Refine
Document Type
- Conference proceeding (16)
- Journal article (1)
Language
- English (17)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (17)
Institute
- Informatik (17)
Publisher
- Springer (8)
- IEEE (3)
- ACM (2)
- Elsevier (1)
- Gesellschaft für Informatik (1)
- Johannes Kepler University Linz (1)
- RWTH Aachen (1)
Context: Agile practices as well as UX methods are nowadays well-known and often adopted to develop complex software and products more efficiently and effectively. However, in the so called VUCA environment, which many companies are confronted with, the sole use of UX research is not sufficient to find the best solutions for customers. The implementation of Design Thinking can support this process. But many companies and their product owners don’t know how much resources they should spend for conducting Design Thinking.
Objective: This paper aims at suggesting a supportive tool, the “Discovery Effort Worthiness (DEW) Index”, for product owners and agile teams to determine a suitable amount of effort that should be spent for Design Thinking activities.
Method: A case study was conducted for the development of the DEW index. Design Thinking was introduced into the regular development cycle of an industry Scrum team. With the support of UX and Design Thinking experts, a formula was developed to determine the appropriate effort for Design Thinking.
Results: The developed “Discovery Effort Worthiness Index” provides an easy-to-use tool for companies and their product owners to determine how much effort they should spend on Design Thinking methods to discover and validate requirements. A company can map the corresponding Design Thinking methods to the results of the DEW Index calculation, and product owners can select the appropriate measures from this mapping. Therefore, they can optimize the effort spent for discovery and validation.
Context: Companies in highly dynamic markets increasingly struggle with their ability to plan product development and to create reliable roadmaps. A main reason is the decreasing lack of predictability of markets, technologies, and customer behaviors. New approaches for product roadmapping seem to be necessary in order to cope with today's highly dynamic conditions. Little research is available with respect to such new approaches. Objective: In order to better understand the state of the art and to identify research gaps, this article presents a review of the scientific literature with respect to product roadmapping. Method: We performed a systematic literature review (SLR) with respect to identify papers in the field of computer science. Results: After filtering, the search resulted in a set of 23 relevant papers. The identified papers focus on different aspects such as roadmap types, processes for creating and updating roadmaps, problems and challenges with roadmapping, approaches to visualize roadmaps, generic frameworks and specific aspects such as the combination of roadmaps with business modeling. Overall, the scientific literature covers many important aspects of roadmapping but does provide only little knowledge on how to create product roadmaps under highly dynamic conditions. Research gaps address, for instance, the inclusion of goals or outcomes into product roadmaps, the alignment of a roadmap with a product vision, and the inclusion of product discovery activities in product roadmaps. In addition, the transformation from traditional roadmapping processes to new ways of roadmapping is not sufficiently addressed in the scientific literature.
Context: Organizations are increasingly challenged by dynamic and technical market environments. Traditional product roadmapping practices such as detailed and fixed long-term planning typically fail in such environments. Therefore, companies are actively seeking ways to improve their product roadmapping approach. Goal: This paper aims at identifying problems and challenges with respect to product roadmapping. In addition, it aims at understanding how companies succeed in improving their roadmapping practices in their respective company contexts. The study focuses on mid-sized and large companies developing software-intensive products in dynamic and technical market environments. Method: We conducted semi structured expert interviews with 15 experts from 13 German companies and conducted a thematic data analysis. Results: The analysis showed that a significant number of companies is still struggling with traditional feature based product-roadmapping and opinion based prioritization of features. The most promising areas for improvement are stating the outcomes a company is trying to achieve and making them part of the roadmap, sharing or co-developing the roadmap with stakeholders, and the establishing discovery activities.
Through increasing market dynamics, rapidly evolving technologies and shifting user expectations coupled with the adoption of lean and agile practices, companies are struggling with their ability to provide reliable product roadmaps by applying traditional approaches. Currently, most companies are seeking opportunities to improve their product roadmapping practices. As a first challenge they have to assess their current product roadmapping capabilities in order to better understand how to improve their practices and how to switch to a new approach. The aim of this article is to provide an initial maturity model for product roadmapping practices that is especially suited for assessing the roadmapping capabilities of companies operating in dynamic and uncertain market environments. Based on interviews with 15 experts from 13 various companies the current state of practice regarding product roadmapping was identified. Afterwards, the model development was conducted in the context of expert workshops with the Robert Bosch GmbH and researchers. The study results in the so-called DEEP 1.0 product roadmap maturity model which allows companies to conduct a self assessment of their product roadmapping practice.
Context: Organizations are increasingly challenged by high market dynamics, rapidly evolving technologies and shifting user expectations. In consequence, many organizations are struggling with their ability to provide reliable product roadmaps by applying traditional roadmapping approaches. Currently, many companies are seeking opportunities to improve their product roadmapping practices and strive for new roadmapping approaches. A typical first step towards advancing the roadmapping capabilities of an organization is to assess the current situation. Therefore, the so-called maturity model DEEP for assessing the product roadmapping capabilities of companies operating in dynamic and uncertain environments has been developed and published by the authors.
Objective: The aim of this article is to conduct an initial validation of the DEEP model in order to understand its applicability better and to see if important concepts are missing. In addition, the aim of this article is to evolve the model based on the findings from the initial validation.
Method: The model has been given to practitioners such as product managers with the request to perform a self-assessment of the current product roadmapping practices in their company. Afterwards, interviews with each participant have been conducted in order to gain insights.
Results: The initial validation revealed that some of the stages of the model need to be rearranged and minor usability issues were found. The overall structure of the model was well received. The study resulted in the development of the version 1.1 of the DEEP product roadmap maturity model which is also presented in this article.
