Project Management and Production of Digital Content PDI E2005 Room 4A.16

1
Project Management and Production of Digital
ContentPDI E2005Room 4A.16

• Session 10
• 8 November 2005
• Peter Olaf Looms
• Tine Sørensen

2
Todays programme - Product Cycle, Pitching

• 1700-1800
• 1800-1810
• 1810-1900
• 1900 -1910
• 1910-2050
• 2050 -2100

• lecture on Product Cycle and Pitching
• Break
• lecture Development Models for New Media
• Break
• Case 2 group work (planning)
• Evaluation of session 10 introduction to session
  11

3
Contents of the lecture

• We will take a closer look at
• The life cycle of product development for new
  media
• Coopers Stage Gate model for selecting internal
  projects
• The terms used in English and Danish
• Pitching as a means of getting internal and/or
  external support
• Elevator Pitch
• Boardroom Pitch
• Development and production models
• Waterfall
• Iterative
• Spiral
• Rapid Application Dvelopment
• A comparison of Waterfall and Iterative models
• Critiques of the project mangement using such
  models
• Conclusions

4
Product Cycle for Media

• Challenges for Project Managers

5
Working methods
Brainstorming Format development
Prototyping Implementation
6
Selecting internal projects Stage gate
16
600
145
Robert G. Cooper Winning at New Products -
Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch 3rd
edition. 2001. Perseus Publishing, USA.
7
Product development model. Robert G. Cooper
Stakeholder analysis
Robert G. Cooper Winning at New Products -
Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch 3rd
edition. 2001. Perseus Publishing, USA.
8
Product development model. Robert G. Cooper
Stakeholder analysis
User Needs and Wants Analysis
Robert G. Cooper Winning at New Products -
Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch 3rd
edition. 2001. Perseus Publishing, USA.
9
Product development model. Robert G. Cooper
Market Analysis
Stakeholder analysis
User Needs and Wants Analysis
Robert G. Cooper Winning at New Products -
Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch 3rd
edition. 2001. Perseus Publishing, USA.
10
Product development model. Robert G. Cooper
Market Analysis
Stakeholder analysis
Competitor Analysis
User Needs and Wants Analysis
Robert G. Cooper Winning at New Products -
Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch 3rd
edition. 2001. Perseus Publishing, USA.
11
Product development model. Robert G. Cooper
Market Analysis
Customer Wish List Product Requirements
Stakeholder analysis
Competitor Analysis
User Needs and Wants Analysis
Robert G. Cooper Winning at New Products -
Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch 3rd
edition. 2001. Perseus Publishing, USA.
12
Product development model. Robert G. Cooper
Market Analysis
Customer Wish List Product Requirements
Stakeholder analysis
Competitor Analysis
User Needs and Wants Analysis
Technical Feasibility of Concepts
Expected ratings and earnings
Proof of Concept Purchase Intent
Robert G. Cooper Winning at New Products -
Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch 3rd
edition. 2001. Perseus Publishing, USA.
13
Product development model. Robert G. Cooper
Market Analysis
Technical Assessment Translation
Production needs and costs
Customer Wish List Product Requirements
Stakeholder analysis
Competitor Analysis
Financial analysis
User Needs and Wants Analysis
Technical Feasibility of Concepts
Expected ratings and earnings
Proof of Concept Purchase Intent
Robert G. Cooper Winning at New Products -
Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch 3rd
edition. 2001. Perseus Publishing, USA.
14
Product development model. Robert G. Cooper
Project plan
Market Analysis
Technical Assessment Translation
Production needs and costs
Product justification
Customer Wish List Product Requirements
Stakeholder analysis
Competitor Analysis
Financial analysis
User Needs and Wants Analysis
Technical Feasibility of Concepts
Expected ratings and earnings
Product definition
Proof of Concept Purchase Intent
Robert G. Cooper Winning at New Products -
Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch 3rd
edition. 2001. Perseus Publishing, USA.
15
Terms in English and Danish
Resources
ramme- koncept
pitch
dummy
koncept
lancering
produkt
brief pitch dummy format
product launch
Produktudvikling
Produktion
Drift
Product development Production
Operation
Time
16
Formats from idea to dummy
Product Final applications for head-end, STB and
back end Documentation for production
team Documentation for technical
support Evaluation plan (quantitative/qualitative)
Product development
Production
Cost
Tested simulator Use cases Interaction Design
Flow Charts Budget for implementation
External pitch Format Visualisation Proof of
Concept
Internal pitch Validation of basic concept
Time
17
From idea to finished product/operation
Doing it right
Doing the right thing
From idea to proof of concept Development Specifi
cation Validation
Innovation Spotting opportunities

• What gets done
• Research (market forecasts, scenarios, technology
  foresight, ethnographical studies, competitor
  analysis, SWOT)
• Format /service development (mock-up, dummy,
  scenario)
• Validation by target group
• Technical feasibility
• Dummy production and test
• Partners, funding, ethical and legal issues
• Goals and success criteria

Criteria for getting started 1. New
users/viewers 2. Increased loyalty on part of
existing users/ viewers 3. Enhances existing
media and services 4. Improved efficiency and
effectiveness
Scenarios from Use cases
Optimal design
Optimal implementation
18
Pitching

