Scrum Med02232011 V4

Delivering Product Innovations
Using High Performance Teams –
g g
People and Project Issues
ScrumMed 2011

Munich,
Munich Germany
February 23, 2011

© Siemens AG 2011. All rights reserved.

Contents

 Goals

 Brief look on Siemens Healthcare

 Business and product development challenges

 Issues and solutions

 Key takeaways

 Further Information

Page 2 Arnold Rudorfer, Siemens Healthcare Imaging & Therapy SYNGO

Contents

 Goals


 Business and product development challenges


 Key takeaways



Goals of this Talk
What
Wh t we gonna t lk about t d …
talk b t today

 Disc ss the e periences on
Discuss experiences
people- and project
management issues in
concurrent rapid development
projects
 Share key practices and
lessons learned to
successfully deliver such
projects on ti
j t time, cost and
t d
quality


Contents

 Goals


 Business and product development
challenges

I
Issues and solutions
d l ti

 Key takeaways



Siemens Healthcare
THE Integrated Healthcare Company
I t t d H lth C

in-vivo diagnostics (imaging)

X-Ray Computed Magnetic Molecular Ultrasound Oncology
Tomography Resonance Imaging

syngo.via
in-vitro diagnostics (l b t
i it di ti (laboratory systems)
t )

Immunodiagnostics Nucleid Acid Clinical Chemistry Hematology Urin Lab Automation Near Patient
Testing Analysis Testing


Siemens Healthcare
Development of S l and Employee Numbers
D l t f Sales d E l N b

Sales
S l according to region1)
di t i

Germany
9%
Asia & Australia
17%
Europe
(without Germany)
31% 00 7
0.9
9
0.7 0.9
09
1.0
10 1.1
11

Employees according to region2)
Germany
Americas 23%
43%
Europe
Asia & Australia
(without Germany)
17%
19%
9.7 11.4 11.3

Americas
1) Basis: FY 2009 acc. To customer locations. 2) Figures worldwide as of Sept. 30, 2009
41%


syngo
The C t l I
Th Central Image Hub In Healthcare W kfl
H b I H lth Workflows

More patient exams Sound diagnoses
in less time* in less time*

Efficient i
Effi i t image Smooth and fast
S th d f t
creation, usage, collaboration
archiving,
and sharing

*Results may vary. Data on file.
syngo. It s all about you.
It’s


Example: syngo.mCT Oncology
Whole O
Wh l Oncology Workflow: Tumor Detection, Staging
l W kfl T D t ti St i

Automated Case Preparation Disease Oriented
Disease-Oriented Reading Multi Modality
Multi-Modality Access

 Automated bone and bloodpool  Preferred layout applied  Image fusion for CT, PET, and
removal  Automated lesion segmentation MR images, etc.
 Automated sorting of images, etc.  Automatic loading of prior exams, etc.

Courtesy of University Hospital of Munich-Grosshadern/ Munich, Germany © Siemens AG 2011. All rights reserved.
syngo.mCT Oncology is cleared in theRudorfer, Siemens Healthcare Imaging & Therapy SYNGO
Page 9 Arnold U.S. with syngo.PET&CT Oncology.

Business Unit SYNGO - Major Development Sites
Distributed D
Di t ib t d Development with B t T l t
l t ith Best Talent

SY Germany

SY USA

SY USA SY Hungary, Slovakia

SY India

SY development sites
Partner development sites
Siemens AG: ~48,100 employees worldwide*)
, p y
*) as of Sept. 30, 2009
Healthcare Sector: ~1,200 employees worldwide*)


Contents
Contents

 Goals

 Brief look on Siemens and Vector
Healthcare

 Project syngo.via
Business and product development challenges

 Business challenges

 Leantakeaways
Key Requirements Engineering

 Results Information
Further and Summary



Business Challenges

Critical Care Facility:
Facilit
 Fragmented information flows
 Growth of medical devices up
by 52% (from 2000 to 2009)
 Competitive pressures to
shorten time-to-market for
development deployment
 IT systems are bought through
RFP process; products need to
satisfy special requirements


Product D
P d t Development Challenges
l t Ch ll

Development
De elopment teams need to:
to
 adhere to strict project delivery
deadlines to meet sales
opportunity
 provide user interface with
adequate usability (critical
unique selling proposition)
 envision novel product f t
i i l d t features
in collaboration with close
involvement of end users
 deal with late requirements- and
design changes
Note: No actual patient data used in screen shot


