Feature Prioritization Rmpdma Public

Property of Roundarch Isobar. Privileged & confiden;al. Property of Roundarch Isobar. Privileged & confiden;al. Property of Roundarch Isobar. Privileged & confiden;al. Property of Roundarch Isobar. Privileged & confiden;al. Property of Roundarch Isobar. Privileged & confiden;al. 1 Property of Roundarch Isobar. Privileged & confiden;al. 1 Property of Roundarch Isobar. Privileged & confiden;al. 1 Property of Roundarch Isobar. Privileged & confiden;al. 1 Property of Roundarch Isobar. Privileged & confiden;al. 1 Property of Roundarch Isobar. Privileged & confiden;al. 1

Priori%zing Features Brennon Mar%n, Project Manager

October 18, 2012

* With sincere thanks to Rob Bischoff, Teal Walker and Stephanie Oran for their contribu;ons

Property of Roundarch Isobar. Privileged & confiden;al. Property of Roundarch Isobar. Privileged & confiden;al. Property of Roundarch Isobar. Privileged & confiden;al. Property of Roundarch Isobar. Privileged & confiden;al. Property of Roundarch Isobar. Privileged & confiden;al. 2 2 2 2 2 2

Agenda

•  Feature Priori;za;on in Context •  Process Overview •  Case Studies

RMPDMA | Priori;zing Features | October 18, 2012

Property of Roundarch Isobar. Privileged & confiden;al. Property of Roundarch Isobar. Privileged & confiden;al. Property of Roundarch Isobar. Privileged & confiden;al. Property of Roundarch Isobar. Privileged & confiden;al. Property of Roundarch Isobar. Privileged & confiden;al. Property of Roundarch Isobar. Privileged & confiden;al. 3 Property of Roundarch Isobar. Privileged & confiden;al. 3 Property of Roundarch Isobar. Privileged & confiden;al. 3 Property of Roundarch Isobar. Privileged & confiden;al. 3 3

Feature Priori%za%on in Context


LEVEL SETTING ON TERMS Product Manager Toolkit

What is it? What is it good for? What is it NOT good for?

Scope Map High-‐level overview of system func;onality

•  Big picture overview of features and func;ons •  Organiza;on and codifica;on of requirements categories

•  Implementa;on-‐level detail • Managing minor scope creep



COMMON, BUT NOT NECESSARILY UBIQUITOUS, ELEMENTS Scope Map Samples

•  Visual organiza;on of features into categories (and some;mes subcategories) •  Color coding and tagging –  Phasing –  In Scope/Out of Scope –  Team responsibility –  New vs. refactored features

•  Legend








Road Map Phased strategic implementa;on plan

•  Summary-‐level communica;on of a long-‐term release plan •  Organiza;on of interconnected, inter-‐dependent threads of work

•  Detailed release planning •  Seeng schedules “in stone”



Road Map Sample

2012 Q4 2013 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 Voyager 4.1 Upgrade

CMS Platform

Technology Foundations Projects

Online Account Origination (Revamped)

Design / Functionality Projects

Remote Deposit Capture

P2P/A2A Transfers

Mobile/Tablet Upgrades (TBD) How can we shift this timeframe?

Customer Communications

Website Responsive Redesign

Basic PFM

Operational Foundations Projects

Program Governance

Personnel Planning

Customer Analytics

SEO/SEM

Customer Database (OLB and website) Customer Database (CRM Ready)

Comm. Lending Tablet

Voyager 3.2.5 Reskinning Voyager 4.1/4.2 Skinning New OLB Features

Voyager 4.2?








Road Map Phased strategic implementa;on plan

•  Summary-‐level communica;on of a long-‐term release plan •  Organiza;on of interconnected, inter-‐dependent threads of work

•  Detailed release planning •  Seeng schedules “in stone”

Feature Priori%za%on Framework

Scoring model for objec;ve feature ranking

•  Providing balance to an otherwise wholly subjec;ve ranking of features •  Ensuring a mul;-‐faceted approach to the weighing of op;ons •  Gathering organiza;onal consensus

•  Complete replacement of human judgment



Process Overview


Feature Priori%za%on Process Overview

Document and consolidate poten;al features into a single feature matrix

Rate features and capabili;es from both an IT readiness and a business Value

perspec;ve

Extract priori;zed features into a product scope map that will drive design

Document Priori%ze Synthesize

PLAN

ACT CONSIDER

Business Value

IT R

eadi

ness

Low

Hig

h

High

DEFER

Ready to deliver and high business value make these integral product features for a 1st release

Low hanging fruit that can be quickly baked into product

Low readiness and business value implies these features are easy to defer or queue to lowest priority

Important features that require considerable ;me/resources to deliver and need a plan to address

