Innovation Games in Turkey

Innovation Games Qualified Instructor Jonathan Clark will be a keynote speaker at the forthcoming Agile Turkey Summit in Istanbul, Turkey on September 27th. His keynote is entitled “Why Serious Games are Good for Business” and he’ll explain what Innovation Games® are, why they work so well, and how to use them as part an Agile process.

For more details and how to register, see the Agile Turkey Summit website.

Meet the speaker: Jurgen de Smet on “Get yourself on the Cover”

Your session at the Innovation Games Summit is called “Get Yourself on the Cover”. What can attendees expect?
They can expect to “learn by doing”, as we will collaboratively create a vision that engages participants to actions. We’ll do this by combining a meeting carousel with a cover story to generate insights and reflect on the outcomes and endless possibilities towards execution.

The summit is bringing together people who are the front lines of using games to do work. What has been your overall experience with doing work with games?
As a team leader and product owner, I’ve been using serious games since 2006. While my career within Agfa Healthcare was booming, I kept using games to engage people around me and get them to work together and have fun. Later on, I also started using games as a way to teach and coach others. Today, I employ games in almost everything I do, for my company, as well as for my customers. Recently, I brought the Budget Games to Belgium (Aalbeke – Kortrijk), where we used games to get citizens engaged with the city budget plans.
Using games in assignments, problem-solving or investigations is, for me, the most appropriate way to get people to collaborate and achieve amazing results. Attendees and customers keep on being surprised about the impact of games and that’s nice. One of the reasons I became an Innovation Games Qualified Instructor is that I want to spread out the message to the world: Game on!

Do you have a favorite Innovation Game or technique? Why is it your favorite?
I have no favorite, as all of them work very well for the context they were developed for. But I like to put a twist on existing games, change or combine them in different ways, or even invent new games, depending on the question and context they’re used in.

What techniques or games do you use most frequently and why?
The difficult question actually. There are so many games I use often. I think it all depends on the question we want to get insights on, the people we are working with, and the constraints set for the event.
As I said, I like to change the games as much as possible for each assignment as this brings out the creative part in me, but I keep following the basic structures of Innovation Games® and Gamestorming. I like to invent new, effective and fun ways to do serious work and this keeps repetitive work (like Agile retrospectives) interesting, engaging and fun. The games I most use are Product Box for visioning purposes in all different kind of contexts, Prune the Product Tree to get more details out and generate deeper insights into visions, strategy, products and such, most likely together with a Buy a Feature for prioritization purposes. Then again 20/20 Vision is the one most used, I guess.

What are you most looking forward to at the Summit? Any particular sessions?
I’m looking forward to hearing stories from others on how they explored the power of games; preferably in domains, I have not been active in (yet). Next, to that, I’m also pleased to catch up with my friends such as Luke, Ant, Jonathan, Oana, Bart, and Ulf. Basically, I’m looking forward to the learning and fun I’ll have over there.


We Knew We Were Good … Research Proves We’re Great

Research studies back up years of anecdotal evidence. Games really are a valid method for doing work.

If you’ve used Innovation Games® or Knowsy®, then you know our game platforms, well, just work. Over the past decade our customers have used Innovation Games and Knowsy to answer questions, solve problems, unearth serious insight and foresight, align their organizations, and a whole host of related work. We have years of anecdotal and experiential data, and there’s no question that serious games are becoming more common solutions in the business world. However, we feel it’s still critical for us to assess the effectiveness of games for solving problems. After all, we want to know if our gaming platforms are producing as high-impact results as other techniques–or if they are even better.

Playing Knowsy to find team alignment.

Fortunately, the preliminary research that I’m sharing confirms our years of practical experience: Our games are good. Really good.

Practical Experience Drives Research Design Parameters

For a number of years, we’ve been collecting the feedback from our customers on the business impact of our games. They’ve told us that the games generate a number of hard and soft benefits:


