technical briefing on software release planning
TRANSCRIPT
.5
Xavier FranchGroup of Software and Service Engineering
Universitat Politècnica de CatalunyaBarcelona, Spain
Guenther RuheSoftware Engineering Decision Support Laboratory
University of CalgaryCalgary, Alberta, Canada
Contents
• INTRODUCTION OF PARTICIPANTS• PART I. BACKGROUND• PART II. STATE OF THE ART • PART III. THE EVOLVE APPROACH • PART IV. CONCLUSIONS
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 2
Contents
• INTRODUCTION OF PARTICIPANTS• PART I. BACKGROUND• PART II. STATE OF THE ART • PART III. THE EVOLVE APPROACH • PART IV. CONCLUSIONS
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 3
Attendees
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 6
Contents
• INTRODUCTION OF PARTICIPANTS• PART I. BACKGROUND• PART II. STATE OF THE ART • PART III. THE EVOLVE APPROACH • PART IV. CONCLUSIONS
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 7
Context – Software Evolution
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 8
Continuing Change — an [E-type] system must be continually adapted or it becomes progressively less satisfactory (Law 1)
Continuing Growth — the functional content of an [E-type] system must be continually increased to maintain user satisfaction over its lifetime (Law 6)
Laws of Software EvolutionManny Lehman (1925 – 2010)
what/when/how to evolve?ReleasePlanning
The planning onion
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 9M. Cohn, Agile Estimating and Planning. Prentice Hall PTR, 2006.
Software release planning – definition
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 10
Software release planning – “critical process of deciding which features are implemented in which releases”
G. Ruhe. Product Release Planning, CRC Press 2010
Release planning – Strategic + operationalStrategic release planning – “selection and assignment of
requirements in sequences of releases such that important technical and resource constraints are fulfilled”
Operational release planning – “development of the identified features in a single software release”
Svahnberg et al. A Systematic Review on Strategic ReleasePlanning Models. IST 52(3), 2010
Example: SENERCON
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 11
• Partner of the SUPERSEDE H2020 project• Service provider for energy savings based in Berlin with
more than 75.000 users• After developing more than 20 services, still success is
unpredictable, concluding that:– the success of a service mostly depends on fulfilling personal
and individual needs of the end-user– mismatch QoS – QoE The Black Box Problem
Example: SENERCON
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 12
• Main reasons:– lack of detailed knowledge about QoE
• currently, email + hotline only– not having a systematic release planning approach in place
• currently, based on expert judgement
• Goal: a cost-effective exchange hub users developers– contextualized user feedback– discovery of service usage patterns– combine feedback with context
• Once this information is known:– features’ value easier to quantify– systematic release planning may be put in place
What is a feature
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 13
“A logical unit of behavior specified by a set of functional and non-functional requirements”
J. Bosch. Design and Use of a Software Architecture. ACM Press 2000
“A distinguishable characteristic of a concept (system, compo-nent, etc. ) that is relevant to some stakeholder of the concept”
K. Czarnecki, U.W. Eisenecker. Generative Programming: Methods, Tools and Applications. Addison-Wesley 2013
“A set of logically related requirements that provide a capability to the user and enable the satisfaction of business objectives”
K. Wiegers, J. Beatty. Software Requirements (3rd ed.), Microsoft Press 2013
Typical features
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 14
• Core functionality of the domain– prime prerequisite for a company’s business
• Demanded by the market
• Requested by a specific customer
T. Berger et al. What is a Feature? A Qualitative Study of Features in Industrial Software Product Lines. SPLC 2015
Good and bad features
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 15
Reasons for considering a feature as “good”:• Customer satisfaction• Distinct functionality• Well implemented and error free
What makes a feature “bad”:• Result of time pressure and rushed development• Compromises emerging during implementation• Duplicated and superfluous features• High volatility
T. Berger et al. What is a Feature? A Qualitative Study of Features in Industrial Software Product Lines. SPLC 2015
Software release planning – A deeper view
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 16
Amou
nt o
f im
plem
ente
d fu
nctio
nalit
y
Amou
nt o
f sug
gest
ed fu
nctio
nally
Releases
• Corrective• Adaptive• Perfective• PreventiveISO/IEC/IEEE 14764:2006
Software release planning – why?
