Sprint 1 – Understand - AgileBusinessAnalysis/01_TEAM GitHub Wiki

Set long-term goal

Providing a technology solution to our target audience which pro-actively supports them in living a healthy and happy relationship.

Define the challenge

According to the "Bundesamt für Statistik" (2019), most relationships are failing after 5-9 years. This supports the so-called "verflixte siebte Jahr"-theory in which the seventh year is regarded as the most difficult on in a relationship. This can be seen in the following graphic, the worst case scenario:

The main challenge is to support the relationship with a technology solution at the right time so that the following best case scenario might be reached:

In a first rollout phase of our technology solution, we focus on a specific target audience. As target audience, we see people having the following attributes:

  • Swiss-German
  • 25-60 years old
  • Living in a relationship for more than 2 years
  • Living in a common household with partner

Map the challenge

Map the challenge is a powerful, systematic method to quickly elaborate a set of challenges. There are many benefits by using a challenge map. It is very helpful to determine the most important decision points which will have the greatest impact in a very efficient way.

Participants of the "Map the Challenge" workshop were potential end customer of the application that fit the above-listed criteria.

First, the relationship was split into different phases (like epics), along a timeline. Then in groups of four various challenge statements (like features) were formulated which were based on personal experiences of the participants and a short desk research. Once the challenges had been defined, the group classified each statement into the different phases along the timeline.

Then, timeboxed in two rounds for three minutes, each participant phrased problem cases related to the given challenges. Those "problem use cases" were then assigned to the the given challenge statements by each participants, again timeboxed in two rounds of three minutes. After that, the participants went through each item and looked whether a participant gives his/her veto to the item's classification. If the item got a veto, it was placed on the side and then in a next round each of these displaced items were discussed in detail and in a "planning poker" kind of setup classified. If there was still no agreement, a further discussion round was made and the team democratically decided where to classify the item.