Technical Team

How complex, time consuming

and resource intensive is delivery of a

particular feature

Business Team

How desirable is a particular feature

from an user adoption,

differentiation and parity perspective



A More Detailed Look at the Process

1.  Iden;fy the feature set to be considered 2.  Determine the criteria by which features will be evaluated 3.  Select a scoring mechanism 4.  Define the set of stakeholders who will par;cipate 5.  Collect feature scoring data 6.  Synthesize data and analyze results 7.  Iden;fy outlier data points 8.  Package conclusions for presenta;on 9.  Be ready to defend conclusions that are not supported by the data 10.  Create roadmap and release strategy



1. Iden%fy the feature set to be considered

•  Exis;ng product backlog •  Compe;;ve gap analysis •  Customer support data •  Sales team requests • User research •  Stakeholder interviews •  Execu;ve visions

•  Remember also to iden;fy the features that will NOT be considered –  Compe;;ve requirements / must-‐have features –  End-‐of-‐life items



Where does feature priori%za%on fit in the product planning process?

•  Level 1 –  Level 2

o Level 3   Level 4

»  Level 5



2. Determine the criteria by which features will be evaluated

•  “Business priority” (vaguely defined) •  Alignment with strictly defined strategic goals •  Financial ROI •  Risk reduc;on

•  Feasibility is a cri;cal piece of the puzzle. –  The ques;on is WHEN do you factor it in – during the desirability scoring process or in a parallel, but separate process?

Requires advance knowledge of implementa;on feasibility



3. Select a scoring mechanism

• High, medium, low –  “Group features into three buckets.”

•  Forced rank ordering –  “List features in order of importance. There can be no ;es.”

•  Virtual budget assignment –  “You have $1.00 to spend on purchasing features, and you can spend that $1.00 any way you wish.”

• Weighted criteria aggrega;on –  “For each of the following criteria, evaluate each feature according to the scoring rules indicated.”



Weighted Criteria Aggrega%on

• Weigh%ng Rela;ve importance of each criterion –  Each criterion assigned a frac;on –  Total of all criteria weights should equal 1.0

•  Scores Values on which final ranking will be based –  Raw score –  Weighted score

• Priori%za%on Criteria Factors that will be considered in feature ranking –  Alignment with strategic impera;ves –  Customer demand –  “Wow factor” –  New revenue poten;al –  Compe;;ve differen;a;on –  Etc.

•  Scoring Rules Provide detailed explana;on of how to evaluate each criterion Compe;;ve Differen;a;on –  0 = commodi;zed; everyone has it –  1 = common but not ubiquitous –  2 = rare –  3 = highly differen;a;ng

A PRIMER



A SIMPLE EXAMPLE Weighted Criteria Aggrega%on



4. Define the set of stakeholders who will par%cipate

•  Sales, marke;ng, execu;ves, etc. •  Customers • Users •  Partners

•  The right answer depends on… –  The poli;cal climate of your organiza;on –  The breadth of opinions that you want to consider –  The compe;;ve sensi;vity of the feature set you are considering –  Your ;meline



5. Collect feature scoring data

• Homework assignments •  Stakeholder interviews • Group stakeholder workshops –  Consensus scoring vs. dedicated-‐;me individual scoring

•  Combina;on approaches are perfectly legi;mate •  Effort es;mates and feasibility should be evaluated by the technology team in a parallel effort



6. Synthesize data and analyze results 7. Iden%fy outlier data points

•  Each scoring mechanism involves a quan;fica;on of stakeholder opinions, so mathema;cal analysis techniques can be applied (averaging, ranking, etc.) –  Pro: lends extra degree of legi;macy to results –  Con: can give a false sense of legi;macy if you s;nk at math –  Con: can lead to analysis paralysis if you are really good at math

•  Remember that the methodology is not meant to be a total subs;tute for sound judgment – you the Product Manager are s;ll accountable for the decisions that are made.



8. Package conclusions for presenta%on 9. Be ready to defend conclusions that are not supported by the data 10. Create roadmap and release strategy

• Updated, ranked product backlog •  Preliminary release themes •  Scaser plot matrices

• Don’t forget to bring must-‐have features back into the story, if removed earlier •  Feasibility must be factored in at this point to avoid selling what you can’t deliver •  Consider having compe;;ve assessments ready for simultaneous delivery •  Expect confusion

