1. Identify any two key changes that were introduced by Greg Adams-Woodford to move his product team from Waterfall to Agile and briefly provide the rationale behind each of them. Two key changes introduced by Greg Adams-Woodford to move his team from Waterfall to Agile were the eradication of offshore software developments teams and a transition to in-house software developers in Arizona, as well as the combination of the QA and development teams with extensive cross training in their respective specialties. The rationale behind the transition of offshore to in-house development deals with the fact that Agile development requires close proximity between team members in order to daily communication and cooperation. Moreover, the fact that
…show more content…
Integrating developing and testing functionalities enables a unified vision of the product - there is a constant maintenance of quality, verification of functionality (is the code working? are there bugs that need to be dealt with?), compliance with requirements and regulations, productive responsiveness to changing business requirements, and a more efficient deliverable overall. This robustness of this process can save both time and money. 2. How were the following roles impacted by the change from Waterfall to Agile? What were / could be the potential implications at the project level because of the impact on these roles?
Product …show more content…
Despite these benefits, however, they were still acclimated to context-switching between one feature to another in same iteration, were often focused on a static backlog, and were showing signs of performance degradation. In conjunction, the QA team, who were not exactly aware of their new joint responsibilities with the development team, kept falling back on mini-waterfall approaches, and felt as though there was a “lack of accountability and trackability” in terms of the features. These cross-functional team dependencies (QA and developers, mostly) hindered the customer-centric vision of the product. It could also slow productivity in terms of product release, and lead to several unwanted features for
Integrating developing and testing functionalities enables a unified vision of the product - there is a constant maintenance of quality, verification of functionality (is the code working? are there bugs that need to be dealt with?), compliance with requirements and regulations, productive responsiveness to changing business requirements, and a more efficient deliverable overall. This robustness of this process can save both time and money. 2. How were the following roles impacted by the change from Waterfall to Agile? What were / could be the potential implications at the project level because of the impact on these roles?
Product …show more content…
Despite these benefits, however, they were still acclimated to context-switching between one feature to another in same iteration, were often focused on a static backlog, and were showing signs of performance degradation. In conjunction, the QA team, who were not exactly aware of their new joint responsibilities with the development team, kept falling back on mini-waterfall approaches, and felt as though there was a “lack of accountability and trackability” in terms of the features. These cross-functional team dependencies (QA and developers, mostly) hindered the customer-centric vision of the product. It could also slow productivity in terms of product release, and lead to several unwanted features for