Common Sense Project Management

Methodology

Methodologies – Quick Overview Waterfall Agile

Methodologies – Pros and ConsPure Waterfall Works well when the

requirements/specifications are well defined and stable

In theory, more deterministic in nature

Detailed planning helps map out all dependencies ahead of time – especially important when team is distributed and matrixed

Works well when team management is highly structured and process oriented

Not well suited to handle changes along the way

Testing in the very end is risky

Pure Agile Works well when requirements are not

‘ALL’ firmed up, but team can start on some

Not very deterministic on what gets delivered on <x> date or when <y> feature gets delivered

Assumes very high collaboration (co-location) between the different teams (product, design, tech, qa)

Equipped to handle changes with minimal disruption to overall flow

Assumes a more experienced self-managing team

Focus on QA from early on – good for quality

My Context - Typical Software Development Context Most of the projects start with some product idea and a somewhat firm

launch date for marketing/PR reasons or a product idea that gets tied to a date very quickly

In order to commit to a date, we will need to do some upfront scoping, estimating and planning to inform the team size, dependencies, budget, etc – So, pure Agile doesn’t work. One of the trio (scope, time, budget) needs to be fully negotiable for Agile.

Too often, we have to start a phase before the previous one ends (start development before design completes) – means need to be able to absorb changes and additions to scope – So, pure Waterfall doesn’t work.

Lot of conflicting priorities pop up – not always structured and need to be able to handle some chaos/changes along the way

Team is not always experienced at the same level - so, need to account for ramp-up and varied degrees of team management

Methodology in my context - Hybrid Need to do waterfall like upfront scoping,

estimation and planning

Need to be agile enough to absorb “some” changes along the way

Need to focus on Quality early for better quality

Need to be able to tailor the methodology to a project’s context (as needed)

Hybrid - Common Sense Methodology This is the Hybrid methodology that works in this

context. I am sure many others use this or some version of this – It is just Common Sense

Discovery UI Design

Development and QA Sprints

Tech Design

Final Testing, UAT,Launch

Tech Evaluation

UI Refinements

Sprint Sprint Sprint Sprint

DemoEval. Changes

DemoEval ChangesDemo

Evaluate changes

High Level ScopeInitial Estimate

Design Drop 2

Final Design DropDetail Scope,

Detail Estimate and PlanDesign Drop 1

Recipe for SuccessSuccessful Project Delivery =

Understand the ‘What, How, Who’ +

Solid hands-on experience in PM competencies +

Domain Experience +

Lots of Common Sense and Discipline to pick the right aspects from the prescribed ‘methodologies’

to cater to your context

Feedback Welcome Are there things I can do differently in my

context and be even more successful?