During the Agile Austria Conference 2017. Speaker: Rainer Wendt For years there has been a trench warfare about which way is better, faster and cheaper - Agile or Waterfall; Hybrid projects will finally make it!

1. Tel. +49 2404 91391 0
Fax +49 2404 91391 31
crm@masventa.de
www.masventa.de
Robust Hybrid rather than Agile or Waterfall
Why there is finally no alternative
Rainer Wendt, masVenta Business GmbH, June 2017
PMI, the Registered Education Provider logo, PMBOK, PMP, PgMP, PfMP, CAPM, PMI-SP, PMI-RMP, PMI-ACP, PMI-PBA, the PMI logo, and the PMP logo and PMBOK are marks of the Project Management Institute, Inc. IIBA®, the IIBA® logo, BABOK® and Business Analysis
Body of Knowledge® are registered trademarks owned by International Institute of Business Analysis. CBAP® and the CBAP® logo are registered certification marks owned by International Institute of Business Analysis. Certified Business Analysis Professional™, EEP™ and the
EEP™ logo are trademarks owned by International Institute of Business Analysis. Certification of Competency in Business Analysis™, CCBA™ and the CCBA™ logo are trademarks owned by International Institute of Business Analysis.

2. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 2
Agenda
Introduction
Waterfall or Agile?
Blending and Tailoring
Easy Quick-Wins
The Harder Stuff
Roles and Responsibilities
Micro- and Macro Management
The key stakeholder in Business: the Product Owner
Summary

3. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 3
Dipl. Ing. Rainer Wendt, CBAP, PMP, PMI-PBA, PMI-ACP
Study of Electrical Engineering in Aachen
25+ Years Experience in
- Software development and –architecture
- Project Manager in Telecommunications, Energy and Finance
- Requirements Engineering and Business Analysis
- Risk Management
- Change Management
- Training, Coaching
- Etc.
Managing Director masVenta Business GmbH
President IIBA Chapter Germany
Your speaker today

4. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 4
masVenta Business GmbH – Brief Profile
Established in 2007
Located in Aachen, Germany
Training and Consultancy in Business and
Technology. Projects in Banking, Energy,
Telecom and Hi-Tech…
Business Analysis
Business-driven Requirements Management
and Communication
IIBA® Endorsed Education ProviderTM
Project Management
Successful Management of Projects by
applying Best Practices
PMI® Registered Education ProviderTM
Business Intelligence
BI-Requirements Analysis, Reporting Data
Warehousing, Performance Management
Process Optimization
Sustainable Process Improvements by
satisfying Customer and Business Needs

5. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 5
- The Portfolio-ABC at a glance
Academia
Business Analysis &
Project Management
Trainings
Public, In-House & Live
Online Trainings
IIBA® Endorsed
Education Provider
PMI® Registered
Education Provider
Business Solutions
Business Intelligence
Self Service BI
PowerPivot Support &
Governance
End User Computing
Management
End User Computing
Governance, Risk &
Compliance
Consulting
Provisioning experts for
projects
Conceptualization
Coaching
Business Analysis
Business Intelligence
Project Management
Process Optimization

6. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 6
Some recent customers and our partners

7. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 7
Airport Berlin BER
Initially planned Cost 1995 approx. 1,000 Mio €
Estimated Cost 2017 more than 6,000 Mio €
Initially planned Opening Date 2007
Estimated Opening Date 2018 ??
Cost - exploded by factor 6
Time - late by 10 years
Photo: By Muns (Own work) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC BY 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

8. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 8
Challenged Projects – Facts and Figures
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%
New Technology
Unrealistic Time Frames
Unclear Objectives
Unrealistic Expectations
Lack of Resources
Technology Incompetence
Lack of Executive Support
Changing Requirements & Specifications
Incomplete Requirements & Specifications
Lack of User Input
Source: CHAOS Report by The Standish Group, 2014, 365 Respondents
31%
16%
53% Cancelled
Sucessful
Challenged
• 16% Fully successful
• 31% Completely terminated
• 53% Had significant challenges
(Reasons see below)

9. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 9
Waterfall
or
Agile?

10. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 10
Waterfall-Phases vs. Agile Iterations
Plan
Design
Develop
Test
Plan
Design
Develop
Test
Plan
Design
Develop
Test
Plan
Design
Develop
Test
4 Wks
8 Wks
12 Wks
16 Wks
M1
M2
M3
M4
Plan
Design
Develop
Test

11. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 11
Scrum – the most polular agile practice
Source: By Lakeworks - Own work, GFDL, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3526338
Continuously prioritize
Business Requirements
User Stories (Epics)
Fetch sufficient
requirements for the
next iteration and
specify acceptance
criteria
Implement
Requirements and
discuss them in the
team daily
Demonstrate results
and achieve a partly
acceptance,
Deliver!

12. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 12
Inverting the Triangle
From Ryan Matena, Ready for Agile, Projects@Work.com
Ressources
& Time are
uncertain
Final
Scope
uncertain

13. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 13
Ongoing Prioritisation
Product Backlog Sprint Backlog
H
M
L

14. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 14
Is „Agile“ good or bad for my project?
Some typical concerns from Business perspective
• More work for us!
• Developer anyway do what they want
to do – Business can hardly steer them
• Documentation mostly „too lean“ and
this insufficient for Compliance and
Audit purposes
• Deliverables are not exactly specified
in the contract
• Not all bespoken deliverables will
make it
• High risks with T/M as well as Fixed
Price
• More involvement for us!
• Business will always set priorities –
for each sprint
• „Changes are always welcome“ –
we can change - whenever we
want
• Ready-to-use features will be
available after each Sprint
• Fail Fast: If the results of a sprint
are not good, the loss is limited
• We will be working in one team
without boundaries between
customer and vendor

15. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 15
So, which way is less riskier now?

16. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 16
Hybrid
AgileWaterfall
Keep calm!
You do not need to decide to turn left or right!

17. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 17
Blending

18. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 18
Tailoring

19. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 19
Some easy-to-apply
“Agile Quick Wins”

20. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 20IIBA Germany Chapter e.V. 20
Communication: Daily “Stand-up“
• What did I do yesterday?
• What do I plan for today?
• Which impediments do I see?

21. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 21
Transparency: Big Visible Boards

22. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 22IIBA Germany Chapter e.V. 22
Big Visible Boards

23. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 23
Transparency: Burn-Down-Chart
By I8abug (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
slow
fast

24. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 24
…and Lessons Learned
Empirical approaches…

25. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 25
The harder stuff
- or -
Being in the real world

26. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 26

27. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 27

28. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 28

29. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 29

30. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 30
Paradise-like environments and others…
Software manufacturers
- Agile processes at the core of the company´s business
- Strong Product Manager as Product Owner
Internal projects
- Business is rarely familiar with agile practices, often skeptical
- Weak matrix project managers are fighting for part-time staff, e.g. PO
Customer projects
- Vendor & customer are different companies, close collaboration is difficult
- Vendor PO decoupled from end users, good customer PO is hard to find
The Agile
Paradise
Challenging
it depends…
Where the Robust Hybrids survive

31. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 31
Command & Control vs. Self-steering Teams
PM assigns work packages according to the
master project plan, based on agreed and
negotiated top-down estimations
 Work packages rarely get done in time due
to wrong estimations, re-prioritization or
other distractors. Plan falls behind.
 Team might not feel genuinely responsible
Risk: Dissatisfaction due to late deliveries
Team responsibly fetches the work for the
next iteration from the prioritized product
backlog, promising working software
 Work package set might become too small
when re-estimated in a bottom-up way
 Team feels responsible, not being able to
deliver on time is seen as failure by them
Risk: Incomplete/shrinking overall scope
PM and customer chop the project into phases of smaller projects with a defined scope, overall
goal is that neither overall scope nor phase scope do shrink
Full acceptance by the end customer is obtained after each phase, customer is always involved
Teams have phase-bound goals, they should have promised to fulfill the scope of the phase
Features shall not cross phase borders; if they have to, the project faces a classic project change
Phases are time-boxed, i.e., on-time. Scope deviations have to be managed between PM and PO.
AGILEWATERFALL
WHY HYBRID AND HOW?

32. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 32
A real case study:
A tailored hybrid customer project w/ 4 phases
Phase 1
12 wks
2 Wo
Test-
cases
2
2 Wo
4 wks
Test-
cases
1
2 Wo
Phase 2
12 wks
2 Wo
Test-
cases
3
2 Wo
Phase 3
12 wks
2 Wo
Test-
cases
4
2 Wo
Phase 4
12 wks
August 1st, 2017
2 Wo
UAT
1
U
AT
2
UA
T
3
Bug fixing 1 Bug fixing 2 Bug fixing 3
UAT Bug
fixing
Final
delivery
Y wks
Go Live
Final UAT
September 2018
Customer facing “agile” process
August 1st, 2017 October 31st, 2017
1 2 3 4 5 6
Internal agile process with 2-weeks sprints, 6 per phase
1 year
3 months
Re-test bug fixing
of former phase

33. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 33
Roles and Responsibilites in Scrum
ScrumMaster
Product Owner
Scrum Team
StakeholdersSponsor
Business AnalystProject Manager
Source: Watermark Learning

34. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 34
• Detailed Business Analysis of the processes
and products in scope
• Business Requirements / Scope
• Solution concept
• Business Case / Budget release
• Project Initiation and Goal Definition
• Planning and Execution
• Validating the solution
• Project Closure
Project Management goes agile

35. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 35
• Detailed Business Analysis of the processes
and products in scope
• Business Requirements / Scope
• Solution concept
• Business Case / Budget release
• Project Initiation and Goal Definition
• Agile Planning and Execution
• Validating the solution
• Project Closure
Project Management goes agile

36. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 36
S1M1 M4 = Go LiveM3M2
Plan
Design
Develop
Test
Plan
Design
Develop
Test
Plan
Design
Develop
Test
Plan
Design
Develop
Test
Plan
Design
Develop
Test
Plan
Design
Develop
Test
Plan
Design
Develop
Test
Project 1
Project 2
Project 3
SIT
&
UAT
Reporting between Micro- and Macro Layers
Reports/
Deliverables
Program
(Macro view)
AGILITY
AGILITY
AGILITY

37. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 37
Roles and Responsibilites in Scrum
ScrumMaster
Product Owner
Scrum Team
StakeholdersSponsor
Business AnalystProject Manager
Source: Watermark Learning

38. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 38
The key
stakeholder in
Business:
the Product Owner

39. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 39
The Dilemma of the Part-Time-PO
A Product Owner from Business
can hardly dedicate 100% of his
capacity to the project
Usually, the day-to-day business
has priority
Product Owners from the
Business are often lacking
experiences and skills in agile
projects
Orientation is difficult

40. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 40
The PO-Team
(an example) I am the
Lead PO
I am a
Business
Analyst
I am a
Dev SME
The Lead PO from the
Business has the final say re.
the value-oriented
prioritization
The Business Analyst
manages the Backlog
The Business Analyst
formulates User Stories and
Acceptance Criteria
The Development Subject
Matter Expert gives advice
re. technical dependencies,
feasibility and risk

41. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 41
The PO-Team makes it
The Lead Product Owner will be
supported by a Business Analyst
re. the following tasks:
 Defining user roles and personas
 Eliciting requirements from stakeholders and users
 Defining user stories and acceptance tests
 Helping the PO prioritize and manage the Product Backlog
 Facilitating user story workshops
 Building requirements runway for upcoming iterations
 Identifying themes for releases
 Contributing to release and iteration planning
 Identifying and estimating business analysis tasks
 Analyzing business and technical impacts of requirements
BA

42. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 42
Summary
Waterfall and Agile are no black and white alternatives, but
building blocks of a modern, hybrid Project Management
Phases, Releases and Iterations should be tailored to the needs
of the projects
Program-, Portfolio- or Macro Management shall give the agile
Micro Management the necessary freedom in order to exploit
the potentials and mitigate the risks
The Product Owner from Business is the most important key
stakeholder; he needs help, e.g. from a Business Analyst

43. Robust Hybrid rather than Waterfall – June 2017 43
Next German BA event in 2017
Frank Boos,
Dipl.-Wirtschaftsmath.
Prof. Dr.
Giampiero Beroggi
Dr. Philipp S. Müller
Industry General Manager
Stefan Marc Wagner,
Design Thinking Coach
Oliver Lehmann,
M.Sc., PMP, CLI-CA
http://www.business-analyse-summit.com

44. 1ST EUROPEAN DAY OF
BUSINESS ANALYSIS
A future without borders in a digital world
Frankfurt am Main, Eschborn, May 17th-18th, 2018
www.ba-day.com