¿Cómo se priorizan las solicitudes de funciones mientras se gestiona el aumento del alcance en los proyectos ágiles?

To prioritize feature requests and manage scope creep in agile projects: Define Clear Criteria: Evaluate requests based on business value, user impact, and technical feasibility. Use Frameworks: Apply MoSCoW (Must have, Should have, Could have, Won’t have) or the Eisenhower Matrix. Engage Stakeholders: Involve stakeholders for alignment with business goals. Maintain a Backlog: Keep a prioritized backlog and regularly reassess it. Set Boundaries: Clearly communicate project scope and use controlled change management. Iterative Development: Focus on iterative releases for incremental progress and managing expectations.

To ensure project success, align internally and with customers on the problem, goal, success metrics, solution (MVP), and timeline. Conduct customer testing before launch and evaluate feedback. Prioritize feature requests as follows: 1) High-impact requests that align with the project's original goal if the MVP falls short. Explore creative solutions to maintain the timeline; if not feasible, revise and communicate it. 2) Low-effort requests that enhance the user experience, if bandwidth exists. Additionally, maintain an outcome-oriented mindset within the team to avoid internal discontent during scope changes. Lastly, timebox the delivery timeline, to prioritize highly valuable features and defer the rest.

Ensure that all stakeholders are aligned with the project's overall goals. Establishing a clear understanding of the Minimum Viable Product (MVP) is crucial as it helps to distinguish between the essential needs and additional wants. By focusing on delivering the most critical features that provide immediate value, teams can avoid overextending the project's scope. Active engagement with stakeholders is key to this process, as it helps to manage expectations and communicate the rationale behind prioritization decisions.

It's essential to list the requested features and categorize them into "must-have" and "good-to-have" categories. The "must-have" features should be further prioritized and classified as "must-have for MVP1" or moved to the backlog. This approach allows for the inclusion of additional features within the MVP scope without affecting the overall project scope, effectively managing business expectations.

In agile development, focusing on the core functionality through the concept of a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) is essential. This approach prioritizes the delivery of a basic yet functional product that meets the primary needs of users. When evaluating feature requests, it's crucial to determine if they are integral to the MVP. Features that do not contribute to the essential functionality or user experience can be deferred, preventing scope creep and ensuring rapid value delivery. This strategy helps maintain project focus and efficiency, allowing for iterative enhancements based on user feedback after the initial release.

Engaging stakeholders is crucial to ensure the success of IT-driven changes. Involving stakeholders from the outset helps to understand their needs, expectations, and concerns, ensuring that the changes align with business objectives. Regular meetings, workshops, and feedback sessions provide platforms for stakeholders to voice their opinions and contribute to the decision-making process. Transparent communication about project goals, progress, and potential impacts fosters trust and collaboration.

A inclusão de todos é a chave para o sucesso se um projeto ágil. Envolver todas as partes interessadas em um projeto garante alinhamento de objetivos e clareza de expectativas. Essa colaboração contínua fomenta um ambiente de transparência e confiança, onde feedback é incorporado rapidamente, resultando em soluções que realmente atendam às necessidades de todos os envolvidos.

In the Agile world, I think the word stakeholder gets confused and misused. I have been in Agile projects where 20 people show up to the daily scrum because they are stakeholders. In Agile, the team is small and that is the point. While engaging with stakeholders is crucial, engaging the right stakeholder and the right time in Agile makes all the difference

Priorização estratégica é a alma do desenvolvimento ágil, e a utilização do método MoSCoW, auxilia muito, pois divide requisitos em categorias claras: Must have (o que essencial ter no produto), Should have (funcionalidades importantes, mas não essenciais, que acrescentam valor significativo ao produto), Could have (o que é desejável ter em um produto, embora não seja essencial para a funcionalidade do produto) e Won't have (o que será excluído da versão atual do produto), permitindo que equipes foquem no que realmente importa. Essa abordagem garante que recursos e esforços sejam direcionados para funcionalidades essenciais, aumentando a eficiência e garantindo entregas de alto valor.

At one of the banks I worked with, we consistently used the MoSCoW method during backlog refinement sessions. This approach helped our product owners determine the relative priority of various requirements. Features tagged as "Must have" were lined up for the immediate sprint, while the less critical ones were deferred to future sprints. By categorizing features into Must have, Should have, Could have, and Won't have, we made objective decisions that were clearly communicated to the team and stakeholders, effectively managing scope creep.

Various techniques can be employed to aid in prioritizing feature requests effectively. The MoSCoW method and DOT VOTING are powerful tools that facilitate objective decision-making and ensure that all stakeholders are on the same page. Additionally, iterative feedback loops and capacity planning help refine and adjust priorities based on real-time input and team capabilities. These methods not only keep the project focused on high-value features but also mitigate the risk of scope creep by maintaining transparency and alignment with project goals and key performance indicators (KPIs).

