SPM14 Tools

Software Product Management Tools

Lecture 14 Garm Lucassen Sjaak Brinkkemper 3 October 2014

1

Agenda

•  Tools Tools Tools

•  Types –  Bug tracking –  Requirements management –  Product management

•  Essential tools

2

Available tools

•  Accept Ideas •  Accept Por.olio •  Accept Requirements •  Accompa •  Aha.io •  Advanced Defect Tracking •  Agile Product Lifecycle Management •  BugAware •  Bugopolis Bug StaBon •  BUGtrack •  Bugzero •  Bugzilla •  CaliberRM

3

Available Tools

•  CustomerFirst •  Defect Agent •  DOORS •  ExtraView •  Featureplan •  Focalpoint •  FogBUGZ •  IBM RaBonal ClearQuest •  icTracker •  IdeaScope •  Issue Organizer •  IssueNet Intercept

4

Available Tools

•  IssueView •  JIRA •  LegendsoQ Spots •  ManBs •  MetaQuest SoQware, Inc. -‐ Census •  New Fire SoQware •  OmniTracker •  OpBmal Trace •  OSRMT •  PointInSight •  Por.olio Manager SoQware Suite •  Primavera Por.olio Management •  ProblemTracker

5

Available Tools

•  Pivotal Tracker •  ProdPad •  ProductPlan •  R-‐Tracker •  QuickBugs •  Radar •  RaQuest •  RaBonal RequisitePro •  Razor •  ReleasePlanner •  ReqSimile •  RequisitePro •  RMTrack Bug Tracking

6

Available Tools

•  SoQware Planner •  SWBTracker •  TestTrack Pro •  Tiera SoQware Defect Manager •  Trac •  VeryBestChoice Light •  WebPTS

7

t

8

Paradox of Choice

Barry Schwartz, 2004

Agenda




9

Types

•  Bugtracking –  Appropriate for storing bugs or issues –  Simple, to the point

•  Requirements management –  Often configurable –  Requirements hierarchy

•  Product management –  Complex but advanced tools –  Supports portfolio mgmt, product planning, release

planning •  (Project management)

–  Planning, release management

10

Types






11

Types






12

Types






13

Agenda




14

Bugtracking tools

•  Many different vendors •  Quality, costs and popularity varies •  Examples:

–  Fogbugz (25-30$ pu/pm) –  Trac (Open source) –  Mantis (open source or hosted, 15 - 25$ pm) –  Bugzilla (open source)

15

Bugtracking tools

•  Many different vendors •  Quality, costs and popularity varies •  Examples:

–  Fogbugz (25-30$ pu/pm) –  Trac (Open source) –  Mantis (open source or hosted, 15 - 25$ pm) –  Bugzilla (open source)

–  Often also integrated in project planning tools such as •  Pivotal • Ubirimi •  Jira • Redmine

16

Bugtracking tools

•  Many different vendors

17

Agenda




19

Requirements Management

•  Enterprise-level: –  IBM Rational DOORS –  Borland Caliber

•  Mid-level –  Accompa

•  Issue centric... –  Jira –  Pivotal Tracker –  Ubirimi

20

Requirements Management

•  Enterprise-level: –  IBM Rational DOORS (very expensive) –  Borland Caliber (likely very expensive)

•  Mid-level –  Accompa (expensive)

•  Issue centric... but affordable –  Jira –  Pivotal Tracker –  Ubirimi

21

Accompa

•  Focus: requirements management & prioritizing •  Hosted solution

•  Standard 5 users: 199$/month + 29$ /u/m •  Corporate 5 users: 399$/month + 39$ /u/m •  Enterprise 5 users: 799$/month + 79$ /u/m

22

Accompa - structure

23

Accompa - adding requirements

24

Accompa - Feature Request Form

25

Accompa - Smartviews

26

Accompa - Smartviews

27

Accompa =)

28

Product Video

Agenda




29

Product Management

•  Accept software •  Ryma FeaturePlan & IdeaScope

30

Product Management


•  Both focus on enterprise •  Price tag unknown

•  Opaque featurelist

31

Product Management


•  Both focus on enterprise •  Price tag unknown

•  Opaque featurelist

•  Aha! •  ProdPad (product video) •  ProductPlan

32

Aha! - product management (aha.io)

33

•  “The New Way to Build Brilliant Roadmaps”

•  Strategy (market analysis?, roadmap intelligence?) •  Release definition (validation) •  Product roadmapping •  Product lifecycle management •  Integrates with Jira & Pivotal Tracker

•  Price: 59$ normal, 100$ enterprise (external reviewers)


34


35


36


37


38

Agenda




39

What is the essential tool?

