Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [kanbandev] BVI was MMF

Expand Messages
  • Eb
    Thanks for the clarification. Happy New Year! ... -- blog: http://eikonne.wordpress.com twitter: http://twitter.com/eikonne
    Message 1 of 135 , Jan 1, 2011
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks for the clarification.  Happy New Year!

      On 01/01/2011 01:24 AM, Alan Shalloway wrote:

      Actually, MVFs are used as a intermediate between the product managers and product owners.  In other words, after the business capabilities are decided on, the MVFs are ways to get there.  But this is still a somewhat business driven approach.  Agile is more about discovering what value is there than it is the process of building it in my mind.

       

      Teams get involved by explaining costs and dependencies to the business stakeholders but should not be making decisions on the order of things otherwise.  This being said, there are times when the driver will be technical issues. But that doesn’t happen too often.

       

      Alan Shalloway, CEO, Sr. Consultant, Net Objectives
      Author of Lean-Agile Software Development, Design Patterns Explained, Lean-Agile Pocket Guide for Scrum Teams
      425-269-8991 @alshalloway (twitter)

       

      From: kanbandev@yahoogroups.com [mailto:kanbandev@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Eb
      Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 12:03 PM
      To: kanbandev@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [kanbandev] BVI was MMF

       

       

      Alan -

      Do you use MVFs to facilitate incremental/iterative development within the team?  So in otherwords, MMFs would be customer driven, whereas MVFs are dev team driven?

      Thanks.

      Eb

      On 12/31/2010 12:47 PM, Alan Shalloway wrote:

      I actually like BVI better, but don’t mind the poor naming of the MMF.  I talk about what does ‘marketing’ mean?  The misnomer can actually be an opening for a conversation.

       

      We currently use a two tier approach:

      1)      MMF (value actually delivered)

      2)      Minimum Valuable Feature (MVF)

      MVF does not imply deployment, but rather the smallest thing to build which has value in building it.  This is in the lean-startup concept – build something as the next step of discovery.  In other words we build MMFs (or BVIs)  by building the appropriate MVFs to aid our discovery. Sometimes we’ll discover an MVF can be released and is actually an MMF/BVI.

       

      What do you think of MBVI (minimum BVI)?  I do think the minimum part of it is important.

      Also, need to convey that it is worth the transaction cost.  Not sure how BVI does that.

       

      Alan Shalloway, CEO, Sr. Consultant, Net Objectives
      Author of Lean-Agile Software Development, Design Patterns Explained, Lean-Agile Pocket Guide for Scrum Teams
      425-269-8991 @alshalloway (twitter)

       

      From: kanbandev@yahoogroups.com [mailto:kanbandev@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Matts
      Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 3:17 AM
      To: kanbandev@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [kanbandev] BVI was MMF

       

       

      Dear All

      A few years ago I intriduced the concept of the Business Value Increment ( BVI ) into this group. Unfortunately I chose the name MMF ( Minimum Marketable Feature ). Over the past year I have been using BVI ( invented by Julian Everett ) instead. It has been warmly embraced by one project without the baggage of the MMF name. The BVI is what we are trying to achieve, it is what drives the analysis process. The minimum set of features required to deliver the BVI is what comes out of the Analysis process. MMF is clearly the wrong term for both of these. The word marketable being irrelevant in many projects.

      Someone mentioned that there are those out there who object to the idea of the BVI. Not the name, but the concept. Unfortunately the BVI means that the work is not all the same size. The BVI disrupts flow. Unfortunately the BVI is a fact of life if your aim is to deliver value.

      I would be keen to hear what people think of the following.

      1. Can we finally retire MMF and replace it with BVI?

      2. Does anyone feel we should retire the concept of the BVI. If so, how?

      Happy New Year to all.

      Chris




      -- 
      blog: http://eikonne.wordpress.com
      twitter: http://twitter.com/eikonne



      -- 
      blog: http://eikonne.wordpress.com
      twitter: http://twitter.com/eikonne
    • Helen Wu
      Hi, Paul. Here is an interesting example to illustrate the theories and practices go in parallel. Dr. Wang, who had his PhD. in 1973 from Johns Hopkins U., had
      Message 135 of 135 , Jan 14, 2011
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi, Paul.

        Here is an interesting example to illustrate the theories and practices go in parallel.

        Dr. Wang, who had his PhD. in 1973 from Johns Hopkins U., had brought up his novel theory on human circulation system against convertional one, in which blood circulation starts from the heart and abide by fluid mechnical principles.

        Dr. Wang showed that the blood circulation cannot be adquently explained by such principles, i.e., forces generated by hearts' pumping are not sole source for human circulation system. Consequently, he invented a serious diagonstics and treatments based on his theory.

