Tag Archives: User stories

Applying Agile principles to requirement analysis

23 May

Background

The Agile methodology originated within the software development industry. Since its inception in 2001 – Agile has expanded beyond an initial developer-centric community – to being embraced by multi-discipline teams working across numerous industries.

The antecedent of Agile within IT was the Waterfall methodology. The Waterfall framework consisted of a series of sequential, discrete phases – with each phase conveniently mapped to a role/responsibly:

Analysis Phase             -> Requirement Analysis (Business Analysts/Product Owners)

Design Phase                -> UX (Designers/Usability Experts)

Development Phase  -> Software Development (Developers)

Testing Phase               -> QA (Manual Testers and Developers in Test)

Delivery Phase             -> Release Management (Project Managers)

Due to the increasing popularity of Agile – requirement analysis has been encouraged to transition from being a stand-alone phase owned by BAs/POs – to become a project facet that can incorporate Agile principles.

In what ways can requirement analysis adopt Agile principles?

Collaborative requirement analysis

Prior to Agile – the practice of the development team being presented with an upfront, non-negotiable, detailed requirements document (BRD/functional specification etc) was common. With the advent of Agile – requirement analysis should no longer be restricted to the interaction between BAs/POs and the business – instead we should embrace collaborative requirement analysis:

A popular collaborative requirement technique is the “3 Amigos”.  This process involves the developer, BA and QA discussing the requirement specification in a workshop. Each Amigo will offer a unique perspective – through discussions the Amigos will identify edge cases, undefined requirements, opportunities and potential reuse. The 3 Amigos technique can also reduce the risk of incomplete features being pushed into development by the product team – requirement specifications must be pulled into development when they have been reviewed and accepted by the 3 Amigos.

Collaborative requirement analysis facilitates a project-wide sense of ownership – and also communicates a common understanding of what features need to be built. Collaborative requirement analysis produces more robust specifications – and reduces the role-based silos that can exist on projects.

Detail as an emergent property

Agile artefacts such as technical spikes and development iterations mean that high-level requirements can be considered sufficient at project initiation. Low fidelity requirement assets (e.g. user stories /”back of the napkin” designs) should be employed on Agile projects:

Just-in-time requirements analysis (JITRA) has a concept that requirements should only be specified at the level of detail required for upcoming development. JITRA states that the further in advance of development requirements are defined – the more probable that requirements will become out of date, leading to rework and wasted effort.

Detail should emerge when it is required – which is typically towards the middle/end of the project lifecycle. Initial requirement analysis should be focussed on business justification and solution scope.

Embrace change

Specifications will evolve throughout the project lifecycle; all team members must acknowledge the benefit of responding to change. Adapting to changes in circumstances/urgency/understanding is crucial – requirement analysis should be considered an iterative rather than exhaustive process:

In terms of systems theory – project teams should be viewed as open systems. As the system will tend towards a steady state – change should be encouraged and communicated at an organisational level. Regular priority sessions, stakeholder workshops and competitor reviews should be used to mitigate resistance to change.

Incorporating feedback is crucial to the success of a project. Requirements are not unchangeable statements – they only reflect the current and expected situation, both of which are liable to change.

Necessary documentation

The adoption of Agile principles does not mean that requirements should not be documented. Requirement documentation is vital for developers, QA and the business stakeholders:

The principle of living documentation should be embraced. This means that all documentation needs to be accessible and up-to date. Business users, developers and QA should be able to request requirement changes. Documentation is most valuable when it is understandable by all team members, available and responsive to change.

Lightweight documentation such as feature files and high level process maps summarise the output of the requirement analysis process. The Agile methodology encourages appropriate documentation – superfluous detail is wasted effort; Agile does not negate documentation.

Continuous process improvement

Requirement processes should not be viewed as immovable obstacles. Instead these processes should evolve and adapt to meet the needs of the project. Where a process or artefact ceases to produce the expected value –it should be reviewed and changed by a self-organising team:

Retrospectives are a popular technique for identifying improvement opportunities. Team members meet to discuss what the team needs start doing, stop doing, and continue doing. Regular (every 2/3 weeks) and actionable retrospectives provide an open forum for continuous process improvement.

