The Assessment Form - Dr Agile - Essay Example

?Dr. Agile Assessment Interpretation of the Results An independent assessment of the team and their capabilities was performed using the Dr. Agile web site, http://www.dragile.com/. The assessment concludes that it is more likely that an agile practice can be adopted successfully if the accompanying criteria for the practice are rated as largely or fully suitable (Dr. Agile, 2010). Assessment characteristics determined to be not suitable or partially suitable are indicators of areas where the team or organization require additional work to improve these areas before attempting the practice (Dr. Agile, 2010). The Dr. Agile assessment performed for the proposed project indicated several areas that were deemed not or partially suitable and the accompanying questionnaire reveals additional areas of significance that correlates with the determinations of the Dr. Agile assessment. This is an interpretation of the Dr. Agile test results and questionnaire, which explain the relevance of the results in context According to the results of the Dr. Agile analysis, in the practice of ‘Managing Requirements Using a Backlog’, the team was rated “Not Suitable” by 28% in the field of ‘Welcoming constant change’ and “Partially Suitable” by 60% in the areas of ‘Importance of Prioritizing’ and ‘Realizing the Evolutionary Nature of Software Development’ (Dr. Agile, 2010). These results indicate that the team needs additional work in adjusting to changing circumstances and acclimating themselves to the field of software development and technology. The rapidly expanding technological market brings constant changes to the work environment and employees within this field must be able to adjust to the daily changes that may occur so they will be better able to service their customers. In the remaining field of ‘Management Buy-in’, the team was rated as “Largely Suitable” by 73% (Dr. Agile, 2010). This rating indicates that this is a practice that the team will most likely be successful in acclimating into their routine. Within the practice of ‘Working in Iterations’, the team was rated as “Not Suitable” by 28% in the area of ‘Value of Early Customer Feedback’ and as “Partially Suitable” by 60% in the area of ‘Realizing the Evolutionary Nature of Software Development’ (Dr. Agile, 2010). These indications mean that the team requires work in these areas before they can successfully adopt these practices into their work scheme. The characteristic of ‘Handling Stress’ was rated as “Largely Suitable” by a margin of 61% and ‘Buy-in of the Development Team’ was rated “Largely Suitable” by 83% (Dr. Agile, 2010). The “Group Estimation” practice achieved a 28%rating of “Not Suitable” in the characteristic of ‘Multi-Disciplined Team Members’ and the practice of “Self-Organized Teams” received the same rating for the same characteristic (Dr. Agile, 2010). This reveals the necessity for strong supportive training in the area of working collectively to achieve a goal and independent decision-making. In the practice of “Group Estimations”, the team was rated “Largely Suitable” by 73% in the characteristic of ‘Management Buy-in’ and “Fully Suitable” by 93% in the characteristics of ‘Trust between Management and Team Members’ and ‘Developer’s Buy-in’ (Dr. Agile, 2010). They also earned the “Fully Suitable” by 93% rating in the characteristic of ‘Developer’s Buy-in’ within the practice of “Daily Standup Meeting” and ‘Management Buy-in’ and ‘Trust between Management and Team Members’ within the practice of “Self-Organized Teams” (Dr. Agile, 2010). The characteristics of ‘Management Buy-in’ in the practice of “Daily Standup Meeting” and ‘Developer’s Buy-in’ in the practice of “Self-Organized Teams” both received the rating of “Largely Suitable” by 83% (Dr. Agile, 2010). Overall, the ratings demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of the team as a whole and demonstrate which areas need supportive training to maximize the potential of the team. Facts and Evidence The result of the questionnaire fully supports the results of the Dr. Agile assessment. The team rated “Not Suitable” for customer feedback, which is supported by their responses to questions one and two on the survey. The resistance to change that is indicated in the Dr. Agile analysis is reflected in their responses to questions two, three, and four on the survey. However, the response to question five on the questionnaire shows that there is some acceptance of the changing nature of the software industry and supports the result of the Dr. Agile summary regarding the evolutionary nature of software development. However, the answer to question six clashes with the summation of the Dr. Agile analysis regarding the “Not Suitable” rating for the characteristic of ‘Multi-Disciplined Team Members’. The Dr. Agile survey does support the questionnaire response to question nine and demonstrates the low marks in the characteristic of ‘Multi-Disciplined Team Members’. This answer, however, clashes with the survey ratings regarding “Self-Organized Teams” and ‘Trust between Management and Team Members’, which is fully supported by the response to question ten on the survey. The rating in the Dr. Agile survey for “Self-Organized Teams” for the characteristic ‘Trust between Management and Team Members’ is also supported by questions ten, eleven, thirteen, and fourteen, which illustrates the level of confidence associates have in the competence of their team members and management staff. The additional questions in the survey shows that many of the workers prefer to work independently and report their progress intermittently, which correlates with the findings of the Dr. Agile assessment. The Dr. Agile assessment also demonstrates the lack of cohesion within the group in their low scores in regards to ‘Multi-Disciplined Team Members’ and these standings are reflected fully in the answers on the questionnaire to questions nine and twelve. Overall, the survey provides supplementary proof of the accuracy of the Dr. Agile assessment. The scores achieved on the Dr. Agile analysis are proven in the body of answers provided on the questionnaire and show that the workers were not operating in as a team, but rather as individuals and that this was the common practice and preference amongst the workers. This is also demonstrated in the low scores that were given for their ability to accept changing scenarios and relate to customers, which is also supported by the results achieved in the Dr. Agile analysis. An independent assessment of the team and their capabilities is a great way to determine what performance areas require supplemental training and where the team is strongest. The conclusions of the analysis are supported in many areas by the determinations and indications of the corresponding survey. The assessment characteristics of the Dr. Agile analysis provide direction for team support and training as well as indicators as to why a project has or will fail. The Dr. Agile assessment performed for the proposed project indicated several areas that were deemed not or partially suitable and the accompanying questionnaire reveals additional areas of significance that correlates with the determinations of the Dr. Agile assessment. References Dr. Agile. (2010). Assessment Rules. Retrieved from http://www.dragile.com/index.php/survey/viewresults/171dd4dcd0edf7f2e891ff279de246bf8c5ace0c Read More