  • They improve the novelty of new product concepts. Let’s define “novelty” as an idea that your team or company had not yet identified or considered. Customers report that using our games creates more novel ideas.
  • Increase the number of novel ideas. Getting one novel idea is great. Getting ten is better. We’ve produced games that have generated hundreds of novel ideas.
  • Strengthen Intellectual Property portfolios. You don’t have to bring a new product to market to get value from a novel idea: Many organizations use the results of games to stay two moves ahead of their competition.
  • Reduce time to take decisions. While pundits tell us that we need to “move faster” in business, they often fail to give us better tools. Our prioritization games are especially effective at helping businesses move faster: Cisco, VeriSign, HP and others have told us that Buy a Feature alone has saved them months of time.
  • Increase engagement. Novel ideas and efficient decisions are enhanced when employees are actively engaged in their work. As you’ll see later in this post, one of the reasons Innovation Games® produces the previous benefits is that the games increase engagement.
  • Enhance strategic relationships. Executives and Strategic Account Managers know that strong personal relationships are the foundation of strong business relationships. Playing games like Knowsy® creates these foundations.
  • Strengthen corporate brands. More broadly, companies that demonstrate they’re understanding their customers and using this understanding to drive offerings create the strongest, most effective brands.


Playing the Innovation Game Start Your Day in Chicago, IL.

While this is an impressive list of benefits, it is by no means exhaustive. Quite often the highest impact result of a game is its ability to directly solve a specific problem. For example, reducing the time it takes to prioritize product features often pales in comparison to the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars of direct savings from avoiding unnecessary or unwanted products or product features.

My experience in business suggests that for senior executives these benefits are typically sufficiently compelling to start leveraging the games. My academic training, though, motivates a desire for deeper explorations: To what degree and in what situations are the games better than traditional techniques? To what degree and in what situations are online games more effective than in-preson games? What kinds of players and facilitators produce the best results? And while we have more questions than answers, the answers we’ve got are pretty darn exciting.

Measuring Novelty and Feasibility

The benefits listed above provide a good starting point for research design. The first study I wish to share is from Hadi Ghanbari from the University of Oulu in Finland, who compared the online versions of Prune the Product Trees effectiveness at generating novel, or previously unknown requirements, again traditional requirements gathering techniques and Buy a Feature‘s effectiveness at identifying the most important, most feasible requirements.

Prune the Product Tree Online

Hadi found that Prune the Product Tree was significantly more effective at identifying previously unknown requirements. Perhaps more importantly, the identified requirements were more clearly understood by the stakeholders precisely because the collaborative structure of the game enabled participants to share information clearly.

Hadi also found that Buy a Feature was also significantly more effective at prioritizing requirements, and that the requirements selected through the game were judged to be more feasible, because the game structure generates prioritization data, conditions of acceptance that shape the requirements, and deeper understanding of the motivations for the requirements which creates greater clarity on the problems these features are designed to solve.

In reviewing these results, I found that Hadi was testing a relatively small sample size compared to what we see in corporate implementations of our platforms. This suggests that the advantages that Hadi identified to our online games may be magnified as the number of features and players increase.

Unfortunately the paper is not yet cleared for publication, we will post it as soon as it is available!

I’d like to see this research extended to see if we could identify more fine-grained aspects or dimensions of “novelty” and which of the visual collaboration games are optimal for what aspect of novelty we’re trying to identify.

Measuring Engagement

Buy a Feature game results.

Our second research study comes from Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, which worked with Daimler Financial Services to explore the effectiveness of using Buy a Feature in prioritizing the ideas that employees submitted to an internal “idea catcher”. Historically, these systems excel at capturing “spur of the moment” thinking, but are typically weak on prioritization. After all, if all you can do is give a “thumbs up” or a “thumbs down” on an idea, you’re not going to be engaged in trying to select the best idea possible.

While the full results of the study have not yet been released, Daimler has approved sharing some key insights. These include the following:

  • The Daimler team found that preparing the ideas for inclusion in the game produced a much better result, because items in a Buy a Feature game must fairly state benefits. By “fairly”, I mean that a project with outlandish claims of benefits (for example, 1000% ROI) won’t be purchased, and projects with too few benefits won’t be purchased. Playing Buy a Feature results in more fairly defined projects.
  • Employees reported significantly higher levels of engagement, when prioritizing ideas using Buy a Feature.
  • For the reasons previously mentioned, the Daimler team also found that the selected projects were more feasible, and that the chat logs provided significant insight that made the proposals even better.

Like Hadi’s study, the Daimler research was based on a relatively small sample size. Increasing either the number of employees engaged in the study or the number of projects would likely show even greater impact.

Making Your Move

For those of you who have already experienced the incredible power that comes from playing our games, I’m sure the results from these studies are no surprise, and will only confirm what you know to be true. However, you may find that the results may sway others who are still skeptical about the role serious games can play.

