ordered User Stories tentatively scheduled for later Sprints.  Therefore, plans to implement solution functionality beyond the next three Sprints are highly imprecise and likely to change.

The sample Product Roadmap below maps the product strategy components I discuss throughout this article into a quarterly based plan for the year.

Table 6: Product Roadmap

Release Strategy

Depending on the size of the sponsor organization/company, the PO either contributes to an organizationally agreed-upon release strategy or collaborates with the Scrum Team, project sponsors and stakeholders, customers, and end users in developing one.  A product release strategy dictates:

  • Release Frequency – How often Scrum Team(s) release functionality: the more frequently, the better.  In Waterfall projects, there may only be only one a major release at the end of development. Release frequency for Agile/Scrum Teams ranges from releasing once at the end of each Sprint, to releasing multiple times throughout each Sprint, to achieving a steady flow of “done” functionality released on “demand” (Releasing functionality when customers/end users are ready to accept it)
  • Validation Frequency – How often customers and end users validate newly released functionality.  Obviously, the more often Scrum Teams release functionality, the more opportunities for validation exist

Market/mission demands drive release strategy. The sponsor organization must train, equip, and empower Development Teams and operations staff so they may deliver at a speed and cadence that matches demand. This is where DevOps plays a huge role.

In our company example, the company’s release strategy is to release at the end of every four-week Sprint.  Scrum Teams monitor usage and performance metrics for the capabilities they release and the organization monitors customer feedback.

Table 7: Tactical Goal Decomposition with Release Strategy

Release Planning

The product roadmap provides a high-level, “broad strokes” view of how planned releases fit together over an extended period of time.  The Scrum Team plans releases at a greater level of detail and across much shorter timeframes (no more than three Sprints).  A PO develops a release plan, which aligns with the operative release strategy, in collaboration with the rest of the Scrum Team, project sponsors and stakeholders, customers, and end users.  A release plan takes into account the following considerations:

  • The Scrum Team’s capacity to develop “done” capability at a sustainable pace
  • Technical and business/mission dependencies on or arising from planned functionality
  • The ability and willingness of customers and end users to “absorb” or accept planned changes
  • Alignment with business/mission strategy and product strategy

Just like a product roadmap, the release plan is subject to change.  Certainty over what a Development Team will develop and release over the next three Sprints is greatest for the next Sprint and becomes progressively less certain for the next two. However, since the release plan’s time horizon is so short and immediate, the frequency and magnitude of the changes should be significantly less than for a product roadmap. 

Below is an example of a release plan for the Customer Feedback Workflow capability based on the User Story map discussed earlier:

Table 8: Release Plan

Conclusion

Scrum is a framework and as such avoids over-prescribing practices and artifacts. The expectation is that practitioners will adhere to its rules and tailor existing processes to align with the framework, not the other way around. The concepts and tools presented in this series are meant to be used as enablers for aligning organizational vision and business strategy with product vision and strategy using Scrum.

Scrum has an inherent product management bias that is a definite departure from the traditional project management mentality that has reigned over organizational IT for decades. A product management approach to organizational IT shifts project-centric, internally-focused sponsor organizations towards putting the customer first and focusing on achieving outcomes, rather than executing plans.



Deliver Valuable Solutions through Scrum (Part II)

Product Owners are responsible for top-down and bottom-up alignment of IT solution business value

This is the second of a three-part blog series about aligning IT solutions/capabilities to organizational needs via an Agile-Scrum product management approach. You’ll find the first part here.

In part I of this three-part series, I asserted that Scrum bridges the common disconnect between solutions delivered by organizational IT management and the needs and expectations of sponsors, stakeholders, customers, and end-users. I provided a sense of the magnitude of the problem by referencing analysis from the 2015 Standish Group CHAOS Report which found that less than half of all IT projects deliver business value. I then explained how Scrum’s product management mindset differs from that of traditional project management. Finally, I explained how a product management approach aligns IT product/solution vision and strategy with organizational vision and strategy based on the concept of delivering business/mission value.

In part II, I discuss how the Scrum Product Owner (PO) defines product value and maintains alignment between his/her product vision and strategy and organizational vision and strategy.

The Product Owner as Value Maximizer

In Scrum, the PO is the linchpin that connects the Scrum Team to the larger organizational product management structure.  Scrum defines the PO as one of the three official roles of a Scrum Team. The PO represents the Voice of the Customer for a product/solution.  The PO is responsible for fusing the various needs, wants, and perspectives of product or project stakeholders into one complete, coherent, and cohesive vision. The Development Team looks to the PO as the primary (but not necessarily the only) source of business knowledge and understanding.  That understanding informs development of IT capabilities that provide maximum value to the organization and users.