Project: Hospital Information System (HIS)
Setting the Context
S tti th C t t …

Project Summary
HIS: Provide automation of
administrative- and clinical
workflows (via EMR); goal is
quality of care up and cost down
Project data:
Key technologies: Java
Development team: ~ 40+ people
3-6 weeks release cycle
3 6 ee s e ease cyc e
10+ releases
160K LOC, productivity: 50 LOC
p
per developer day
p y
Prototyped features critically
support sales process
Note: No actual patient data used in screen shot


Development Approach: Concurrent Prototyping


Contents
Contents

 Goals

Healthcare

Business and product development
challenges
 Lean Requirements Engineering
 Key takeaways
 Results and Summary


Issues and its Business Impact

Issue Description Business Impact if Unresolved
 No time for steep Deliver schedule cannot be met; loss of business
ment

learning curve opportunity
People Managem

 Keeping motivation,  Lowered productivity than needed
avoid burn-out  Delivery schedule is missed
 Adequate project  Non-aviailability of needed skills can lead to delays
staffing
ffi
e

 Multiple, bi-directional  Open loop communication leads to development
communication line inefficiencies
 New / mis-interpreted  Scope expansion risks not meeting the fixed date for
requirements – scope the customer sales meeting
ement

management
ect
Proje
Manage

 Project expectation  Over-commitment potentially leads to trouble in
management acceptance
 Delivery schedule  If inprecisely defined scope is not tracked adequately,
adherence
dh target d t i i j
t t date is in jeoparady
d

Issue 1: No Time for Steep Learning Curve

Key measures:
 Testing as entry point to build
domain knowledge
 Senior developer as mentor; 2
developers per workflow
 T t i l on UI d t b
Tutorials UI, database
architecture
 Participate in weekly technical
p y
updates and idea exchanges
Quantitative data:
 28 staff trained over ~6 month
period
 Effort spent by core team ~10% of
working time

Issue 2: Keeping Motivation, Avoid Burn-out

Key measures:
 Continuously taking pulse of
teams, walk-in to stand-ups
 Task rotation for staff
 Assignment to tasks in areas of
interest or expertise
 Software process improvements
Quantitative data:
 4 process improvement
workshops carried out 10 to 15
out,
improvements per workshop
 Teams take charge to
implement
i l t

Issue 3: Adequate Project Staffing

Key measures:
 Networking & referral in own
organization
 Establish partnership with global
tech staffing agency
 Hi „A“ players only
Hire A“ l l
 Staff performance reviews
Quantitative d t
Q tit ti data:
 10+ resumes reviewed, 15
telephone and in-person
e ep o e a d pe so
interviews
 5 consultants engaged


Issue 4: Multiple Communication Lines

Key measures:
 Define unambiguous, non-
conflicting communication
g
channels
 Single point of contact
 Close proximity of all staff
 Technologies: Blog, IM, Wiki
Meetings:
Daily stand-up, brief hallway
meetings
Design reviews
D i i


Issue 5: New Requirements – Scope Management

Key measures:
 Use functioning prototype as
boundary object resolving
inconsistencies
 Design reviews as soon as
sample screens are available
 Impact analysis, trade-off analysis
(quality, scope)
 Team re-assignments
Quantitative data:
100+ tele conferences in design
tele-conferences
reviews, each ~ 1 to 4 hours
3 impact analysis of new
requirements; twice no replanning
possible

Issue 6: Project Expectation Management

Key measures:
 24/7 availability of the prototype
for user testing (online)
 Fuzzy initial requirements and
estimates, planning for the
scope to grow
 Frequent design reviews and
explicit sign-offs
Quantitative data:
1 complete re-planning of a
project task – wasting 2 staff-
weeks of effort for UI design, no
impact on delivery


Issue 7: Delivery Schedule Adherence

Key measures:
 Miniature milestone project
planning & tracking
 Cross-interviews with
developers on estimates
I t
Internal project meetings t
l j t ti to
synchronize
Quantitative data:
 10 project plans with an
average of 10 to 15 miniature
milestones
 30+ internal project
leadership meeting


Main Differences: Scrum vs. Concurrent Rapid
Prototyping
P t t i

Classic Scrum Concurrent Rapid Prototyping
Fixed time-box (2 or 4 weeks) Variable time box (2 to 6 weeks), target date
driven
Acceptance of f
A f features at sprint review
i i Continuous d i reviews as soon as a
C i design i
couple of workflow prototype are runnable
Requirements defined and do not change Requirements are developed while the user
during time-box
d i ti b experience i d
i is developed and th workflow
l d d the kfl
coded
Multiple development artifacts (RE Single artifact specification (storyboard)
specification,
specification test specification UI
specification,
specification)
Higher scalability (>> 30+ Scrum Teams) Valid for teams of up to 50+ staff (based on
own experience)
Broad mix of developers can be phased in Best developers are needed to hit the target
date; no compromise on productivity
Distributed development setup Co-location
Co location of development teams only