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 17
Release decisions
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX
Software release planning - Why difficult?
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 19
Information is Uncertain Inconsistent Incomplete Fuzzy
Decision space Large size High complexity Dynamically changing
Multiple objectives Usability Value Time-to-market Frequency of use Risk
Hard & soft constraints on Time Effort Quality Resources
Main challenges in release planning
• Product management underestimated/not sufficiently established• Product release planning process immature• Product release planning not synchronized with other processes• Lack of systematic re-planning• Lack of transparency of release decisions• Lack of definition of planning goals/alignment with business goals• Lack of stakeholder involvement • Lack of resource consideration• More re-active than pro-active planning mode• Impact of better release content unclear• Impact (value) of individual features unclear• Planning for just the next release
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 20
Contents
• INTRODUCTION OF PARTICIPANTS• PART I. BACKGROUND• PART II. STATE OF THE ART • PART III. THE EVOLVE APPROACH • PART IV. CONCLUSIONS
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 21
Approaches to Software Release Planning
Two main categories• manual (“on-the-fly”) approaches
– rely on humans’ ability to negotiate between conflicting objectives and constraints
– mainly reported as experience reports
• analytical approaches– formalize the problem– apply computational algorithms to
generate best solutions– mainly reported as scientific technical
papers
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 22
G. Ruhe, M.O. Saliu. The Art and Science of Software Release Planning. IEEE Software 22(6), 2005
On-the-fly approaches
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 23
• emphasis on improving the decision process– make estimates as accurate as possible– provide stakeholders a voice
• emphasis is in the next release– planning long term is more difficult
Example: a case in Ericsson
V.T. Heikkilä et al. Continuous Release Planning in a Large-Scale Scrum Development Organization at Ericsson. XP 2013ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 24
• Ericsson node development unit– traffic management in telecommunication networks– large systems– combining hardware and software
• Large projects– 20 development teams fro Finland and Hungary– every team had 6-7 members– following Scrum
• The products– yearly public releases– 2 internal versions per release, 2 internal deadlines for
maintenance updates
Team structure
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 25
The release planning process
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 26
Reported benefits• Increased flexibility
– feature development schedule not tied to release schedule– decreased development lead time
• Eliminate waste in the planning process– early identification of too expensive or unfeasible features
save development resources
• Increased developer motivation– early involvement of developers in the feature planning
process
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 27
Remaining challenges• Misalignment with “the old way” of planning
– product manager still asking for long-term feature development plans
• increasing detail of FCS
• Managing non-feature specific work– non-feature specific problem reports, system documentation,
external change requests, …
• Low prioritization of system improvement work wrtimplementing new features– some store points saved for system improvements
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 28
Limitations of on-the-fly approaches
• Informal process• Informal decisions• But: > 1.000.000.000.000 possibilities already in case of
20 objects and three periods
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 29
Analytical approaches
F = {f(1), ..., f(N)}Set of features Set of constraints
X = {x(1), ..., x(N)} Release plan
x(j) = assigned release
C = {c(1), ..., c(M)}
RPmaximise some utilityor objective function
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 30
Analytical approaches
F = {f(1), ..., f(N)}Set of features Set of constraints
X = {x(1), ..., x(N)} Release plan
x(j) = assigned release
C = {c(1), ..., c(M)}
RPmaximise some utilityor objective function
What informationis processed?
Which results are produced?
How is the plan computed?