•  Many tasks do not necessarily require a specific tool: –  Partnering and contracting (SLA, recurring processes)

–  Market analysis (recurring analyses, document driven)

–  Scope change management (timed processes)

–  Release definition validation (timed processes)

–  Build validation (timed processes)

–  Launch preparation (communication, training, analysis)

40


•  Early stages: –  Requirements gathering –  Requirements identification –  Requirements organization –  Requirements prioritization –  Release definition

•  Once you grow: –  Roadmapping –  Product lifecycle management

41


•  Early stages: –  Requirements gathering –  Requirements identification –  Requirements organization –  Requirements prioritization –  Release definition

•  Once you grow: –  Roadmapping –  Product lifecycle management

42

Product Management Tools: - Aha - ProdPad - ProductPlan

???

Project Management tools

•  Jira

•  Pivotal Tracker

•  Clarizen

•  Redmine

•  Ubirimi, Rally, Version One, Mingle, TargetProcess, OnTime, Teampulse, etc, etc, etc

43

Project Management tools

•  Jira –  Market Leader – Fairly expensive –  Add-on marketplace (∞) – Originally issue tracker

•  Pivotal Tracker –  Agile Agile Agile™ – Limited feature list –  Preferred by developers? – External add-ons only

•  Clarizen –  Enterpricey – Strong enterprise integration –  Add-on Marketplace (68)

•  Redmine –  Open source – Add ons (484) –  Less polish

44

Pivotal Tracker

•  Primarily a requirements prioritization & development tool •  Strong integration with 3rd parties

–  bug tracking –  product planning –  story maps –  project tracking (PM BI?)

45

Jira

•  Very configurable ==> complexity •  There’s an add-on for that •  Issues first

•  Safe choice

•  Price: 10$ per month for max 10 users. 100$ 25 users, 200$ 50 users. More expensive for local install. Additional add-ons cost extra, typically about half.

47

Questions?

49

Quality PERformance (QUPER) model applied

CCV Yuri Sprockel Sjaak Brinkkemper Inge van de Weerd

Outline

•  Quality requirements •  Quper Background •  Quper views •  Steps of Quper •  Example •  Testimonial of Sony-Ericsson •  Discussion

51

How common are Quality Requirements?

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 280102030405060708090

PQ F&Q PF # Q

Descriptive, qualitative case study of 2113 requirements Big differences among areas. On average: 26% Pure Quality + 14% Functional & Quality = 40% QR

Quality Requirements challenge

•  Systematic prioritization of features and functions is state-of-art in roadmapping and platform/product scoping

•  However, Prioritization of Qualities is handled ad hoc with no specific support for roadmapping and scoping and they often get dismissed

•  àEvery FR imply many different Qualities •  àHow to scope both FR and QR together?

QUPER Background (1)

•  Combination of Costs and Benefits into a roadmap with a competitors analysis, focussing on Quality

•  Quality is continuous and non-linear

•  QUPER supports Release Planning and Roadmapping of QR prioritization

•  Goals: Robust to uncertainties, Easy to use, Domain Relevant

Regnell et al., 2008

QUPER Background (2)

•  Models in market-driven Requirements Engineering focus on cost-benefit relation and functionality

•  Performance, Usability, Reliability etc. insures a difficult trade-off when considering release targets and business opportunities

•  Quality Requirements are important in software-related development processes

Regnell et al., 2008

Quality domains

Regnell, 2009

QUPER Views & Concepts (1)

Useful

Useless

Competitive advantage

Excessive

Quality level

Benefit view

Breakpoint Concept: Non-linear relation between Quality and Benefit.

Regnell, 2008

Utility breakpoint

Differentiation breakpoint

Saturation breakpoint


Barrier Concept: Non-linear relation between Quality and Cost.

Quality level

Cost view

Regnell, 2008

barrier


Barrier

Breakpoint

Benefit & Cost view combined with assessment of current quality level of actual product, competitors and targets for future releases.

