Well I guess you know you have arrived when MSDN will do a webcast on your extension to one of thier products. See below for details but basically they are going to do a review of the Macroscope Process template for VSTS on MSDN.
Definitely a consideration for a shop that is (1) MSFT and (2) looking for more methodology rigor around the VSTS toolset. Basically, Fujitsu has taken their Macroscope methodology and baked it into VSTS. Not bad.
Tim
From: Ajoy Krishnamoorthy [mailto:Ajoy.Krishnamoorthy@microsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 9:00 AM
Cc: Masayuki Katayama; John Voorhies; Brooke Banbury
Subject: MSDN Webcast on Macroscope for VSTS - Announced at http://msdn.microsoft.com
The announcement for our upcoming (Sept 5th) MSDN web cast on “Macroscope for VSTS” is announced in MSDN. Please check the “Events and Web Casts” section at http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/teamsystem/.
FYI
ajoy krishnamoorthy
Enterprise Strategy Consultant
Microsoft Consulting Services
Email: ajoyk@microsoft.com
Cell Phone: (614) 403-8164
Blog: http://blogs.msdn.com/ajoyk
September 5, 2006
Posted by
bauertim |
Uncategorized |
Macroscope, Methodology, MSFT, VSTS |
No Comments
MSFT did a webcast on Serena last week.
WEBCAST
They seem to be a product (~300M in sales I guess) focused on requirements mgmt, change mgmt, config mgmt. They have integrated to some degree w/ VSTS as we seem to be planning to do w/ our upcoming release of Macroscope. The only keys I took away were:
1. Competitor to Macroscope? Interesting niche player for sure just on the requirements and conceptual design phase. What I am curious about is how much our next release of macroscope can do the core features they are strutting. I believe there is quite a bit of overlap. Macroscope seems to be more integrated with MSFT (doing forms based on infopath and synch requirements to VSTS that way) while they have a proprietary tool to model from. Their tool is more visual than Fujitsu’s (you can tag requirements to a visual wireframe and then synch that to VSTS) but I am not sure how much that buys you (some granted).
2. No validation of cost of lost requirements So the integration of VSTS to a requirements doc (be it theirs or stone tablets) is really about loss of detail in handoff. Thats the big ROI anyway however they didn’t have stats on that. They had stats on how it takes 8 times longer to fix something coded. However there are many ways to get more detail out earlier in requirements (UX, Agile, etc). So more proof in the pudding please.
Here are my detail notes for those amused.
Quote:
• Serena - Partner
• Global ISV - Partner Manager (Peter Koen). Talks to how they are cooperating.
• Extend VSTS for Requirements
• 2:00 - VSTS Overview
• 3:00 - Serena - 300M company
…………..○ Team Track
…………..○ CVS
• Review Serena Composer, RTM (requirements tracking)
• Change impacts
…………..○ Application
…………..○ Operations
• Collaboration is Key
• Composer offers a visual collaboration
• 8 times to fix something versus getting it right during the requirements process
• 7:30 - Serena RTM
…………..○ Automate requirements lifecycle
…………..○ Track
…………..○ Word based to a central repository
• 9:10 - Composer - Visualization of Process flows
…………..○ Simulate events.
…………..○ Show interactive aspects
• 11:00 - Integrated Requirements Lifecycle
…………..○ Store req in RTM
…………..○ Use Composer to do conceptual designs
…………..○ Agile or Iterative or Waterfall
• 13:00 - Composer
…………..○ Appl Plan
…………..○ Business Model
…………..○ Prototype
…………..○ Visualize Requirements
…………..○ Doc Pub
• 14:00 - Demo
…………..○ Designed targetting MSFT Office Tool
…………..○ Objects you can model (1 editor per)
……………………….§ Models are created in context of projects …
……………………….§ Processes
……………………….§ Interfaces
……………………….§ Decisions Rules
……………………….§ Action
……………………….§ Data
…………..○ Swim lanes by role
…………..○ More ‘business focused’ widget for the flow
…………..○ 21:00 - Activities defined by drag drop (decision, communicate, connect, calc, return to, activity, etc)
…………..○ [how is this different than BTS?]
…………..○ Modular (so processes can be embedded in processes)
…………..○ Use Wireframes (capture from webpages or start from scratch)
…………..○ [demo issues - 2min - cant show edit of wireframes]
…………..○ 26:00 - Two Modes of Review
……………………….§ Run (prototype)
……………………….§ Assimilate (walk through process)
…………..○ Everything modelled in their tool (controls, text, etc)
…………..○ Shows options
…………..○ Back to composer … when in UI .. [hrm not too excited yet]
…………..○ VSTS Integration (4)
……………………….§ Scenario
……………………….§ Business Model (swin lanes)
……………………….§ Requirements (detail, smmry)
……………………….§ Documents (word). Store and review in VSTS.
…………..○ Ongoing Synch is possible as well. Publish requirements from this Screen to VSTS.
…………..○ 34:00 - Publish demo w/ example of versioning control. Document why requirements are changing here.
…………..○ [bauer-a lot of the control is in VSTS on versioning so the key question is how to integrate business requirements to dev team (xls link??)]
…………..○ (bauer — doh, using VMWare … comment … nice partnering)
…………..○ Shows how docs from serena get into VSTS
…………..○ End of Demo
• 42:00 - Benefits
…………..○ Easier to visualize / prototype
…………..○ High quality less rework
…………..○ (bauer = key question is how many requirements are missed due to handoff … cause this is where this product hangs)
• 44:00 - Q&A
…………..○ Winforms? Not supported. Webforms for now.
…………..○ How to contact serena?