Context: Organizations are increasingly challenged by dynamic and technical market environments. Traditional product roadmapping practices such as detailed and fixed long-term planning typically fail in such environments. Therefore, companies are actively seeking ways to improve their product roadmapping approach.
Goal: This paper aims at identifying problems and challenges with respect to product roadmapping. In addition, it aims at understanding how companies succeed in improving their roadmapping practices in their respective company contexts.
Method: We conducted semi-structured expert interviews with 15 experts from 13 German companies and conducted athematic data analysis.
Results: The analysis showed that a significant number of companies is still struggling with traditional feature-based product-roadmapping and opinion-based prioritization of features. The most promising areas for improvement are stating the outcomes a company is trying to achieve and making them part of the roadmap, sharing or co-developing the roadmap with stakeholders, and establishing discovery activities.
Objective: This paper aims at getting an understanding of current problems and challenges with roadmapping processes in companies that are facing volatile markets with innovative products. It also aims at gathering ideas and attempts on how to react to those challenges.
Method: As an initial step towards the objectice a semi-structured expert interview study with a case company in the Smart Home domain was conducted. Four employees from the case company with different roles around product roadmaps have been interviewed and a content analysis of the data has been performed.
Results: The study shows a significant consensus among the interviewees about several major challenges and the necessity to change the traditional roadmapping process and format. The interviewees stated that based on their experience traditional feature-based product roadmaps are increasingly losing their benefits (such as good planning certainty) in volatile environments. Furthermore, the ability to understand customer needs and behaviors has become highly important for creating and adjusting product roadmaps. The interviewees see the need for both, sufficiently stable goals on the roadmap and flexibility with respect to products or features to be developed. To reach this target the interviewees proposed to create roadmaps based on outcome goals instead of product features. In addition, it was proposed to decrease the level of detail of the roadmaps and to emphasize the long-term view. Decisions about which feature to develop should be open as long as possible. Expected benefits of such a new way of product roadmapping are higher user centricity, a stable overall direction, more flexibility with respect to development decisions, and less breaking of commitments.
Context: Nowadays the market environment is characterized by high uncertainties due to high market dynamics, confronting companies with new challenges in creating and updating product roadmaps. Most companies are still using traditional approaches which typically fail in such environments. Therefore, companies are seeking opportunities for new product roadmapping approaches.
Objective: This paper presents good practices to support companies better understand what factors are required to conduct a successful product roadmapping in a dynamic and uncertain market environment.
Method: Based on a grey literature review, essential aspects for conducting product roadmapping in a dynamic and uncertain market environment were identified. Expert workshops were then held with two researchers and three practitioners to develop best practices and the proposed approach for an outcome-driven roadmap. These results were then given to another set of practitioners and their perceptions were gathered through interviews.
Results: The study results in the development of 9 good practices that provide practitioners with insights into what aspects are crucial for product roadmapping in a dynamic and uncertain market environment. Moreover, we propose an approach to product roadmapping that includes providing a flexible structure and focusing on delivering value to the customer and the business. To ensure the latter, this approach consists of the main items outcome hypothesis, validated outcomes, and discovered outputs.
Context
In a world of high dynamics and uncertainties, it is almost impossible to have a long-term prediction of which products, services, or features will satisfy the needs of the customer. To counter this situation, the conduction of Continuous Improvement or Design Thinking for product discovery are common approaches. A major constraint in conducting product discovery activities is the high effort to discover and validate features and requirements. In addition, companies struggle to integrate product discovery activities into their agile processes and iterations.
Objective
This paper aims at suggests a supportive tool, the “Discovery Effort Worthiness (DEW) Index”, for product owners and agile teams to determine a suitable amount of effort that should be spent on Design Thinking activities. To operationalize DEW, proposals for practitioners are presented that can be used to integrate product discovery into product development and delivery.
Method
A case study was conducted for the development of the DEW index. In addition, we conducted an expert workshop to develop proposals for the integration of product discovery activities into the product development and delivery process.
Results
First, we present the "Discovery Effort Worthiness Index" in form of a formula. Second, we identified requirements that must be fulfilled for systematic integration of product discovery activities into product development and delivery. Third, we derived from the requirements proposals for the integration of product discovery activities with a company's product development and delivery.
Conclusion
The developed "Discovery Effort Worthiness Index" provides a tool for companies and their product owners to determine how much effort they should spend on Design Thinking methods to discover and validate requirements. Integrating product discovery with product development and delivery should ensure that the results of product discovery are incorporated into product development. This aims to systematically analyze product risks to increase the chance of product success.
Context: Nowadays, companies are challenged by increasing market dynamics, rapid changes and disruptive participants entering the market. To survive in such an environment, companies must be able to quickly discover product ideas that meet the needs of both customers and the company and deliver these products to customers. Dual-track agile is a new type of agile development that combines product discovery and delivery activities in parallel, iterative, and cyclical ways. At present, many companies have difficulties in finding and establishing suitable approaches for implementing dual-track agile in their business context.
Objective: In order to gain a better understanding of how product discovery and product delivery can interact with each other and how this interaction can be implemented in practice, this paper aims to identify suitable approaches to dual-track agile.
Method: We conducted a grey literature review (GLR) according to the guidelines to Garousi et al.
Results: Several approaches that support the integration of product discovery with product delivery were identified. This paper presents a selection of these approaches, i.e., the Discovery-Delivery Cycle model, Now-Next-Later Product Roadmaps, Lean Sprints, Product Kata, and Dual-Track Scrum. The approaches differ in their granularity but are similar in their underlying rationales. All approaches aim to ensure that only validated ideas turn into products and thus promise to lead to products that are better received by their users.