How the Project Exploration Factor defined in table 6-2 (page 110) can be used to help you choose the right type of agile process to follow? Give three specific examples for which you think is around a factor of 10, 5, and 1 respectively, provide justifications.The answer should be written by analyzing text book Agile Project Management, by Jim Highsmith, Second Edition, Addison Wesley .
The exploration factor is derived from a combination product's requirements (ends) and the newness-and thus unce technology platform (means of the volatility of:a nd thus uncertainty-of its The exploration factor matrix shown in Table 6- , routine shows four categories of requirements volatility: erratic, fluctuating and stable. "Erratic" requirements depict a situation in which the product vision is understood, but the business or product requirements are fuzzy. An example would be a version 1.0 new product development effort in whic tures are unfolding as the project goes forwar might change drastically as the project proceeds, not from poor requirements definition ments would be one step down in uncertainty. While an erratic might experience requirements change of 25%-50% or more, a fluctu one might be more sedate at 15%-25%. Table 6.3 summarizes these perc age change guidelines. A routine categorization would apply to a wide ran of projects in which up-front requirements gathering yields a reasonably sta- ble baseline for further work, whereas a stable environment might be som thing like a federally mandated change to payroll withholding rates that is wel defined and unlikely to change? These categorizations can also be applied to specific capabilities or features during release planning h fea- ject goes forward. In this case, the requirements but from evolving knowledge of the product. Fluctuating requir problem space ating ent- Table 6-2 Project Exploration Factors Product Technology Dimension Product Require- Bleeding Edge Leading Edge Familiar Well-known ments Dimension Erratic Fluctuating Routine 10 7 Stable Ken Delcol comments, This guides the PM in both how the project and individ- ual requirements should be managed. For example, erratic requirements need a more iterative approach and should be planned that way up front, regardless of the overall state of the remaining requirements. Not all requirements fall in same bucket. The trick is to realize which requirements are key to overall product success-there is no point rushing forward to specify the stable requirements when critical, high-risk requirements are erratic or fluctuating!" to the