Requirement analysis processes (to-be-analysis, process mapping, stakeholder workshops etc) can always be improved. A technique that is effective for one team – may not be effective for another – or at least may require several modifications.

Continuous delivery

The Agile methodology promotes product iterations and regular releases. In order to align with this ethos, requirement analysis must produce a constant output – a steady flow of requirements will avoid the “big bang” requirement delivery that characterised the Waterfall methodology:

Minimum Viable Product (MVP) provides the scope of requirement analysis. The MVP will be delivered in multiple iterations – requirement analysis must be constantly baselined against the MVP and ensure that there is a sufficient specification available for each delivery.

Shorter delivery timescales encourages more frequent requirement analysis output. Specifications should be aligned to the MVP – features need to be deliverable and contribute to the MVP vision.

Conclusion

Iterative, collaborative Agile development has replaced the sequential Waterfall development methodology. Prior to Agile – the product team could hand over a list of detailed requirements – which would then be used by developers to build the product. In order to align requirement analysis with Agile development practices – the following principles need to be applied: requirement collaboration, iterative specifications, embracing change, necessary documentation, continuous improvement and continuous delivery. By adopting these principles requirement analysis will transition into the Agile world, produce better specifications and ultimately lead to greater quality products.

Advertisements

User stories – WHO wants them, WHAT are they, WHY use them?

9 Feb

WHO wants user stories?

  • Project stakeholders: these individuals want an easy method to pin ideas to the product backlog. With user stories ideas don’t need to be defined in detail – the user story will provide a “placeholder for a conversation”.
  • The end user: teams that are able to elicit requirements directly from end users can use this technique to facilitate the discussion and documentation of feature requests. What does the user want to do? Why?
  • Project Manager/Product Owner: when grooming the product backlog – user stories are much easier to prioritise than detailed requirement specifications. User stories provide a non-technical, concise summary for the product team to decide the primacy of a feature.

WHAT are user stories?

  • Definition: User stories describe the desired interaction/dialogue between a user and the system. User stories provide the user’s rationale for a feature.
  • Typical format:
    • AS A [actor/user role] – this can be referred to as the WHO section. Who wants this feature? The user could be a generic actor (e.g. AS A user of the website), or a specific user role (e.g. AS A frequent business traveller), or even another system (AS A BACS payment system). Actors can be identified by internal discussions within the project team – identifying user roles may require more sophisticated analysis (e.g. profiling activities by the marketing department, transaction analysis, industry segmentations etc).
    • I WANT [feature/action] – this can be referred to as the WHAT section. What does the user want? The user will typically want the system to perform a new behaviour e.g. I WANT  the ability to track an order, I WANT to pay for orders using an AMEX card, I WANT to cancel an order without any hassle.
    • SO THAT [benefit] – this can be referred to as the WHY section. Why does a user want this functionality? This section provides the justification/benefit of the feature.
    • Characteristics of good user stories: the INVEST acronym is frequently used to describe attributes of a good user story:
      • Independent
      • Negotiable
      • Valuable / Vertical
      • Estimable
      • Sized Appropriately / Small
      • Testable

WHY use user stories?

  • Requirements as an emergent property: user stories provide the Business Analyst with a springboard for analysis. A single user story (e.g. AS A price sensitive user, I WANT to be able to cancel my order, SO THAT I do not get charged by the bank for exceeding their overdraft limit) can lead to multiple scenarios for the BA. What is the happy path of this user story? What are the edge cases (e.g. what if some of the items are in the sale)? What are the business rules (e.g. full refunds are only provided up to 3 days from when the transaction was processed)? Requirements should emerge from user stories  (not vice versa) – all requirements should have a user justification.
  • Maintenance of the backlog: the detail of a feature is abstracted a level below user stories. In addition – user stories should have few/no dependencies (refer to the INVEST acronym) – this means that user stories are lightweight additions to the product backlog and are therefore easy to maintain.
  • Available for discussion: user stories should be understandable by business users/end users/developers/all team members. User stories facilitate cross-role discussions and encourage open communication between various project sillos.
  • Trees and forests: Working at a detailed level can occasionally mean that some requirements are not identified. User stories provide a way to mitigate the probability that user journeys are missed by the team.