• What it is
• Examples from the real world

19
Pitching http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevator_pit
ch
20
BBC http//www.bbc.co.uk/blast/fivesteps/getstarte
d/pitch.shtml
21
BBC
22
BBC Visualisation to structure your pitch
23
BBC
24
BBC
25
BBC
26
FIVE (commercial TV in Singapore) commissions
content exclusively onlinehttp//ch5.mediacorptv
.com/superpitch5/
27
Pitching and the Project Manager

• Depends very much on the size of the company and
  the nature of the project
• Project Manager is often concerned with
• Managing the creatives
• Checking the user proposition
• Monitoriing the process to ensure that there
  is/will be a business case

28
Project Management models

• A historical approach

29
History
Time
1950 1960 1970
1980 1990 2000
30
History

• Royce never called it
• Waterfall himself
• Two iterations
• Prototype
• Project itself

Time
1950 1960 1970
1980 1990 2000
31
Historikken
Royce,W.W. (1970) Managing the Development of
Large Software Systems Concepts and Techniques
Proc. WESCON, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los
Alamitos, CA, 1970. Reprinted at the ICSE'87,
Monterey, California, USA. March 30 - April 2,
1987.

• Not really a
• waterfall
• Feedback loops
• the water actually
• moves upwards!!!

Tid
1950 1960 1970
1980 1990 2000
32
History
Basili, Victor R. and Turner, A. J. terative
Enhancement A Practical Technique for Software
Development IEEE Transactions on Software
Engineering, vol. 1, 4, December 1975 (update
appears as Portfolio 14-01-05, Auerbach
Information Management Series 1978). Available
for download at University of Maryland web site
The first model tosplit the process Into several
iterations or loops
Time
1950 1960 1970
1980 1990 2000
33
History
A variant of the Iterative model The features
and characterisics are added little by little
with each spiral
Time
1950 1960 1970
1980 1990 2000
34
History
Boehm, Barry (1986) "A Spiral Model of Software
Development and Enhancement", ACM
SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, August 1986

• Often linked with
• Flat HTML solutions
• Object-Oriented Programming
• Extreme programming

Time
1950 1960 1970
1980 1990 2000
35
History
Gawlinski, Mark (2003) Interactive Television
Production page 149
Prototyping in a simulation Environment, then
waterfall BBC, DR and other media
companies Working on innovative, high risk
projects
Prototyping
Waterfall model
Time
1950 1960 1970
1980 1990 2000
36
History
Gawlinski, Mark (2003) Interactive Television
Production page 150 Se også http//www.cscresearch
services.com/foundation/library/P025/GTR.asp
Rapid Application Development Variant of
Spiralmetoden from the UK, apart from staged
publication Several mini-waterfalls after each
other - short iterations For DTV, MOG on mobiles
and other fast-to-market products.
Time
1950 1960 1970
1980 1990 2000
37
Waterfall and the Spiral

• A comparison

38
The Waterfall and the Spiral (RAD) - resources
39
The Waterfall and the Spiral (RAD) - ROI
40
The Waterfall and the Spiral (RAD) - risk
41
The Waterfall and the Spiral (RAD) - risk
42
Critiques of the various models

43
Peter Naur (1985) Programming as theory building.
In Microprocessing and Microprogramming vol. 15,
pp. 253-261.

• Computer programs only make sense to the team
  who have developed it.
• According to Naur, a theory about what the
  program does, and how it does it, is built
  simultaneously with the construction of the
  executable code.
• This theory cannot be written down or otherwise
  formalised.

44
Peter DeGrace (1990)

• Wicked Problems
• Problems that are fully understood only after
  they are solved the first time however
  poorly
• Roots of Wicked Problems
• A customer not knowing or being able to
  articulate what he/she wants changing
  expectations as the project progresses.
• Staff who are inexperienced in the problem
  domain, or with the appropriate implementation
  techniques.

45
Jakob Nielsen (2001)
The Usability Lifecyclehttp//www-106.ibm.com/dev
eloperworks/ library/it-nielsen3/

• Two common web develop-ment approaches are
• Treating their Web sites like mud.
• The Waterfall model

46
Jakob Nielsen (2001)
The Usability Lifecyclehttp//www-106.ibm.com/dev
eloperworks/ library/it-nielsen3/

• 1.Treating their Web sites like mud.
• The "method" is
• Throw it at the wall.
• See if it sticks.

47
Jakob Nielsen (2001)
The Usability Lifecyclehttp//www-106.ibm.com/dev
eloperworks/ library/it-nielsen3/

• 2. Waterfall
• The waterfall model fails for the simple reason
  that most people cannot read specs. Anything that
  is based on a linear progression from one set of
  specs to the next will fail.
• It sounds logical that you first analyze one
  thing, write down the requirements, and then move
  on to design something more detailed based on the
  now-fixed foundation.
• There is a review of his development model on the
  same page.

48
From idea to finished programme or service
Cost
Hvor kan de placeres?
Time
Iterative/Spiral model
Iterative/Spiral model
Participative model
Waterfall model
49
Ian Sommerville (1996)
Software Processing Models. ACM Computing
Surveys. Vol. 28, No. 1, March 1996. CRC Press.
www.dimap.ufrn.br/jair/ES/artigos/sommerville.pdf
50
Conclusions

• No one single, ideal model
• Big media projects with considerable risk often
  use hybrid models
• It is the task of the project manager to select
  the appropriate model at the beginning of the
  proejct and to stick with it
• (close links to the kind of agreement or contract
  entered into)