1. Stakeholder Win-Win & WikiWinWin
Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE
Stakeholder Win-Win & WikiWinWin
Barry Boehm
Di Wu
August 31, 2009
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

2. Outline Why negotiate requirements? What is WinWin negotiation?
Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE
Outline
Why negotiate requirements?
What is WinWin negotiation?
Doing WinWin negotiation - WikiWinWin
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

3. Why Negotiate
To produce requirements, can you just write down what the customer and user want in the requirements document?
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

4. Why Negotiate
To produce requirements, can you just put what the customer and user want in the requirements document? NO
Software project involves many stakeholders
Stakeholders have different needs/ expectations
Many are in conflict
Reconciling conflict is critical
Spider web diagram
Failures, costly rework if not done well
The best place is in negotiation
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

5. The Model-Clash Spider Web: Master Net
- Stakeholder value propositions (win conditions)
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

6. Why Software Projects Challenged
365 respondents and represented 8380 projects. Data source: The Standish Group 1995
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

7. WinWin
The win-win approach is a set of principles, practices, and tools, which enable a set of interdependent stakeholders to work out a mutually satisfactory (win-win) set of shared commitments.
stakeholders
WinWin
win conditions
agreements
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

8. WinWin Negotiation Model
Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE
WinWin Negotiation Model
Win-Win Equilibrium:
All win conditions covered by agreements
No outstanding issues
Win Condition: captures individual stakeholders’ desired objectives.
Issue: captures conflicts between win conditions and their associated risks and uncertainties.
Option: candidate solutions to resolve an issue.
Agreement: captures shared commitment of stakeholders with regard to accepted win conditions or adopted options.
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

9. Example Win condition: Issue: Option:
Development cost should be zero, including cost of COTS.
Issue:
There is a possibility that no free COTS that will satisfy our desired capability.
Option:
The most suitable free COTS will be used
No COTS use
Pay up to $1,000 for COTS
We find a suitable COTS, which costs $200 (Agreement)
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

10. Win-lose Generally Becomes Lose-lose
Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE
Win-lose Generally Becomes Lose-lose
NOBODY wins in these situations
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

11. Example
Customer and Developers initially agreed on a “one second response time” at $30 million contract (Both customer and developers were winners)
Developers later found out it would cost them $100 million to deliver the “one-second response time”
(Developers went from winner to loser)
Win-lose became lose-lose
Developers could deliver defective product or cut corners
Developers could go bankrupt if they spend $100 million
In either case, customer couldn’t get what they negotiated for
(Customer also loses)
WinWin
Developers and customer prototyped with users
Found 4-second response OK 90% of the time
Developers, customer and user renegotiated a “four-second response time” at $30 million
(Developers, customer, and user are all winners)
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

12. Achieving WinWin Software requirement negotiation
Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE
Achieving WinWin
Software requirement negotiation
Often requires compromises
Involves diverse but interdependent stakeholders
Sometimes stakeholders don’t know what they want
Stakeholders interests are often in conflict
Requires a systematic approach (WinWin, Incremental Commitment)
The course provides an opportunity to practice
The WikiWinWin tool can help you with your negotiation
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

13. WikiWinWin Overview Roles Activities and Schedule Conclusion 12/9/2018
Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE
WikiWinWin
Overview
Roles
Activities and Schedule
Conclusion
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

14. Overview (1) WikiWinWin
Tool and process
Help success-critical stakeholders to jointly discover, elaborate, and negotiate win conditions.
Achieving WinWin in rapid interdisciplinary requirements negotiation
Multi-stakeholder
Multi-discipline
Globally distributed
Rapid change
Leverage Wiki technology and Shaper role
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

15. Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE
Overview (2)
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

16. Enabling Technology - Wiki
Collective authorship in wiki: everyone is a viewer and editor
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

17. Roles Two types contributions in using wiki Shaping (shaper)
Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE
Roles
Two types contributions in using wiki
Contributing knowledge (knowledge contributor)
Contribute domain knowledge, win conditions, negotiate agreements
Everyone
Shaping (shaper)
Shaper role is a critical success factor
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

18. Example of a Shaper: Howard*
Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE
Example of a Shaper: Howard*
75-person software engineering group at a multi-billion dollar tech company
“I spend up to two hours a day working on the wiki. Much of this time I reorganize other people’s materials, rename pages, create new links on the home page, or restructure the home page. Benefits aren’t to mean personally, but they help the group collaborate more effectively. They can find things easier”
*Ann Majchrzak, USC Marshall School of Business, 2006
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

19. Shaper in WikiWinWin (1)
Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE
Shaper in WikiWinWin (1)
Leader of negotiation
Preparation tasks
Lead negotiation meeting
Summarize wiki discussions
Help other stakeholders use the tool correctly
Shape wiki content
By integrating, organizing & rewriting contributions of others
Primary helper (but everyone is editor, all are accountable for contributing in the wiki)
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