Regnell, 2008

Utility Quality level

(Feature X, Domain Y)‏ Saturation Differentiation

Current

Competitor B Competitor A

Bad Target

Target release n1

Target release n2

Roadmap view

QUPER applied Steps: 1.  Define Quality indicators for CCV

2.  Estimate current quality level of own product and of competing

products

3.  For each Q indicator and relevant qualifier make estimations of Breakpoints

4.  For each Q indicator and relevant qualifier make estimations of Barriers

5.  Estimate targets for coming releases, propose candidate targets and decide on actual targets

6.  Approve and communicate roadmaps as vision with realistic targets and iterate as necessary

CCV possible quality domains Quality Domain/Factor Indicator Usability, Operability Key-reaction-time in Seconds Usability, Attractiveness Look and Feel Usability, Operability Operating features (reporting, other

app.) Efficiency (Performance) Computing power in MHz Efficiency , Time behaviour Battery life in Seconds Efficiency , Time behaviour Transaction speed in Seconds Functionality, Security Encryption certifications, bits Functionality, Interoperability Data transfer rate in Bits per second Functionality, Interoperability Connectivity interfaces Reliability, Maturity Number of Reported Bugs Reliability, Fault tolerance Service center calls or incidents Reliability, Fault tolerance Number of PIN transactions failures Reliability, Recoverability Down/offline-time in Seconds

Our suggestions, based on CCV website materials

QUPER applied at CCV (1) Step 1: Defining quality indicators à  Consider relevant product features/use cases, market

segment and hardware capability Use case/feature: Quality indicator:

Quality Factor/domain

Indicator Description

Usability, Operability Key-pad reaction time Time measured in seconds

Usability, Operability Key-pad look and feel Representation of keys

ID Value Description KR_time

Operate Key-pad

Operating the payment terminal through the keypad (wired or wireless).

QUPER applied at CCV (2) Step 2: Quality level of own product and of competing products à  Use own product as well as competing product

Key pad operability Key-reaction-time Key-pad look and feel

CCV 0,6 Straight-forward

Banksys 0,2 Most accepted in the market

Equens 0,8 Not professional

Ingenico 0,5 Complicated

Quality level (Feature X, Domain Y)‏

Current


QUPER applied at CCV (3) Step 3: Estimations of Breakpoints à  First Utility, then Saturation and finally Differentiation

KR_time Time in seconds

Utility breakpoint 1

Differentiation breakpoint 0,4

Saturation breakpoint 0,09



Current


QUPER applied at CCV (4) Step 4: Estimations of Barriers à  Identify similar costs fro previous projects KR_time QRef Q1 CB1 Q2 CB2

CCV 0,6 0,4 15% increase dev. time

0,3 25% increase dev. time + new hardware



Current


CB1 CB2

QUPER applied at CCV (4) Step 5: Targets for coming releases à  Define a minimum and maximum accepted target

Key pad operability Good Stretch

KR_time 0,5 0,3

Quality Requirement: Key pad operability

Utility-B Differentiation-B Saturation-B Quality Good

Quality Stretch

KR_time 1 0,4 0,09 0,5 0,3



Current


Bad Target

Target interval

GQ

CB1 CB2

SQ

QUPER Template Description Quality

indicator: Key-reaction-time (Seconds)

Quality type: Operability Definition: Measured from when the user press a button on the keypad (wireless or

wired) until the pressed sign show up at the screen or the necessary operation is executed. The hardware used is the V570 payment terminal.

Current market expectations

Utility: 1 sec. Differentiation: 0,4 sec. Saturation: 0,09 sec.

Reference products Competitor X: 0,2 sec. Competitor Y: 0,8 sec. Our product Z: 0,6 sec.

Target rationale Candidate targets for release n

Low target: 0,6 sec. Depending on the market demand and the value of the competitor, this target is just enough for not losing added-value to functionality.

Mid target: 0,5 sec. The key-reaction-time can be improved by optimizing the software which includes improving the representation technique of data on the screen. This can be done without new hardware implementation. This is a target by which added value will be created.

High target: 0,3 sec. As software and hardware capability mature and slowly saturate new results and capability improvement will be necessary. New hardware in the payment terminals as well as a new software architecture will make it possible to achieve greater results and assure and/or keep a competitor advantage.

QUPER at Sony Ericsson

‘Quper provides a picture of what is good enough’ ‘More control of both Quality Requirements and the current market segment’ ‘Improvement in decision making, especially Release Planning’ ‘The knowledge to know when higher levels of quality have no practical impact on the benefits’ ‘Structured process of handling Quality Requirements’

QUPER

Questions?

SPM14 Tools

Education

Transcript of SPM14 Tools