In large organizations, POs may work within a product management organizational structure that coordinates product management activities across the organization.  Working closely with program management offices (PMOs), product management focuses on making the right things while program management focuses on managing schedule, budget , and resource constraints.

While aligning product strategy with organizational strategy is inherently a top-down activity, both strategies must be informed by bottom-up input/feedback from development teams, customers, and end users. Product management organizations and the POs who collaborate within them are responsible for fostering and maintaining ongoing collaboration in both directions.

The Product Management Vacuum

In their book, “The Professional Product Owner: Leveraging Scrum as a Competitive Advantage,” Ralph Jocham and Don McGreal make the case that most organizations do a poor job of linking product vision and strategy to business strategy and the work performed by development teams.  They call this deficiency the “Product Management Vacuum.”

The Product Management Vacuum

The authors explain that the vacuum is typically filled by traditional project management activities. Those activities lead to wasted effort and disconnect development teams from the larger organization as well as from customers and end users. By focusing on managing tasks and people, rather than on defining the product and improving development processes, traditional project managers and the development teams they manage lose sight of product value.  Resulting solutions are largely disconnected from organizational vision and strategy and from customer and end-user needs.

The Product Owner Fills the Vacuum

In Scrum, the PO fills the Product Management Vacuum:

  • Product Vision – The PO is responsible for formulating and socializing the product vision among the Scrum Team, stakeholders, customers, and end users
  • Product Strategy – The PO is responsible for identifying and driving development of IT capabilities that support business goals and objectives as well as satisfy customer and end-user needs and desires
  • Release Management – The PO coordinates product release strategy with relevant organizational stakeholders

The PO does not carry out these responsibilities alone. The PO collaborates with the development team, sponsors, stakeholders, customers, and users but is primarily responsible for outcomes.

The Three Vs

Through their construct of “The Three Vs: Vision, Value, and Validation” Jocham and McGreal explain how Scrum maintains alignment between product vision and business value. The Product Owner leads and is ultimately responsible for the activities performed in support of the Three Vs.

Activities and Responsibilities under “The Three Vs”

The interplay between product vision, value, and validation can be summed up as:

Interplay between Product Vision, Product Value, and Product Validation

  • Vision drives the creation of value (features/functionality)
  • Value created enables validation of business assumptions behind product development choices
  • Validation informs changes to the product vision

On the Next Installment…

In the third and final part of this series, I will explain how POs define and manage The Three Vs by managing the Product Backlog. As part of my explanation, I will showcase three artifacts: Impact Maps, User Story Maps, and Product Roadmaps.

Conclusion

POs play a central role in aligning the IT solutions they shepherd through product management and development activities with organizational vision and strategy. To achieve that alignment, product management and organizational strategies require ongoing feedback and collaboration with customers and end users. The Scrum framework is optimal for achieving this top-down and bottom-up alignment for IT solutions.



What is the Proper Role for Project Managers in Scrum?

An interesting 2017 conference white paper is circulating in Agile forums.  It addresses the question, “Which Scrum role should project managers assume on an Agile-Scrum project?”  The white paper, entitled “A Study of the Scrum Master’s Role,”[1] argues that it should be the Product Owner role.

Before delving into the white paper’s findings, I am
providing a little background on Agile and Scrum.

Agile and Scrum

Agile is a software development approach in which software
development teams:

  • Self-organize – Team members collectively define
    and manage their work and processes
  • Deliver increments of software functionality
    that are tested and ready to be deployed and used
  • Delivery increments over the course of multiple
    short-term iterations/Sprints
  • Are guided by direct interaction with product stakeholders
    and end-users

Scrum is one of many approaches to Agile software
development. Other examples are Extreme Programming (XP) and Feature-Driven
Development (FDD).

The Scrum Team

The Scrum Team is the basic unit of organization for Scrum.  Scrum Teams are small, consisting of three to
nine members each.  Small teams are more
agile because their size lowers complexity. 
Communication between members is immediate and having fewer members
minimizes the number of dependencies between them.  Scrum enables small development teams to
punch well above their weight.

By constraining the scope of releases into smaller “Lego
blocks” of functionality that build on each other, small Scrum Teams are able
to deliver more useful functionality, at higher levels of quality, faster.  Smaller releases, delivered more frequently,
provide more opportunities for evaluating and adapting both the product and how
it is developed. 