If you’re new to our games, or perhaps still on the fence about whether games are really a valid method for solving business problems, I hope these studies provide you with a reason to make the move toward using serious games for solving business problems.

Finally, ff you’re a researcher who’d like to join us in assessing the effectiveness of our games, drop me a line. We’re eager to support you in your efforts to explore the effectiveness of our games.

Speed Boat meets SWOT, Innovation Games & Scrum, ScrumKnowsy and more…

One of best parts of putting this newsletter together each month is unearthing how Innovation Games are changing how people do work, all over the world. This month we have reported on Speed Boat, including a mashup with Swot Analysis, details on using Innovation Games in ScrumMaster training, the ScrumKnowsy iPad app, and more… 


Speed Boat meets SWOT

Show me someone in the working world who hasn’t used SWOT Analysis? Raise your hand if you’ve played Speed Boat. Ever mashed the two together?

No, well, Joshua Arnold of has and writes, “I’ve run a few SWOT analysis with senior managers and teams, to help them identify and share strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. What would be great to do is combine the boat metaphor [from Innovation Game’s Speed Boat] and the safe environment — and add to it a bit by identifying both negatives and positives, as well as make more explicit what is inherent to the organization itself and what is beyond their locus of control.”

Arnold’s combined game is covered in detail on his website. Do you have a game mashup to share? Let us know!


Speed Boat Short Takes. 

Arnold wasn’t the only person posting about Speed Boat. Check out these posts as well on how folks are putting the game to work:

Russian Speed Boat

  • The product manager blogger behind writes about how Speed Boat can ease the most uncomfortable and most important part of retrospectives, what went wrong and what went right.
  • David Koss writes about attending an Innovation Games workshop at PaloIT in Paris in April, where he explores how to use Speed Boat to solve organizational problems.


Innovation Games + Scrum = Awesome 

Qualified Instructor and Enthiosys President Jason Tanner recently teamed up with Carlton Nettleton to co-teach a Certified ScrumMaster class. Innovation Games have long been used in the Agile community; the techniques work really well with common agile practices, but it’s still cool to hear about how the games are being put to use.

Changecamp treeIn this post, Carlton details how he and Jason incorporated both online and in-person games into the class, including 20/20 Vision, Prune the Product TreeSpeed BoatBuy a Feature and Knowsy (ScrumKnowsy, of course).

Carlton writes, “The online games are really powerful. During our course, Jason demonstrated how to use the online games for retrospectives, market research and release planning. Seeing the new and interesting ways that Jason had used the online games as a collaboration tool intrigued me.”  Read more about how Carlton and Jason incorporated Innovation Games here.

ScrumKnowsy: iPad or Browser-based? 

ScrumKnowsy is now available as an iPad app, allowing you to play the standalone, personal version withoutScrumKnowsy Personal a wifi connection and discover how your Scrum practice stacks up against such Scrum luminaries as Jeff Sutherland, Jim Coplien, Jens Østergaard and Jeff McKenna.

Want to play online, alone or with your team? Save and export your results as you improve and grow your Scrum practice? Register and play online at

Why Yahoo! Is Playing Games Instead of Working From Home

Hi everyone! This blog post has been temporarily unpublished while I work with the Yahoo! team on making sure all aspects of this great story are properly shared. Thanks for coming – and come back soon!


Blue Cross Blue Shield Puts Innovation Games® to Work

Leon Sabarsky’s Scrum team has been using Innovation Games for a while in their work on Claim Automation.The Raleigh, NC-based team at Blue Cross Blue Shield has used Speed Boat for project retrospectives and Prune the Product Tree for backlog prioritization—both common ways agile teams put Innovation Games to work. But recently he introduced the games to the market research team at Blue Cross Blue Shield—with interesting results.

How did you discover Innovation Games?

Word of mouth. I heard about the games from colleagues and through sessions at conferences I attended. I started trying out the games at work, and eventually took the two-day class taught by [IGQI and Enthiosys President] Jason Tanner.


Can you tell me more about how are you using Innovation Games at Blue Cross Blue Shield?

I’m the manager of a Scrum team in Durham, NC. We work on claims automation, and I also serve on the Innovation Committee here at Blue Cross Blue Shield.

We use Innovation Games in our Scrum practice—Speed Boat for retrospectives and Prune the Product Tree for backlog prioritization—but have started using them in other ways as well, such as in our market research work on our insurance products.


How did the market research work come about?