        Thanks,
        Helen


        --- On Sun, 1/9/11, Helen Wu <bhwu98@...> wrote:

        > From: Helen Wu <bhwu98@...>
        > Subject: Re: [kanbandev] Re: Incremental Change - How?
        > To: kanbandev@yahoogroups.com
        > Date: Sunday, January 9, 2011, 7:46 PM
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >  
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Hi,
        > Paul. Perhaps, I should follow your saying closely in
        > presenting different point of view. Perhaps, my simpler way
        > of explaining the difference between your view and mine is
        > not good enough. Here I am copying yours with my comments as
        > follows.
        >
        > <<
        > We all knew that the good teams did well and the poor teams
        > did badly
        > despite following the standard, and the best indicator of
        > success was
        > the proficiency of the teams themselves. But the corporate
        > belief system
        > was such that they wanted to believe in the standard and
        > treat the
        > people like they were interchangeable resources and less
        > important.
        >
        >
        >
        > Having had this experience, you can see why I'm a bit
        > uncomfortable with
        > the language :)
        >
        >
        >
        > BTW. Agile provides a way out of this problem. You can
        > judge a team on
        > their results, leaving them to decide on practice. If they
        > perform badly
        > then you can invest in the people or use some other
        > de-risking
        > mechanism. The main difference though is you are seeing the
        > people as
        > the system and not the process/standards. And of course
        > there is nothing
        > to stop your people documenting a tool box of favourite
        > practices born
        > out of past experiences.
        > >>
        >
        > my point of asking your opinions in your understanding of
        > Cynefin is because I know that people are different and our
        > preference in accepting terminologies vary.
        > Fortunately, in practical matter, the measurements of a
        > result exist, however vague and variously. We may not agree
        > with what is precisely simple or complicated or complex.
        > That is, the cutting line between good practice and best
        > practice in terms of Cynefin may vary.  We do agree
        > that our understanding of the world we live in and our
        > practices in this environment is constantly improving. 
        > Based on such understanding, I basically agree with what you
        > have said here even though I don't see the power of
        > expressiveness in Cynefin as you do.
        >
        >
        > Thanks,
        > Helen
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > --- On Sun, 1/9/11, Helen Wu
        > <bhwu98@...> wrote:
        >
        > From: Helen Wu <bhwu98@...>
        > Subject: Re: [kanbandev] Re: Incremental Change - How?
        > To: kanbandev@yahoogroups.com
        > Date: Sunday, January 9, 2011, 10:50 AM
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >  
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Hi, Paul. I see what you mean. Here is what I
        > differ from your understanding of this set of
        > terminologies.
        >
        > To me, practice means to practice on anything that can be
        > experimental. For example, string theory is not experimental
        > yet. Creationist theory is not experimental. Among things
        > that can be experimental, there are unknown, knowable,
        > known. I don't believe that there are unknowable in
        > theory or in practice. Though, there are plenty things that
        > not practical, for example,  visiting another galaxy in
        > person is impractical.
        >
        > when you match your world experience with
        > knowable(complicated) and know(simple), you must mean to us
        > the human beings as a whole (i.e., not counting the
        > individual differences.) In this sense, our practice (good
        > or best) is improving constantly without disruption by the
        > radical changes we have experienced
        > in theory, from
        > Aristotle physics to Newtonian physics to Einstein physics
        > to .... I don't believe that the string theory or any
        > other possible theory can succeed without any practical
        > value.
        >
        > On the other hand, practices based on experimental have
        > plenty unknowns, such as medicine, one can never say it is
        > simple especially it deals with human body. Our
        > experimentation on our body never stops for its practical
        > value. Though, our knowledge of brain is a lot less
        > experimental until recently and our understanding of it is
        > at a rather primitive level.
        >
        > Does the saying "the best is the enemy of the
        > better" make sense to you. How does it fit into
        > Cynefin? How about this: the complex to one is the simple to
        > the other.
        >
        > Thanks,
        > Helen
        >
        >
        > --- On Sun, 1/9/11, PAUL
        > <beckfordp@...> wrote:
        >
        > From: PAUL
        > <beckfordp@...>
        > Subject: [kanbandev] Re: Incremental Change - How?
        > To: kanbandev@yahoogroups.com
        > Date: Sunday, January 9, 2011, 6:13 AM
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >  
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Hi Helen,
        >
        > --- In kanbandev@yahoogroups.com,
        > Helen Wu <bhwu98@...> wrote:
        >
        > >
        >
        > > Does Cynefin make sense to you?
        >
        >
        >
        > Yes it does. It fits my real world experience. It helps to
        > make sense of the known (simple), the knowable (complicated)
        > , the unknown (complex), and the unknowable (chaotic).
        >
        >
        >
        > It is about making sense of the world around you. As Alan
        > Shalloway rightly points out, we experience all four of
        > these things when trying to make sense of software
        > development.
        >
        >
        >
        > Newtonian science is a reductionist approach, where we
        > analyse and decompose problems in an attempt to make them
        > known or at least knowable. This is what I think Alan B Is
        > speaking about.
        >
        >
        >
        > >>if so, what's the difference between good
        > practice and best practice?
        >
        >
        >
        > As I understand it, good practice is the result of
