By not having an extensive and bureaucratic model, the agile methodology uses dynamic planning methods that allow a better adaptation to the needs of the project and its respective stakeholders, besides being adaptable to the product strategies.

According to the project management process used at Capyba, it is possible to show all the phases that a project has and their respective operational actions, thus classifying the project’s progress in a more objective and efficient way. It is worth noting that these phases are directly related to the progress of a project, categorizing the status of evolution, in other words:

• At the initiation stage, At the same time, it is important to align follow-up parameters with those expectations.
• During the planning stage,, the ideal is to pre-define all the necessary parameters for execution, as well as forecasts for the initial delivery phase (Homologation).
• During execution and inspection, everything that was planned, considered fundamental to the project and agreed upon among the interested parties, must be put into practice, besides seeking consistency in deliveries followed By quality standars of the items developed
• Thirly, we find the finalization stage, which aims to close making sure that everything is as initially aligned.

It is also worth noting that even with pre-defined phases, Capyba’s management model provides dynamism in relation to the evolution of the project, making sure that the backlog (task list) is always alive,which mean that is, updated and with projections of value delivery according to each client’s priorities.

Following this line of dynamism, some techniques can be used that make it possible to separate and balance the priorities in order to balance the creation of value for the business and the possibility of execution according to the people involved in the project, as is the case of the Planning Onion (planning in layers), which aims to represent and organize different planning levels that can be performed in a software project. The Planning Onion, as the name suggests, consists of an organization in layers that are executed according to the project’s vision level, focusing on the product vision, the roadmap, the release, sprint organization and daily rites.

‍

‍

In each layer, objectives are defined to associate the respective layers mentioned above according to their purposes ,covering overall strategy, in portfolio and product definitions, delivery forecasting and project tracking.

‍

But how to do this in practice?

Following layered planning guidelines, it is essential that the planning views are well aligned and with the objective views about their relationship with the layer, thus, in the product overview layer a general planning should be ideally with a focus on strategy, having as its main point the definition of what the company/organization wants to achieve, what value it should generate, and of course, what its target audience is. This is the starting point for all the other executions.

With the starting point defined and after reaching roadmap layer, a roadmap must be planned to guide the operation, describing everything that will be executed over the established timeframe.

With these definitions, it is possible to reach the release layer, which consists of planning the items of the product backlog that will be delivered in each version generated. And through this planning, it is possible to reach the sprint layer (iteration), being this the moment when the scrum team details the necessary activities and what can be delivered according to the time established in each sprint, where, according to the organization, a sprint can vary between 1 and 4 weeks.

Finally, when defining execution goals for the sprint, it is possible to reach the last layer, the daily layer, which focuses on establishing a continuous follow-up with all the technical team involved. Planning and decision making can be done in order to provide the delivery closest to the one defined by the sprint planning.

As mentioned above, the layers collaborate to an organization according to phases and their visions, focusing on a single goal: achieving project success related to the overall product vision.

It is also worth mentioning that the stakeholders of the product may have different performances in each layer, i.e., the executive front of the project/product ends up getting more involved and with greater decision-making power in the more comprehensive layers, while the technical execution team, by being more present and active in the operation, has greater participation and decision-making power in the internal layers. Such difference in performance is due to the fact that their distinct visions and actions provide a development environment more conducive to the successful execution of the plan, because the distinct visions and competencies should be linked to the power of execution and responsibility of each party in particular.

In this case, it is important to highlight that, for planning to be efficient, it is necessary to clearly and objectively direct the steps that the team must follow, linking ideas and consequently the real generation of value, dividing these assignments into levels of performance, and thus generating sub-plans for the overall goal to be achieved.