It was Jason Tanner who first suggested we use Innovation Games for market research, instead of just internally with our Scrum team. I bought the book [Innovation Games for Understanding] and invited the market research lead to lunch. After some discussion, we decided to try it.


What was the project?

The target market was college-age consumers, and we wanted to determine what type of insurance products and benefits they would be interested in purchasing—and how much they would be willing to pay. In essence, we wanted them to produce a list of benefits and prioritize which ones were most valuable to them.


How did you structure the event to get those results?
One of the Product Boxes created by the summer interns at Blue Cross Blue Shield.

We recruited 20 of our summer interns as the subjects for the market research project and decided to do two phases in July 2012.

First, to get the benefits, we had the interns build Product Boxes outlining the insurance products they would most be interested in. This was face-to-face, of course. And each intern presented his or her box and then the group voted on the best one.

Second, we used Buy a Feature Online to prioritize the benefits that the interns had developed through their Product Boxes. The interns logged into the game from their different offices on the Blue Cross Blue Shield campus. We had priced the benefits and gave the interns 40% of the total budget to spend on the insurance products they most wanted. We were surprised and pleased with the quality of chat and negotiations during the game. At the end, we got a prioritized list of insurance products that college-age consumers would want to buy.


What did you learn from the games?

Price was an issue for many of them. They are buying insurance for the first time and wanted it to be reasonably priced.

Any surprises?

Yes, we had some unexpected results. The market research team had done a series of focus groups on the same topic and they had got different results than our project using Innovation Games.

Also, during the Buy a Feature game I facilitated, the game didn’t stop when the interns had spent all their money. The chat and negotiation continued, and the interns decided to un-purchase an insurance product to buy one concerning healthy benefits. It took 5 minutes of chatting to decide after I had thought the game was done.

I was impressed with the depth of thinking during the game. The interns were really serious; we thought half would not be engaged since the game was online and they weren’t together, but they surprised us. The game results went beyond what we expected.


Are you planning on using Innovation Games again?

We have a “FedEx Day” coming up in October. We’re inspired by Daniel Pink’s Drive, and want to create and deliver something overnight. Basically, you drop whatever you’re doing for a day and present a product at the end.

Our past “FedEx” Days haven’t been structured, but we’re hoping to use Innovation Games this time to help us get an outcome.We’re still planning, but think we’ll use 3-4 games, maybe Buy a Feature, >Product Box, Speed Boat, and Spider Web.

I truly believe there’s a different dynamic when you get people moving. You get much more robust idea generation with activities like Innovation Games, than sitting down around a conference table. There’s just something about Innovation Games, the moving around and collaborating, that you don’t get from focus groups.

How to Create Layers and Regions

With “instant play” games, you can add layers and regions to organize how players placed the items on the game board. After the game, this data will be recorded in a spreadsheet for you to analyze. Watch the video below to learn how to create these layers and regions in order to optimize the benefits of your customized Prune the Product Tree.

[vimeo width=”450″ height=”360″ id=”15608111″]

Your Prune the Product Tree: Set Up

Your Prune the Product Tree: Set Up

Playing Prune the Product Tree is a great way to shape your product or service to fit the desires of your customers.

Click on the video below to learn how you can easily customize the game in order to make the features of your product more focused and holistic.


[vimeo width=”450″ height=”360″ id=”14804022″]

Online vs. In-Person Games: How playing them differs

We get a lot of inquiries about the differences between online and in-person games. Quite often, these inquire have some not-so-secret agenda, as when advocates of one or the other forms of play try to convince me that one is clearly superior to the other. Ha! Those questions may be cleverly worded, but they forget that we’ve been playing games for more than 10 years. After writing the book — and then writing the software platforms that power in-person and online games, I’m far too crafty to be fooled by these questions.  However, there are indeed differences between online and in-person games, and this blog post fulfills a tweeted promise to write about those differences. In this post, I cover some of the differences we see when playing online or in-person visual collaboration games. Stay tuned for a second post covering some of the differences in our virtual market games.

We’ll start with the game production and design, and then cover differences in play and facilitation. Finally, I’ll cover how post-processing results differ with online and in-person games.


Game Production

I’ve come to think of game production as a small system of three interlocked phases of planning. The first is situating yourself in the Ideas Into ActionTM framework so that you can be clear on the broad kinds of question you’re going to ask, the goals you’re trying to achieve, or the kinds of puzzles you’re trying to solve. This phase is independent of whether or not you will play online or in-person games. If you’re in the Discover phase, you’re going to choose open-ended games, and if you’re in the Prioritize phase, it is pretty certain you will choose a prioritization game.