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 31
Example – release planning in agile projectsApproach Iterations Precedences Risk Change mgmt. Planning
[1] Multi Preced, coupling Some Some Heuristic
[2] Multi Preced Yes No Greedy
[3] Single Preced, coupling No Yes Exact
[4] Single Preced No Some Exact
[5] Multi Preced, coupling Yes No Exact
[6] Multi Preced, coupling Yes No Exact
[7] Multi Preced, anchor, coupling Yes Yes Exact
[1] D. Greer, G. Ruhe. Software release planning: an evolutionary and iterative approach. IST 46, 2004[2] M. Denne, J. Cleland-Huang. Software by Numbers. Prentice Hall, 2004[3] M.O. Saliu, G. Ruhe. Supporting software release planning decisions for evolving systems. SEW 2005[4] C. Li et al. An integrated approach for requirement selection and scheduling in software release
planning. REJ 15, 2010[5] A. Szoke. Conceptual scheduling model and optimized release scheduling for agile environments. IST
53, 2011[6] G. van Valkenhoef et al. Quantitative release planning in extreme programming. IST 53, 2011[7] M. Golfarelli, S. Rizzi, E. Turrichia. Multi-sprint planning and smooth replanning: An optimization
model. JSS 86, 2013
State of the art
Main source: systematic literature review until 2008
• 24 release planning models found– 14 original and 10 extensions, mostly from 1998
• Three main groups– EVOLVE-family + ReleasePlanner tool @ University of Calgary– SERG @ Lund University– Center of Organization and Information @ Utrecht University
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 33
Svahnberg et al. A Systematic Review on Strategic ReleasePlanning Models. IST 52(3), 2010
State of the art
Extension: ongoing non-systematic literature review until 2015 by the GESSI research group at UPC• snowballing based approach
– forward snowballing from Svahnberg et al.’s SLR C1– backward snowballing from C1– focus on selected journals and conferences– contributions from industry also sought
• Final selection: 16 new methods found in the period 2009-2015
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 34
New methods in a nutshell (sample)
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 35
NRP for eXtreme Programming dealing with some uncertaintyMultsprint planning in an agile contextCombining a planning algorithm with a scheduling methodEfficient algorithm for NRP in the projects with large sets of requirementsNRP in large scale agile organizationsCalculate the impact of uncertainty with time constraints in release planningDefine new releases in agile environments taking into accountprevious iterationsEfficient NRP algorithm based on model checking consideringdependenciesImplement a risk-aware NRP algorithm
Input: constraints and factors
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 36
SoftfactorsRisk factors Value factors
Resource consumption factors
Stakeholders’ influence factors
Svahnberg et al. A Systematic Reviewon Strategic Release
Planning Models. IST, 52(3), 2010
Requirement dependencies
Quality constraints
Budget and cost constraints
Resource constraints
Effort constraints
Time constraints
Hardconstraints
Input: constrains and factors (prevalence in 2010)
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 37
Requirement dependencies (75%)
Quality constraints(8.3%)
Budget and cost constraints(29.1%)
Resource constraints(33.3%)
Effort constraints(50%)
Time constraints(16.7%)
SoftfactorsRisk factors
(12.5%)Value factors
(37.5%)
Resource consumption factors (20.8%)
Stakeholders’ influence factors (29.2%)
28 methods
Hardconstraints
Input: constrains and factors (prevalence in 2015)
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 38
Requirement dependencies (75%)(75%)
Quality constraints(8.3%) (5%)
Budget and cost constraints(29.1%) (17.5%)
Resource constraints(33.3%) (37.5%)
Effort constraints(50%) (50%)
Time constraints(16.7%) (25%)
SoftfactorsRisk factors
(12.5%) (17.5%)Value factors(37.5%) (42.5%)
Resource consumption factors (20.8%) (17.5%)
Stakeholders’ influence factors (29.2%)(22.5%)
40 methods
Hardconstraints
Output
• Scope– one release vs. multiple releases
• Object of planning– features; user stories; requirements
• Prioritization– none– ordinal– must-have, should-have, could-have
• Time scheduling• Developer assignment
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 39
Objective function
• Optimization of the value given by the features while managing the resources and fulfilling all possible constraints
• How to measure value:– business value, stakeholder satisfaction, urgency, risk
minimization, technical debt, return on investment, …
• How to measure resources– personnel, availability– considering size/complexity of features
• Constraints– dependencies, time constraints, …
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 40
A lot of computational approaches…
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 41
Greedyalgorithms
Pareto opti-mal fronts
Monte-Carlo simulation
Knapsackproblem
Branch and bound Backbone
basedalgorithms
Graph trans-formation
AHPClustering
Example – greedy solution (1)
• Principle: always add a feature to the solution that maximizes value while not violating any constraint or requiring more resources than available