The MoSCoW method was widely used in one of my previous organizations that helped Product Owners prioritize the feature additions to the upcoming releases and ensured the communication is relayed back to all the stakeholders thereby we effectively managed scope creep.

The MoSCoW method is an effective prioritization technique used to manage requirements and ensure that the most critical features are delivered in a project. It categorizes requirements into four groups: Must have, Should have, Could have, and Won't have. "Must have" requirements are essential for the project's success and must be included in the current delivery timeframe. "Should have" requirements are important but not critical, and while they add significant value, they can be deferred if necessary. "Could have" requirements are desirable but not essential, and their inclusion is dependent on time and resource availability.

Iterative feedback is essential in agile methodologies to ensure continuous improvement and alignment with stakeholder expectations. By regularly reviewing and assessing work in progress through sprint reviews, retrospectives, and frequent stakeholder meetings, teams can gather valuable insights and feedback. This ongoing feedback loop allows for the early identification of issues, quick adjustments, and refinement of features based on real-time input. Engaging stakeholders in these iterative feedback sessions ensures that their concerns are addressed and their needs are met, fostering a collaborative environment. Iterative feedback helps maintain project momentum.

This what, in my experience, Agile really shines. The sprit planning session, the daily scrum and, the retrospective sessions are nothing if not feedback sessions. It is impossible to avoid if everyone is aligned. I was part of a project where some team members refused to participate in the daily scrum meeting because it was a waste of time but had no problems sitting in a room for 2 hours once a week. We need to stress the importance of constant feedback

Feedback constante é o combustível da melhoria contínua. Em um ambiente de projetos ágil, o feedback interativo permite ajustes rápidos e precisos, alinhando o trabalho da equipe às necessidades reais dos usuários. Essa dinâmica iterativa não só acelera a resolução de problemas, como também, fomenta um ciclo de aprendizado e adaptação, garantindo entregas cada vez mais alinhadas com as expectativas e demandas do mercado, sempre focando na agregação se valor.

Leveraging real-time feedback in our development cycles allows us to align feature prioritization with actual user needs and business dynamics. By introducing features incrementally and promptly collecting user insights, we gain a clearer understanding of their effectiveness and relevance in practical scenarios. This iterative approach not only sharpens our focus on delivering the most impactful features but also provides the flexibility to adjust priorities based on real-world performance and user responses, minimizing the risk of project drift and ensuring we stay on target

Capacity planning is a vital process in project management that ensures the team has the appropriate resources and time to complete tasks without overburdening them. It involves assessing the available resources, including personnel, tools, and time, and aligning them with the project’s workload and deadlines. By accurately estimating the effort required for each task and considering the team's current workload, managers can create realistic schedules and avoid bottlenecks. Regularly reviewing and adjusting capacity plans helps accommodate changes in project scope or team availability, ensuring that the project remains on track.

This is another topic that in my experience Agile can help. In traditional project management, you assign or allocate resources to a project and create a schedule assuming that allocation will be constant. In most cases it never is. In Agile, the assumption is that the team is allocated 100% for 2 to 4 weeks at the time and the velocity is expected to change at the end of each sprint. This dictates how long each product will take to make, not necessarily how long the project will take to get done. If at any point, the product owner stops, we would at least have something tangible and usable. In traditional projects, if you stop before the end of the project, chances are there will be very few wins if any

Managing feature requests while controlling scope creep in agile projects requires effective risk analysis. Prioritizing the risks of changes is crucial. It's common to receive numerous feature requests, so creating a risk register and analyzing features holistically helps prevent scope creep. For example, in the telecom industry, we needed to revise the truck roll scheduling system for a large-scale field workforce. By assessing the risks and prioritizing features, we streamlined the scheduling process, ensuring efficient project management and avoiding scope creep. This approach ensures that critical features are delivered on time, maintaining project focus and value creation.

MoSCoW should be used to prioritize the MVP features, however, if there are new requirements to be added, it should be prioritized based on value/risk. What will be the impact if implemented? How much effort will be required to deliver? Do we need an extension of the delivery timeline? What are the opportunity costs for including the new requirements. Also, understanding why this requirement wasn't captured initially could help prevent further scope creeps.

Clear scope definition and requirements prioritisation based on customer needs! Prioritizing feature requests while managing scope creep in an agile project involves balancing customer needs with project constraints!

Understanding Team’s Bandwidth by knowing the team’s velocity, which is the amount of work they can handle in a given sprint. The Product Owner prioritizes the product backlog based on business value, risk, and dependencies. Each item in the backlog is estimated using story points, reflecting the complexity and effort required to complete it. This is done by the team, not by the scrum master, not by the product owner alone! If a high-priority item exceeds the team’s capacity, it needs to be broken down into smaller, manageable items Committing to more work than the team can handle leads to technical debt, reduced quality, and team burnout. Agile welcomes changing requirements, but they should not disrupt the team’s focus during a sprint.