The second phase is Detailed Game Design, in which you’ll select and tailor the game(s) you’ll be using. This planning template can help you in both high-level design and detailed design. You can also find inspiration in this blog post, which describes how your goals, your nouns, your verbs and your context will help you choose between online or in-person games.

The last phase is Play-Testing your assumptions. While experienced facilitators often consider this step optional, I always recommend play-testing your games (even, and often most especially, when you’re playing games with internal teams). Play-testing helps you calibrate that the background image and items you’re using are effective for your goals, helps you fine-tune your facilitator scripts and provides a sample of the kind of results you’re likely to acquire. Play-testing is required when you’re producing large numbers of games, as your facilitation team will need to experience the games before playing them with customers.

So, if the high-level planning phases are the same, where do we start to see differences? Let’s start with Detailed Game Design.



Making Banana Pancakes: Detailed Game Design

People who have taken my classes typically hear me refer to the games as “the pancake batter of customer understanding”. Sticking with pancakes for a moment, you can make lots of different pancakes with a few basic variations. Starting with basic batter, you can make banana pancakes by adding bananas, blueberry pancakes by adding blueberries, and apple pancakes by adding apples and some spices. Similarly, Innovation Games like Speed Boat or Prune the Product Tree provide an amazing design palette for gaming.

The Detailed Game Design phase is where you will start dealing with all of the details of the game that you’re producing, much like the distinction of which kind of pancake you’re making.

Online games allow for greater flexibility in the selection of items, in that you can use any 25×25 pixel image in your selection. In-person games are least costly when you’re using items that you can purchase from a store. Apples and leaves from elementary school teacher supply stores are great options. You can also design and print custom items for a considerably higher price.

Using Prune the Product Tree as our example, here are some key areas where online games differ than in-person games.


Differences between Online and In-Person Games

Background Image

The best background images are simple, clearly understood, and typically based on light colors. Hand-drawn images are just fine. Of course, if you need help in creating images, check out our game design services.

  • Online Games

Online images need to be sized for the platform and prepared in advance.

  • In-Person Games

In-person images can be drawn by hand in real-time or poster printed before the game. If poster printing, make sure that you’re using a hi-resolution or vector based image so that it doesn’t look pixelated when printed. Decide up front if you want your images printed in black∓white or color, and estimate how many images you’ll need, as this will affect production costs.


Item Images

Item images need to match the metaphor of the game. So, for Prune the Product Tree, you’ll use items that match the tree you’re creating, like apricots, apples, leaves, or even coconuts. Don’t let your metaphor constrain you, as you can also have some fun with images that don’t perfectly match the metaphor. For both kinds of games we recommend limiting the total number of items available to players in the games.


Initial Items

Visual collaboration games allow for the placement of two kinds of initial items: items that a player cannot move and initial items that can be moved. For example, when using Prune the Product Tree for road mapping, you might have two kinds of roadmap items. One might be regulatory requirements that simply must be done, while the other might be suggested roadmap items. It turns out that handling these scenarios is exactly the same in both games: add the items that can’t be changed directly to the background image and add the items that can be changed as initial items. Remember that any items you add at the start of the game must be explained to your players.


Placement of Items

It is usually important to capture the placement of items in a meaningful way. Not an X-Y coordinate, but something more meaningful, like this apple represents a new feature that we want in a few years vs. this apple represents a feature that we want in the next release.

  • Online Games

Online games have the ability to add layers and regions to the image to know where an item was placed. This is a tremendous advantage when playing large numbers of games, as this makes it easy to post-process the results. To better understand how to add layers and regions to your online games, read this.

  • In-Person Games

In-person games capture the semantics of image placement by printing guides on the background and adding observers to the game session.


Facilitation Scripts

To play your game, your players need an understanding of the goal of the game, the meaning of the background and items, and the rules of play. This information typically comes from your facilitators.

  • Online Games

Online games typically involve many more games, more facilitators, and a more controlled setup. In these games, we recommend preparing a facilitation script and having each of your facilitators introduce this script to the players in the lobby before the game begins. You can see sample facilitation scripts for the Agile Alliance Conference Retrospective and the Scrum Alliance retrospective. For online games, it is also helpful to prepare an overview of your games before the event and email this to your players, along with instructions on how to play. While most of your players won’t read this, you’ll be satisfied that you’ve done all that you can to help your players prepare for the game.