!"#$%&&'($

)&**+,-./0&,$%&&'($

1+2-3$4$5-(3&67$

8&.+*9,3$:3&6/;9$

<&/,$#/,/;9*9,3$

=9*&39$89>&(-3$

:.?92+'-,;$

"+,2($%6/,(@96$

)/(?$"'&A$#/,/;9*9,3$"6/+2$!6&39.0&,$

!"#$%&'$($)*+

,$-.+

,$-.+/01+/01+

2"&#$'$($)*+

1..&+,3$1.0B-37$1'963($

#96.?/,3$:96B-.9($

C'9.36&,-.$<&.DE&F$

:-,;'9$:-;,GH,$

I,396,/0&,/'$J/,D-,;$

J&&D$%6/,(@96$

)&,36&''92$8-(E+6(9*9,3$

%6/,(/.0&,$#;*3$

!/76&''$)/62($

hsp://dexautoma;on.com/googlechartgenerator.php



DOES FEATURE PRIORITIZATION EVER NOT WORK? Key Challenges

• Garbage-‐in / Garbage-‐out –  The ranking is only as good as the scoring

•  Analysis Paralysis –  At some point, decisions must be made; feature priori;za;on results are not always 100% clear and there is always one

more way to slice and dice the data

• Overly Complex Matrix –  Don’t overcomplicate the matrix; stakeholders need to be able to understand the results

•  Showcase of Results • Geeng Buy In •  Timeline



Feature Priori%za%on Process Overview

Document and consolidate poten;al features into a single feature matrix

Rate features and capabili;es from both an IT readiness and a business Value

perspec;ve

Extract priori;zed features into a product scope map that will drive design

Document Priori%ze Synthesize

PLAN

ACT CONSIDER

Business Value

IT R

eadi

ness

Low

Hig

h

High

DEFER

Ready to deliver and high business value make these integral product features for a 1st release

Low hanging fruit that can be quickly baked into product

Low readiness and business value implies these features are easy to defer or queue to lowest priority

Important features that require considerable ;me/resources to deliver and need a plan to address

Technical Team

How complex, time consuming

and resource intensive is delivery of a

particular feature

Business Team

How desirable is a particular feature

from an user adoption,

differentiation and parity perspective



Case Studies


LARGE PRIVATE BANK Priori%za%on Project Snapshot

• Overview –  Created a mul; release roadmap over 2 years –  Applica;on design and development –  Work was tabled due to change in business plan –  No defined target release date; more concerned with levels of func;onality available for each release

•  Priori;za;on approach –  Primary feature iden;fier: Roundarch Isobar –  Scoring methodology: Separated “Core” features that were necessity in the offering, and then had stakeholders purchase

addi;onal features – done in absence of tech LOE –  Matrix comple;on: Completed solely by client –  Addi;onal Calcula;ons: Weighted results by proximity to user and level in organiza;on –  Packaging of results: detailed results presenta;on and LOE workshops

•  Post mortem –  Led to a detailed LOE breakdown and roadmap –  Pised business and tech against each other during the roadmap discussions as expecta;ons were already set coming out of

priori;za;on



LARGE PRIVATE BANK Sample Results



MID-‐SIZE RETAIL AND BUSINESS BANK Priori%za%on Project Snapshot

• Overview –  Concept design phase for complete overhaul of online banking system –  Previous release strategy largely delivered by vendor priori;es –  Client now wants to own the user experience

•  Priori;za;on approach –  Primary feature iden;fier: Roundarch Isobar –  Scoring methodology: Weighted desirability and feasibility criteria –  Matrix comple;on: Client workshop –  Packaging of results: 2x2 grids by line of business

•  Post mortem –  Methodology well received by client sponsors but poorly understood by some stakeholders –  Approach was a bit too complex; simplifica;on would have helped



US GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION Priori%za%on Project Snapshot

• Overview –  11 year rela;onship –  Applica;on design and development for the Logis;cs Repor;ng and Asset Tracking –  Mul;ple releases per capability

•  Priori;za;on approach –  Primary feature iden;fier: Roundarch Isobar –  Scoring methodology: H,M,L Ranking or 1 – x priori;za;on –  Matrix comple;on: Client w/o Roundarch Isobar support –  Packaging of results: Summarized list of features with cost es;mates

•  Post mortem –  Without Roundarch Isobar involvement, clarity is not provided –  Approach is not detailed enough; client buy-‐in to a new approach is necessary. Happy medium between details we need

and what they are willing to support is needed.



DIGITAL CONTENT AND DATA PUBLISHER Priori%za%on Project Snapshot

• Overview –  Created a mul;-‐year roadmap across mul;ple business unites –  Applica;on design and development for mul;ple publishing divisions across mul;ple plaxorms –  Mul;ple releases per business line –  Had defined launch target dates for each release

•  Priori;za;on approach –  Primary feature iden;fier: Roundarch Isobar –  Scoring methodology: 1-‐4 – created with no firm understanding of technical LOE –  Matrix comple;on: Completed solely by client –  Packaging of results: Led to workshops showcasing inconsistencies across the organiza;on and anomalies in LOE/

Priori;za;on

•  Post mortem –  Approach was refined over ;me. Leads to clarity on inconsistencies from user needs and business priority and where there

was a dis;nct difference in LOE/priority


Documents

Feature Prioritization Rmpdma Public