When project scope and schedule constraints make adding more
technical contributors necessary, they organize into multiple Scrum Teams.  Scrum Teams identify and address mutual
dependencies and ensure that the collective product aligns with the needs and
desires of stakeholders and customers.

The Three Scrum Team Roles

As described in the Scrum Guide, Scrum specifies three
formal roles within a Scrum Team: Product Owner, Scrum Master, and Development
Team.  The Scrum Team collectively shares
responsibility for the following activities:

  • Defining product (system, application, etc.) features
  • Prioritizing features
  • Estimating level of effort for developing each
    feature
  • Planning incremental releases of features
  • Iteratively shaping the product throughout
    development based on user and stakeholder feedback

While the Scrum Team performs the activities above collectively, each role has a distinct set of responsibilities:

Descriptions of Scrum Team Roles
Descriptions of Scrum Team Roles

You may ask, “What about other roles typically performed in software
development projects? How do they contribute to Agile projects?”  In the case of Scrum, those roles lend
support to the work of the Scrum Teams. 
Examples:

  • Enterprise architects and development teams work
    together to define the longer-term technical direction of the product
  • Testers become Development Team members and
    automate as much of the testing effort as possible within and across Scrum
    Teams
  • Business analysts facilitate discussions between
    Scrum Teams and end users to ensure the product ultimately serves business
    needs

The key to placing project managers in Scrum projects is to place
them in a role that allows them to use their skills and experience in ways that
naturally align with Scrum Team self-organization.

Should Project Managers Work Agile Projects?

Since Agile teams self-organize, many argue that project
managers have no role in Agile.  The
thinking is that traditional project management is a command-and-control,
top-down approach focused on managing people and tasks and ensuring strict
adherence to a predetermined plan.  In
contrast, Agile is a bottom-up, decentralized approach to software development focused on managing the
development of the product itself rather than people and tasks.

Despite conventional wisdom against it, the authors found
that it is quite common for project managers to work in Agile software development
projects as project managers:

Yet, in a recent survey that looked into whether project
managers still exist in Agile development teams, Shashtri and Hoda were
surprised to learn that 67% of organizations surveyed reported that they still
had the Project Manager role.

This may be a sign of the fact that Agile adoption can be
difficult and takes time.  According to
the white paper:

While the vast
majority of organizations are moving towards [some] form of agile development,
for most of these organizations, more than half of their teams are still following
traditional, plan-driven methods.

When the bulk of an organization operates under traditional
project management, it is easy to understand a preference for including project
managers across all project types, including Scrum.  Project managers are already working Scrum
projects, so the debate over whether they should do so is irrelevant and
unproductive.  Instead, the focus should
be on how to better utilize them in support of Agile and Scrum.

Project Managers as Scrum Masters

According to the white paper, project managers often participate
in Scrum projects is as Scrum Masters. 
At first blush, this seems like the best way to leverage project managers’
people and task management experience.  Many
managers are dual-hatted as project managers and Scrum Masters. 

However, it is often difficult for project managers to
assume the role of Scrum Master because the two roles are fundamentally
different and, to a significant degree, incompatible.  Combining the two roles in one person is
unfair to the project manager and to the Scrum Team.  I compare the two roles below:

Project Manager vs. Scrum Master Roles

Confusion Over the Scrum Master Role

There appears to be a shift in Agile literature that is
adapting, conflating, and, in some cases, corrupting the original Scrum Team
roles.  The authors conducted a “systemic
review” of Agile literature.  They found
that, along with the traditional Scrum Master activities of “process
facilitation, ceremony facilitation, and impediment removal,” many sources ascribe
to Scrum Masters project management activities or activities belonging to the
other Scrum Team roles.

The authors opine that this documented shift in what activities
are characterized as Scrum Master responsibilities comes from a corruption of
the Scrum Master role.  This corruption
typically occurs in organizations rooted in traditional project management as
they transition to Scrum.  As stated
earlier, such organizations often appoint project managers to serve as Scrum
Masters.  Those organizations also tend
to contort Agile practices to fit their existing command-and-control management
culture with project managers leading the way as Scrum Masters.

Product Owners Own Scrum Project Management Activities

The white paper references fifteen papers that characterize a
number of activities outside the scope of the original Scrum Master role as Scrum
Master responsibilities.  The authors
contrast that list with five project management activities required in Scrum:

Five Scrum Project Management Activities

Of the five project management activities, three belong to
the Product Owner.  The one overlap
between the project manager and Scrum Master roles is the process management
category which, while important, does not require a project manager to perform.