Contents
Contents

 Goals

Healthcare



 Lean Requirements& Key takeaways
Lessons Learned Engineering

 Results Information
Further and Summary



Lessons Learned

 People Management:
 Multi-disciplinary development teams is a key to have the right skills mix
needed at any given point in time (incl. the end user)
 Use state of the art technologies (Blogs, IM, Wiki) to assure closed loop
communication.
 Staff performance evaluation: Assure that the right people with the right
level of performance work together (for highest productivity)
 Training and task rotation: Have developers pass through different
phases in project
 Project Management:
 Miniature milestones – intermediate targets to assure delivery for
customer sales meeting
 Design reviews – continuous feedback to assure acceptance of release

Key Takeaways
K T k

 Agile lean development practices requires a proactive staff
Agile,
management approach
 Communication technologies e.g. Blog, IM help to speed up knowledge
sharing and capturing best practices
 Co-location is must for maintaining productivity
 Task rotation reduces learning curve for domain know-how build-up
 Management never participates in software process improvement
workshops
 Team excellence is encouraged via fair, candid and continuous
feedback
 Practitioners in industry need to more proactively share their people
management practices in the software business

Thank
Th k you for your attention!
f tt ti !


Contents

 Goals

Healthcare


Issues and Solutions

 Leantakeaways
Key Requirements Engineering

 Results and Summary
Further Information



Further I f
F th Information
ti

 US Food & Drug Administration Design Control Guidance for Medical Device Manufacturers; March 11 1997
Administration, 11,
 US Food & Drug Administration, Quality System Regulation,; January 1, 1997, http://www.fda.org/cdrh/qsr/01qsreg.html
 Hwong B., Laurance D., Rudorfer A., Song X.: User-centered design and agile software development processes
Presented at Identifying Gaps between Software Engineering and Design, and Boundary Objects to Bridge Them, a
workshop held a the Computer Human Interaction (CHI) 2004 Conference. Vienna, Austria 2004-04
 Gunaratne J, Hwong B., Nelson Ch., Rudorfer A: Using evolutionary prototypes to formalize product requirements,
Presented at Bridging the Gaps II: Bridging the Gaps between Software Engineering and Human-Computer Interaction, a
workshop held at 2004. Edinburgh, Scotland, 2004-05
p g , ,
 Song X., Matos G., Hwong B., Rudorfer A., Nelson C.: S-RaP: A Concurrent Prototyping Process for Refining Workflow-
Oriented Requirements 13th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference , Paris, France 2005-09
 Xiping.Song, Beatrice.Hwong, Gilberto.Matos, Arnold.Rudorfer, Zhifang.Zhang: Towards Classifying Requirements for
Computer-Aided Healthcare Workflows, IEEE Computer magazine 2008
 Beatrice Hwong, Grace Tai, Rajanikanth Tanikella, Gergana Nikolova, Gilberto Matos, Christopher Nelson, Bradley
Wehrwein, Arnold Rudorfer, Xiping Song, Monica McKenna: Quality Improvements from Using Agile Development
Methods: Lessons Learned, http://www.51testing.com/ddimg/uploadsoft/20090120/AgileQualityAssurance.pdf, April 2007
 Brian Berenbach, Daniel Paulish, Arnold Rudorfer, Juergen Kazmeier, Software Systems Requirements Engineering; Mc-
Graw Hill 2009; http://www.mhprofessional.com/product.php?isbn=0071605479
 Arnold Rudorfer, Christof Ebert: Lean Requirements Engineering in Medical Systems, MedConf 2010, Munich, Germany,
October 14 2010; http://2010 medconf de/downloads/abstracts2010/T2 T3 V1 vector siemens pdf
14, http://2010.medconf.de/downloads/abstracts2010/T2_T3_V1_vector_siemens.pdf


Arnold Rudorfer
Director Software Initiative and
Process Improvement
Siemens Healthcare AG

Hartmannstrasse 16
D-91052 Erlangen

Phone: +49 9131 – 82 2299
Fax: +49 9131 – 84 8691
Mobile: +49 174 1537825

Email:
arnold.rudorfer@siemens.com


Scrum Med02232011 V4

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à Scrum Med02232011 V4

Similaire à Scrum Med02232011 V4 (20)

Plus de Arnold Rudorfer

Plus de Arnold Rudorfer (11)

Scrum Med02232011 V4