• Greedy algorithms: building a good global solution as the sequence of local optimum choices at every moment
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 42
Example – greedy solution (2)
• Input:– Set of features, F = {f(1), …, f(N)}– Resource consumption, cost: F Integer– Estimated values, value: F Integer– Set of cost capacity for each release:
totalCost: Integer Integer
• Output:– Release planning, Release: Integer {Integer}, s.t. all sets
are pair-wise disjoints
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 43
G. Ruhe. Product Release Planning, CRC Press 2010
Example – greedy solution (3)
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 44G. Ruhe. Product Release Planning, CRC Press 2010
Example – Multi-sprint planning in Scrum (1)
• Given a set S of m sprints and a set U of n user stories, maximise a solution z for the m sprints
• Goals: – customer satisfaction– coupling management– criticality risk management
• Strategy– generalized assignment model
M. Golfarelli, S. Rizzi, E. Turrichia. Multi-sprint planning and smooth replanning: An optimization model. JSS 86, 2013
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 45
Example – Multi-spring planning in Scrum (2)
Example of input:
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 46
ID Name Deps. and coupling
Utility Comple-xity
Criticalityrisk
Uncert. risk
s1 Fee configuration s1->s2 80 5 Low Low
s2 Cash cost computation 0.3 s2+s10 85 2 Medium Medium
s3 Import from DBMS 75 2 Medium Medium
s4 Parameterization logic 30 1 Medium Medium
s5 Amortization mask 60 2 No No
s6 Exchange computation 60 2 Low Medium
s7 Exchange import from SAP s7->s6 60 7 Low Low
s8 Mngmt . control reporting 85 4 Medium Low
s9 Operational reporting 100 10 Low Medium
s10 Scenario management mask 0.3 s2+s10 65 3 Low Low
Example – Multi-spring planning in Scrum (3)
• Objective function z:
– uj: utility of story j– rj
cr: criticality risk of story j– xij = 1 if story j is included in sprint i– G: set of coupling groups of stories; Al: a set of coupled
stories– al: affinity between stories in Al
– yijl: number of stories of Al affine to story j and included insprint i
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 47
Example – Multi-spring planning in Scrum (4)the sum of stories’ complexity(considering uncertainty risks) fitsinto each sprint capacity
each story is planned in exactly onesprint
each forced story is planned in theplanned sprint
correct consideration of OR- and AND-dependencies among features
restricting values of affine stories
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 48
Summary: Analytical vs. on-the-fly planning
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 49
Caracteristics Analytical methods On-the-flyTime horizon Next release, but applicable more
generalNext release
Objectives Flexible, but typically value-based Vague and not explicitly described
Stakeholder involvement Not directly supported Opportunistic and by communication
Solution method Greedy heuristic, linear programming, simulation, ..
Intuition and experience-based
Quality of solutions Good on average, but unknown for specific case
Difficult to judge. The more risky, the more complex the problem
Feature dependencies Typically not considered Implicitly, hard to consider for more complex problems
Human resource constraints
If at all, then just cumulative effort Implicitly, hard to consider for more complex problems
What-if analysis(explicit support)
No No
Integrated tool support Limited No
Summary
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 50
• On-the-fly approaches criticised due to the difficulty of taking into account all knowledge implied by software release planning
• Conversely, analytical approaches criticised either because:– Too simple to be useful
• Lack of information considered• Over-simplifications (e.g. requirement dependencies)
– Too complex to be adopted• Learning curve• Lack of trust in result
Contents
• INTRODUCTION OF PARTICIPANTS• PART I. BACKGROUND• PART II. STATE OF THE ART • PART III. THE EVOLVE APPROACH • PART IV. CONCLUSIONS
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 51
Release planning – Art or Science?
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 52
• Art:Focus on the human intuition and communication for handling tacidknowledge
• Science:Emphasis on formalization of the problem and application of computational algorithms to generate best solutions.
What’s the problem?
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 53
“The mere formulation of a problem is far more essential than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental skills. To raise new questions (and), new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advances in science.”
(Albert Einstein, 1879-1955)
Optimized release planning – How it began
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 54
EVOLVE: Greer, D. and Ruhe, G., Software Release Planning: An Evolutionary and Iterative Approach, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 46 (2004), pp. 243-253.
What constitutes a release plan?