  • In-Person Games

In-person games are typically structured as one or more groups of people who are playing the game at the same time in the same place. For example, you might be producing a Customer Advisory Board meeting where 18 to 24 customers will be playing Prune the Product Tree to provide feedback on the product roadmap. These 18-24 people will be organized into 3 to 4 different teams based on various attributes (e.g., you can group participants by role or by vertical). In this case, the lead facilitator will introduce the game to all participants, and then hand control to the facilitator of each tree. As such, the per-tree facilitators only need a few short bullet points to stay on track.

Now that the games have been designed and introduced, let’s explore some of the differences in how people play online and in-person games.


Differences In How People Play

There are significant differences in how people play games online and in-person games. Since our story started with in-person games, I’ll explore those first.

  • In-person Games

There are two clear patterns for in-person games, depending on how the facilitator frames the preferred interaction model for the players. The first can be called “Discuss first; Move second”, in which the group will discuss any moves before making them, and then, once the agreement is reached, they will make the move. This is common in games where the facilitator puts the group in control. Continuing with our with Prune the Product Tree road mapping example, we’ll typically see that one or two people who are standing closer to the tree will take the lead on discussing items and then moving them. Note that this is not strictly true for every part of the game, and you will, of course, see people add or move items independently.

The second mode, “Move first; Discuss second”, is embodied in games like Speed Boat, where players are asked to silently write their ideas, add them to the game board, and then organize them a bit before the facilitator manages the discussion. This approach is also common in many retrospective games from the Agile community, in which a team generates ideas and then discusses them. Both of these modes are straightforward to implement during in-person games because you can rely on the physical presence of the facilitator and structure of the room to guide interaction. For example, in the “Move first; Discuss second” model of interaction, the facilitator often stands and has the participants stay seated.

  • Online Games

The power of real-time interaction in the online games makes them overwhelming “Move first; Discuss second” interaction models. Specifically, once the game begins, players will add items to the image until they start to run low on items. It is then that the facilitator will start to explore specific items with the group. As a facilitator, you will have to refer to items explicitly, because you can’t rely on the physical structure of the room to capture items.

Facilitators of online games also cannot rely on body language to indicate player state. For example, in an in-person game, a player might nod their head in agreement with another player’s explanation of an item, or they might cross their arms and lean back in their chair in a subtle expression of disagreement. A skilled facilitator will use these physical cues to help them manage the discussions to the most important items. During an online game, facilitators should use both the public and private chat facility of the games to encourage players to express their thoughts.


Differences in Processing Results

The essential activity in processing results is making sense of the items and looking for actionable patterns in the data. This is easier for online games because you can simply download all of the information across all of the games you’ve played in a single Excel spreadsheet [Pro Subscription only]. Skillful use of layers and regions makes this even easier!

In-person games require more work because you have to photograph and transcribe all of the results of in-person games to make post-processing easier. However, there is an undeniable emotional punch to in-person games because the items were created in the “human font“. Over time, of course, this will diminish, as our online games will allow for direct input in increasingly individualized means. For now, though, I have to admit that hand-drawn and hand-written articles pack a lot of information.


What Differences Do You See?

It seems that no matter how much I strive to write a short blog post, I end up writing a long one. I do hope you enjoyed this one and will consider sharing some of your experiences with in-person and online games.

“Spot On” Live Interview with Luke Hohmann on Roadmapping


On Thursday, March 15, 2012 at 2 PM Eastern (11 AM Pacific), Gil Broza will interview Luke Hohmann on Innovation Games and Agile Roadmaps as part of his “Spot On” series. Gil’s interview series is intended to open new horizons for IT professionals interested in better software development, and features selected guest experts whose specialties overlap and align with Agile and promote effective, humane and responsible software development.

Luke and Gil will discuss:


  • The place of roadmaps in Agile planning
  • What other vital aspects of product planning and management are missing from many Scrum implementations
  • Balancing roadmaps with evolutionary design
  • Realistic ways to involve your customers in shaping your roadmap
  • Collaborative techniques to producing roadmaps
  • Hi-fi, lo-tech ways to represent roadmaps

Spot On Agile Roadmaps

Thursday, March 15, 2012 at 2:00 PM Eastern (11:00 AM Pacific).
To listen to the interview, register here.