…………..○ Composer - Serena Reviewer. Allows creation of models, proto, docs … allow them to review them and comment and provide feedback. Collaborative (no liscense required) (bauer - basically they export to word)
…………..○ Models only? No you can do via forms. Functional specs can be stored via RTM (tied to wireframe basically)
…………..○ MSFT? Serena how does it position vs WWF? Working to integration of WF to their product (is the answer). However didn’t talk about how WF or BTS can do a % of what was shown. Interesting. Same for Macroscope I guess.
August 19, 2006
Posted by
bauertim |
Uncategorized |
Methodology |
No Comments
I watched (again) the Macroscope overview that Marcel from FC Canada provided yesterday. Great overview …focused mostly on the mgmt suite. I recommend it. Given the value I saw briefly in the other 3 areas I want to see more. The core things I took away were:
|
1. Macroscope is PRIMARILY focused on business roles. 4 out of 5 modules are outside of the standard methodology product focus areas like Fusion (CGEY), Method/1 (AC-dating myself), etc. I really look forward to understanding in more detail how a full spectrum BA (see BABOK definition of BA to start) could leverage these areas.
2. Tailorable to client. Local adjustments possible at a user level. Very nice.
3. Ability to generated tailored deliverable templates for users. Another nice feature.
4. Tons and tons of detail. Nicely laid out. Proof will be in the pudding but in my hour review I liked the structure it was based on.
|
Here are my detail notes from the webinar. Replay isn’t AVAILABLE (internal link)
| Quote: |
• 1:30 - Start - Marcel
• 3:00 - Macroscope = Delivering Maximum Value from IT Investment
• 4:20 - Business Transformation Framework
…………○ Are we getting things done? (method focus0
…………○ Are we doing things the right way? (assess peopple, process, tech)
…………○ Are we doing the right things? (strategic alighnment)
…………○ Are we providing value? (measure benefit AFTER PPM)
• 6:40 — 5 modules — tie to R’s
…………○ Right Things = Strategy Forum
…………○ Right Way = Arch Lab
…………○ Get Done = Mgmt Suite / Producitivity Center <– Focus here today
…………○ Value = Result Station
• 8:30 - Overview of Ideal Flow of Usage of Macroscope
…………○ Step 1 — Strategy Forum defines objectives (vision, mission, obj)
…………○ Step 2 — Arch lab helps define capabilities required to achieve strategic outcomes
…………○ Step 3 — Then feed results station … create linkage and flow of capabilities to outcomes (roadmap with measure checkpoints kinda). Then using PPM you choose where to invest in your overall change program. From change program kick off specifc projects.
…………○ Step 4 — Management Suite kicks in (mgmt of projects)
…………○ Step 5 — Productivity Suite (the methodology side for IT investments)
• 15:45 - Any of modules above can be used standalone
• 16:45 - List of references making this a world class methodology
…………○ Boeing
…………○ Carnegie
…………○ OMG
…………○ PMI (Registered Provider)
• 18:00 - Gartner chart review
…………○ IBM leads due to acquisition of RUP and KPMG process.
…………○ 2nd to that … however now we might be in lead again (2005). FC invests heavily year over year
• 19:10 - Liscensed client list
• 19:30 - 4.6 version adds
…………○ Agile
…………○ PPM improved
…………○ Results chain modeller improved
…………○ Next release - working on IT Mgmt piece of Macroscope & compliance
• 21:00 - Strategy Module Demo
…………○ Review of internal site (has tons of Macroscope material)
…………○ Each module has overview or drills down to … on home page … of
……………………§ Deliverable
………………………………□ Quite a bit of detail to drill to (deliverables, summary, toc, expanded view of doc, techniques to complete deliverables)
……………………§ Key Role
……………………§ Process
………………………………□ Process reviews are swimlanes by role
…………○ Ability to customize (at a user level) the tool (deliverables, process, etc)
• 28:30 - Arch Lab Demo
○ 29:00 - Result Station Demo
…………○ Similar structure and detail but focused on portfolio mgmt, program mgmt, etc
…………○ Key term - “Results Chain” built here. How strategic objectives are reached. Linkage of objectives, capabilities required, timing / dependancies, projects slated, measures of success, etc
…………○ Deliverables visually flagged in standard process as optional versus required and impact of not doing it
○ 33:30 - Mgmt Suite Demo
…………○ Same structure
…………○ PMI focus … structure .. In process
…………○ 26 distinct processes (green are base processes 6 or 26)
…………○ Not swimlanes for process view instead … input/activity/output … theory being PM is the single role in the mgmt suite
…………○ Built to help novice and experienced PM (smmry and deep detail available in arrea )
…………○ 38:15 - Risk Mgmt Process review. Risk analysis.
…………○ Deliverables in 4 groups
……………………§ Charter
……………………§ Integration Mgmt
……………………§ HR
……………………§ Time Mgmt
…………○ Techniques (18 total)
…………○ Roles (typical project org should be)
…………○ 41:35 - Adaptation: Agile
…………○ 42:30 - Support links that are available
…………○ 44:00 - Job Aid Templates, MSFT PROJ template agile
…………○ 46:00 - Quick reference guide template for Agile Sprints
○ 47:00 - Deliverable Assistant Module
…………○ Allows you to edit structure in Mgmt Suite of Deliverables
…………○ By approach (Agile, etc)
…………○ Tailor deliverables to clients
…………○ Create a deliverable ’set’ for a specific client or approach or solution
…………○ Notice all deliverables created will have:
……………………§ Project Name / Client … header footer pre populated
……………………§ Instructions by areas of templates (in red) to guide users
○ 52:00 - Productivity Center Module
…………○ The technical project module … methods for delivery, operations, and mntc
…………○ More detailed delivery path
○ 53:30 - Q&A
…………○ Overview of Macroscope and EPM |
May 4, 2006
Posted by
bauertim |
Uncategorized |
Macroscope, Methodology |
No Comments
Subscribe