Max{ F(x, α) = (α - 1) F1(x) + α F2(x) subject to 0 ≤ α ≤ 1, x from X}
StakeholdersWeightings for stakeholdersScores of stakeholders towards urgency (F1) and value (F2)X composed of- effort constraints- coupling and precedence constraints (between features)
Optimized release planning – How it began
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 55
F1(x) is a penalty function defined for plan x describing the degree of violation of the monotonicy property between all pairs of features
F2(x) is a benefit function based on feature scores of the stakeholders and the actual assignment of the feature according to the plan under consideration.
value(n,p) = value_score(n,p)(K – x(n) +1)
Empirical analysis
• EVOLVE was initially based on genetic search offered by Palisade’s RiskOptimizer
• Early industrial feedback (Corel, Siemens)• Development of our own GA (emphasis on avoiding
premature convergence)• Empirical studies with 200 to 700 requirements comparing
the GA with running ILOG’s CPLEX• Better solutions for LP solver in reasonable time • Known level of optimality• Development of our own solution method utilizing open
source optimization combined with knapsack-type of heuristic for B&B
• New approach more flexible and with higher level of diversification among top solutions.
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 56
EVOLVE II: Three phases
• Phase 1 - Modeling: – Formal description of the
(changing) real world to make it suitable for computational intelligence based solution techniques
• Phase 2 - Exploration: – Application of computational
techniques to explore the solution space, to generate and evaluate solution alternatives
• Phase 3 - Consolidation: – Human decision maker evaluates
current solution alternatives– Match with implicit objectives
and constraints
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 57
Computational Intelligence
Interation 1 Release 1
Release 2Interation 2
Interation 3 Release 3
Human Intelligence
Evolution everywhere
• Evolutionary software development (iterative, incremental)
• Evolutionary solution algorithms • Evolutionary problem solving (synergy between art and
science)
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 58
The diversification principle
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 59
A single solution to a cognitive complex problem is less likely to reflect the actual problem when compared to a
portfolio of qualified solutions being structurally diversified
Consolidation
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 60
Preparation
1
Planning criteriaweights
2Pre-selection of
features
3
Prioritization of features
4
Voice-of-thestakeholder analysis
5
Technology constraints
7
Resource estimation6
Optimization8
Quality and resource analysis
9Excitement analysis
10
Stakeholderevaluation of plans
12What-if-analysis
11
Final plan decision13
dependencybetween stepsmandatory step
optional step
set of logicallylinked steps
feedback link
Stakeholder-centric release planning –Method EVOLVE II
Criteria for feature selection
• Customer satisfaction• Customer dissatisfaction• Risk of implementation• Risk of acceptance• Financial value • Cost• Time to market • Volatility • Frequency of use • Ease of use
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 61
Feature dependencies
• For given features A, B, and C, we distinguish eight types of dependencies:
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 62
Pre-assignment of features to releases
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 63
Maximization of stakeholder feature points
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 64
Stakeholder
weight
Score(n,q)
Criteria
weight
SCORE(n)
Releases
weight
sfp(n,x)
TSFP(x)
Features
score(n,p,q)
Plan x
Resource constraints
• Resource class 1: A resource type r belongs to class 1 if the feature related consumption of the resource is limited to exactly the release in which the feature if offered. Resources of this class are called local based on its spending mode.
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 65
Consumption(k,r,x) = ∑n: x(n)=k consumption(n,r) ≤ Capacity(k,r)
Resource constraints
• Resource class 2: A resource type r belongs to class 2 if the feature related consumption of the resource can be distributed across different release periods. Resources of this class are called global based on its spending mode.