Conclusion

The best way for traditional project managers to contribute
to Scrum software development projects is by becoming Product Owners.  There is significant overlap between the two
roles, thus the transition should be easier and more in line with the valuable skills,
talents, and experience project managers bring to the job.

Successfully achieving this transition requires training,
coaching, and meaningful organizational support.   No amount of training and coaching will help
a new Product Owner perform in a traditional project management culture.  In essence, the decision to adopt Agile
software development affects the entire organization, not just technical
contributors.  The organizations that
reap the full benefits of Agile adoption embrace Agile as a cultural
transformation, not just as a different way to develop products.

[1] Noll, John & Razzak, Mohammad Abdur & Bass, Julian & Beecham, Sarah. (2017). A Study of the Scrum Master’s Role. 307-323. 10.1007/978-3-319-69926-4_22.  https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01177.pdf



Who is Your Product Owner? Product Development vs. Systems Integration Environments

Understanding the difference between product development and system integration projects helps better define the Product Owner role and the Product Management structure necessary for project success.

Agile-Scrum clearly defines the Product Owner (PO) as a key member of a Scrum team. The PO represents the Voice of the Customer. The PO is responsible for fusing the various needs, wants, and perspectives of project stakeholders into one complete, coherent, and cohesive vision. The development team depends on the direction and guidance provided by the PO to understand what business capabilities to develop and how those capabilities must work to provide value to the customer. Thus, PO plays the most important role in the creation of User Stories and their prioritization within the Product Backlog.

However, more often than not, when I ask Agile-Scrum development teams, “Who is your PO?”, they do not know for certain. This is especially true in systems integration projects. Ask different developers within the project who the PO is and you will likely get different answers. Some will say the Enterprise Architect is the PO. Others will name the lead Systems Engineer, or the Chief Engineer, or the Project/Program Manager, or the owner of the company, etc. Often the answer is, “We don’t have one.”

Agile-Scrum was originally conceived within a commercial product development paradigm. The terminology of Agile-Scrum is indicative of this product development bias with terms like Product Owner and Product Backlog.

In a product development project, the company has significantly more control over the Product Vision and how that vision is actualized than in a systems integration effort. The company decides what capabilities and features to develop, how they will be integrated into the product, when the product will be released, and how much will be spent developing the product. In well-run product companies, all of these decisions are informed by market and user data. However, these decisions are ultimately made by the company.

System integration efforts, by contrast, tend to be customer-driven. Customers decide which capabilities they will pay for, how much they will spend, and when the implementation of those capabilities is due. Thus, system integration efforts are, by nature, service engagements, not product development efforts. Also, software solutions integrated into enterprise environments are typically much more technically and organizationally constrained than than green-field product development efforts.

The control product companies have over their products makes it significantly easier to identify and empower POs than in system integration engagements. Product company POs have fewer stakeholders to answer to and, typically, fewer external dependencies to manage. They also have the advantage of starting with a company-defined Product Vision.  In systems integration, Agile-Scrum teams work with a customer PO to define a Product Vision for a solution the PO does not own and that must address many disparate, and often conflicting, needs and wants of internal and external organizational stakeholders.

It quickly becomes clear that the role of PO in a large-scale system integration effort cannot be filled by one person alone. Due to the many stakeholders that need to be included, the Voice of the Customer can easily become a cacophony of voices without some structured way of harmonizing them into a chorus. Adding to this complexity is the fact that large-scale system integration efforts typically involve multiple teams from different companies. Each of these teams requires a PO, assuming they are all executing as Agile-Scrum teams.

Large system integration projects demand a level of planning and coordination that pure “team-level“ Agile cannot handle. I am not proposing engaging in Waterfall-style, Big Planning Upfront. Even in complex system integration engagements, the Product Vision can be defined over time in an iterative approach, as prescribed by Agile.

Large-scale systems integration requires a product management approach that informs and coordinates team-level PO decisions and prioritizations across program and portfolio levels. Each team works with a PO who manages the stakeholder community that depends on the team’s feature set. Each PO also coordinates with other POs through a product management structure. This product management structure is a core feature of the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe).

Since scope in Agile “floats”, having an empowered and engaged PO is vital to ensuring teams deliver real value within agreed upon budget and time constraints.  The definition and realization of the solution’s TO-BE state depends on POs.  For Federal software system development projects in particular, the PO role should be played by a government employee who is empowered to make decisions, capable of leading a stakeholder community, and tasked as a full time PO to the teams he/she supports.  Anything less introduces risk to Agile projects and breaks the alignment between development teams and the sponsoring organization.