20. Shaper in WikiWinWin (2)
Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE
Shaper in WikiWinWin (2)
Two shapers on each team
Suggested assignment: one on-campus, one off-campus
Off-campus shaper: lead shaper in using wiki
On-campus shaper: facilitate negotiation meetings; co-shape with off-campus shaper
Being shaper
An interest in negotiations
Ability to collaborate
Contribute time and effort
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

21. Example - Shaper Initial ideas from knowledge contributors
Shaper organize them into a prospective win condition
Stakeholders engage in a further discussion
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

22. Activities and Schedule
9/3 – 9/4: WikiWinWin tutorial – I (on-campus students)
4 sessions; require to attend one; sign-up outside SAL 329
9/9: Teams formed; identify shapers
9/9 – 9/10: WikiWinWin tutorial – II (on-campus shapers)
2 sessions; require to attend one; sign-up outside SAL 329
Tutorials on-tape for DEN students
9/10- 9/11: Site visit; client interaction
9/16- 9/30: Initial WinWin negotiation
Course provide 2 meeting sessions (90 minutes each) per team; at least 3 days apart; reserve after team formed
Off-line negotiation
10/7: Initial WinWin report
WinWin survey (individual assignment); client feedback
Maintain WinWin equilibrium in wikiwinwin
11/18: Updated WinWin report
12/11: Individual critique; client evaluation
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

23. WikiWinWin Negotiation Activities
Identify stakeholders
Capture glossary
Review negotiation topics
Identify win conditions
Converge on win conditions
Identify issues, options, agreements
Check WinWin equilibrium
Prioritize agreements
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

24. Previous Experience Milestone package quality shortfall vs.
Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE
Previous Experience
Milestone package quality shortfall vs.
tool use by team
Milestone package quality shortfall vs.
tool use by shaper
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

25. Conclusion Negotiate before defining requirements
Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE
Conclusion
Negotiate before defining requirements
WinWin help streamline consensus-building
Involve success critical stakeholders (SCS)
If you leave some parties out, they will drag you to lose
Do not over-negotiate
Concurrently explore feasibility via prototyping, analysis
Mutual learning is critical
WikiWinWin tool is work-in-progress
Contact:
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

26. Backups
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

27. Identify Stakeholders
Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE
Identify Stakeholders
Objective: identify project’s SCS, mutual learning
How: meeting, on-site visit, role-mapping
Result: stakeholders contact info and roles, initial project context and meeting result
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

28. Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE
Capture Glossary
Objective: Define and share meaning of important terms
How: Shapers/ others suggest definitions based on stakeholder statements; joint review
Result: A glossary of terms with definitions and stakeholder statements showing usage of terms
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

29. Review Negotiation Topics
Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE
Review Negotiation Topics
Objective: refine and customize the outline of negotiation topics
How: Initial outline provided
Result: Shared Outline that helps to
stimulate your thinking,
organize your win conditions, and
serves as a completeness checklist for negotiations.
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

30. Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE
Submit Win Conditions
Objective: Share perspectives, views, background, expectations
How: brainstorming,
input ideas by category
Result: A categorized set of stated stakeholders’
needs or desires
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

31. Converge on Win Conditions
Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE
Converge on Win Conditions
Objective: Build and organize win conditions
How: Structured discussion to converge on win conditions; Shaper/ others suggest final wording
Result: List of clearly stated, unambiguous win conditions
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

32. Comment on a Win Condition
Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE
Add a new Win Condition
Comment on a Win Condition
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

33. Identify Issues, Options, Agreements
Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE
Identify Issues, Options, Agreements
Objective: Explore issues and options; negotiate agreements
How: Develop/Review pass for issues, options, agreements
Result: A WinWin Tree:
Win conditions
Issues
Options
Agreements
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

34. View Issues Add an Issue
Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE
View Issues
Add an Issue
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

35. Comment on an Issue View Options Add an Option
Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE
Comment on an Issue
View Options
Add an Option
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

36. Win Conditions, Issue, Options and Agreement
Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE
Win Conditions, Issue, Options and Agreement
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

37. Prioritize Agreements
Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE
Prioritize Agreements
Objective: Scope project, gain focus
How: Client prioritize business importance; developers prioritize ease of implementation
Result: Prioritized agreements
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

38. Check WinWin Equilibrium
Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE
Check WinWin Equilibrium
Objective: Check if negotiation topics have been sufficiently covered
How: Check Consistency, check Completeness
Result: List of topics needing further attention
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE

39. Important with hurdles
Sep 8, 2004 at USC-CSE
Agreements are categorized in four categories
Important with hurdles
Forget them
Low hanging fruits
Maybe later
12/9/2018
©USC-CSSE