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 66
∑ n=1..N wx (n,k,r) consumption(n,r) ≤∑ Capacity(k,r) for all releases k = 1…K
0 ≤ wx (n,k,r) ≤ 1 for all n,k,r
∑ k = 1 .. K wx (n,k,r) = 1 for all n,r
Comparison of EVOLVE II with other methods
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 67
Method
Characteristics EVOLVE II on-the-fly planning [van den Akker et al. ‘08]
Time horizon Flexible Next release Next release
Objectives Flexible in the number and type of criteria
Vague and not explicitly described
Maximize financial value function
Stakeholder involvement Strongly supported with explicitly assigned individualized tasks at the different stages
Opportunistic and by communication
Not directly supported
Solution method Specialized integer programming with additional heuristics
Intuition and experience-based Integer linear programming (ILP)
Quality of solutions Five near optimal alternative solutions with known level of optimality
Difficult to judge. The more risky, the more complex the problem
Near-optimal solutions based on ILOG
Feature dependencies Precedence and coupling Implicitly, hard to consider for more complex problems
Precedence,coupling, either or dependencies
Human resource constraints number, type and granularity of the resources
Implicitly, hard to consider for more complex problems
Yes, including staffing of teams
What-if analysis(explicit support)
Yes No Yes
Integrated tool support ReleasePlanner 2.0 No Prototype based on usage of ILOG
EVOLVE II tool support - ReleasePlanner
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 68
ReleasePlanner™ - Main components
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 69
Use cases
1. Project definition: stakeholders, criteria, features, resources, estimates, capacities, number of releases, permissions
2. Feature prioritization3. Most controversial features4. Alternative plan generation5. Feature dependencies6. Excitement analysis for a given plan 7. Customization of plans8. Comparison between two selected plans9. JIRA: Import of issues and subsequent plan generation10. Change of data in JIRA and synchronization11. Innovation planning where stakeholder represent competitors12. Service portfolio planning13. When to release planning14. Feedback-driven planning15. Planning functional versus quality requirements
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 70
Contents
• INTRODUCTION OF PARTICIPANTS• PART I. BACKGROUND• PART II. STATE OF THE ART • PART III. THE EVOLVE APPROACH • PART IV. CONCLUSIONS
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 71
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 72
From closed to open world planning
Open innovation
• An (open) approach for integration of internal and external ideas and paths to market that merges distributed knowledge and ideas into production processes.
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 73
Release Planning – Information needs
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 74
Information needs
Type of release planning problem
Feat
ures
Feat
ure
depe
nden
cies
Feat
ure
valu
e
Stak
ehol
der
Stak
ehol
der o
pini
on a
nd
prio
ritie
s
Rele
ase
read
ines
s
Mar
ket t
rend
s
Reso
urce
con
sum
ptio
ns
and
cons
trai
nts
What to release × × × × × × ×
Theme based × × × × × × ×
When to release × × × × × × ×
Consideration of quality requirements × × × × × × ×
Operational release planning × × ×
Consideration of technical debt × × × ×
Multiple products × × × × × × ×
Analytic open innovation
• Open innovation with emphasis on analytics (processes, tools, knowledge, techniques, decisions).
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 75
How much planning is enough?
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 76
Perfection of information 100%
Valu
e an
d co
st o
f add
ition
al in
form
atio
n
(Harrison 1987)
Benefit
Cost
Cost-benefit
ROI the better the more often investments are used
Pro’s of investment
• Pro-active evaluation of impact of decisions
• Support to find the most promising decision alternatives
• Transparency
• Understandability
• Reducing the impact ofhuman bias
• Reducing the risk of failure
• Increasing the chance ofsuccess
77ICSE 2016, Austin, TX
Con’s from investment
• Additional effort on decision-making
• Additional effort on information retrieval
• Effort to become familiar with some support tool(s)
• Unavoidable uncertainty (depending on scope)
78ICSE 2016, Austin, TX
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 79
Summary• Basic assumption: The more qualified processes and
support is provided, the better the chance to find an appropriate decision.
• Benefit of a mature release planning process:– Better customer satisfaction– Higher competitiveness of
products– Transparency of decisions– Ability to adjust to change– Alignment to business
objectives– Higher predictability of
results
80ICSE 2016, Austin, TX
Acknowledgements
• This work has been partially funded by the SUPERSEDE H2020 project (2012-2015) under contract nb. 644018
• The first presenter wants to thank D. Ameller and C. Farré at UPC for their work in the topic of the tutorial
• The second presenter acknowledges the support provided by NSERC and the collaboration with Maleknaz Nayebi on this topic.
ICSE 2016, Austin, TX 81
.5
Xavier FranchGroup of Software and Service Engineering
Universitat Politècnica de CatalunyaBarcelona, Spain
Guenther RuheSoftware Engineering Decision Support Laboratory
University of CalgaryCalgary, Alberta, Canada