        > analysis. Here we rely on experts to do some analysis of the
        > problem and come up with a practice that is good enough. So
        > when things are knowable we go get expert advice. Best
        > practice is where there is a commonly accepted best way of
        > doing things. Here we just need to categorise our problem.
        > Once we identify the correct category (e.g. changing a
        > wheel), we just need to go get the right instructions (car
        > maintenance manual). No analysis or expert needed. Now I
        > could be wrong, but this is what I understand as standard
        > work. Our current understanding of best practice, which we
        > hope to improve and optimise using PDCA over time. Workers
        > following work instructions (standard work).
        >
        >
        >
        > In software we also have the unknowable. I can't know
        > in advance that our chosen web framework is going to turn
        > out to be a pain to work with. I can't know in advance
        > that the customers aren't going to like the UI they
        > asked for and will change their minds. I can't know in
        > advance that the architecture I had in mind, will not flex
        > in the ways I hoped. No amount of analysis can predict these
        > things. So what I need to do is adapt my practice as I go
        > along.
        >
        >
        >
        > I can't stick with the web framework, because it is the
        > corporate standard. What I can do is adapt my practice in
        > light of feedback. This is what I think Cynefin means by
        > emergent practice. Breaking away from the script.
        >
        >
        >
        > Classical Scientific Management doesn't acknowledge the
        > unknown or the unknowable, yet both exist in abundance
        > within our corporate domains.
        >
        >
        >
        > In the creative professions they accept the unknown, and
        > provide people with the skills and the freedom to address
        > it. This is what I am advocating. I have worked with a lot
        > of standards, I have used PDCA to improve standards, the
        > problem I faced with standards was that applying the
        > standard didn't necessarilly lead to good results. The
        > problem was all those unknowns (which incidentally was the
        > problem when trying to apply PDCA too). So we made the
        > standard more detailed and elaborate to address knowable
        > unknowns, yet all we succeeded in doing was burdening the
        > teams with increasing overhead (waste).
        >
        >
        >
        > We all knew that the good teams did well and the poor teams
        > did badly despite following the standard, and the best
        > indicator of success was the proficiency of the teams
        > themselves. But the corporate belief system was such that
        > they wanted to believe in the standard and treat the people
        > like they were interchangeable resources and less
        > important.
        >
        >
        >
        > Having had this experience, you can see why I'm a bit
        > uncomfortable with the language :)
        >
        >
        >
        > BTW. Agile provides a way out of this problem. You can
        > judge a team on their results, leaving them to decide on
        > practice. If they perform badly then you can invest in the
        > people or use some other de-risking mechanism. The main
        > difference though is you are seeing the people as the system
        > and not the process/standards. And of course there is
        > nothing to stop your people documenting a tool box of
        > favourite practices born out of past experiences.
        >
        >
        >
        > This is not the same as standard work IMHO. Standard work
        > implies is a different mindset for me.
        >
        >
        >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        > >> Does best practice exist in medicine? If so, how
        > do we explain antibody?
        >
        >
        >
        > No idea you'll have to ask a doctor :)
        >
        >
        >
        > Regards,
        >
        >
        >
        > Paul.
        >
        > > --- On Sat, 1/8/11, PAUL <beckfordp@...> wrote:
        >
        > >
        >
        > > From: PAUL <beckfordp@...>
        >
        > > Subject: [kanbandev] Re: Incremental Change - How?
        >
        > > To: kanbandev@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > > Date: Saturday, January 8, 2011, 8:16 PM
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >  
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > Hi Alan,
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > Hello, Alan. On Saturday, January 8, 2011, at
        > 3:14:19 PM, you
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > wrote:
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > > However, with talk like "Making me
        > interchangeable with anyone else" and
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > > standards are bad, you sound like a cowboy
        > coder. You'll do it your way, it
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > > will work, and nobody and nothing should
        > interfere.
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > > This strikes me as a bit discourteous in tone
        > ...
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > Yes. I should avoid writing in the first person. Dean
        > mentioned ontology. For simple problems that can be easily
        > categorised, you can determine standard work which defines
        > repeatable steps that will reliably deliver a high quality
        > results (causality). This is effectively de-skilling the
        > work. Cause and effect is well known and we are in the realm
        > of best practice.
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > Not a new idea. This is what henry Ford did. Getting
        > rid of craftsmen and replacing them with cheap immigrant
        > labour. Some people believe that software development lies
        > on the edge of chaos. Here there is no causality, so you
        > can't simply categorise problems, and there is no best
        > practice. Instead there is emergent practice.
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > Standards are a form of best practice in my
        > experience. Not well suited to software.
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > This was the point I was trying to make:
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > Regards,
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > Paul.
        >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.