You're faced with a stakeholder doubting a software engineering approach. How do you defend its necessity?

On thing I’ve found helpful is to “listen first to seek understanding”. Truly hear “what” is essentially needed by ALL stakeholders. Stephen Covey mentions understanding before talking is a key characteristic for an effective leader. It is also an effective method to figure out the needs and concerns of the stakeholders.

I think, a typical attitude of “Know it All” needs to be guarded against when faced with this predicament. It is essential to know that the stakeholder has more stake in the initiative. Hence, seek to understand more with an open mind. Also striving to show the stakeholder that you care about the project as deeply will get them to come with an open mind as well.

Buscar uma compreens?o verdadeira e transparente dos fatores que levam à parte interessada em se sentir preocupada com a abordagem. é possível que haja algum tipo de histórico deste tipo de ocorrência que esteja trazendo este ponto de aten??o. é importante ouvir e compreender as perspectivas das partes interessadas e certamente isto fazer parte do planejamento do projeto e de uma análise de riscos mais refinada no relacionamento com partes interessadas.

One thing I learned is that you have to earn the trust of the stakeholders first, listen, show them the respect they deserve after all is their expectations that you have to achieve. After show that both approaches are valid, but is the software engineer who is doing the work, and to achieve the desired result, it is importante that he also feels confident with his work. And he is a good professional so he will deliver. If it’s possible present some previous success work projects.

To win over stakeholders, focus on understanding their unique perspective and priorities, and tailor the value proposition to address their concerns and interests. Build confidence in the approach by addressing potential risks and mitigation strategies, and strategically explain benefits to align with their needs, ultimately taking a stakeholder-centric approach to effectively address their reservations and demonstrate the value proposition in a way that resonates with them.

Explaining the benefits should also address the topics of risk, since organizations may be tempted to cut some steps out in order to save (short-term) cost, but with a lack of mature approach, missing those steps may turn into higher cost and risks in the longer term.

STAKEHOLDER BUY IN IS A CRITICAL POINT IN SOFTWARE ENGINEERING PROJECTS. Stakeholders express skepticism to design/solution due to lack of proper explanation and understanding of the subject. Buy in can be achieved by providing high level technology perspective and it's pros/cons and importantly improved cost savings and customer satisfaction. This should be done by software architects, Program Managers and Senior Tech Mgmt.

As a Business Process Engineer/ Business Analyst, Given that I am advocating for a test driven development approach more benefits of this method- 1) Facilitates Incremental Development: TDD supports an incremental development approach, allowing developers to build and test small pieces of functionality step-by-step, making it easier to manage and understand. 2) Clearer Requirements: As a BPE/BA, Writing tests before the code helps clarify the requirements and specifications of a feature, ensuring that the end result meets the desired expectations. 3)Encourages Simplicity: TDD promotes writing only the code necessary to pass the tests, which often leads to simpler, more efficient code that focuses on current requirements.

Explain the added value of your proposal, and the risks it solves. Explain the benefits and risks associated to their concerns (or direction they want) in their counterpoint. Provide the stakeholder information so they can make their best choice for their vision. You are a guide to the solution, but its their vision.

In concert with (#6 Next Steps below) by use of agile and creating and 80/20 split between commit/stretch, it's far easier in terms of flexibility to swap and move things around (from stretch to commit for example). Sorry customer, we had to push this to next sprint for whatever reason but we delivered on more stretch goals as a result of this adjustment. Still working towards the finish line but XYZ happened and we adjusted ourselves in such a way that we didn't miss a beat in finishing on time.

Always have a Plan B, and C and sometimes even D. When you're working to improve a large scale organization or a product that has a significant impact, you will face reluctance and challenges. It is important to be flexible and show that there are always multiple ways to approach a problem, and showcase different approaches and why you prefer one over the other. When people see that you have put in the effort to own a problem and offer multiple solution, it increases the level of trust they have for you to resolve any issues that may come, and in turn - remove their reluctance and doubt from the equation.

Exactly if we will not adding a process for reviewing product implementation or chunk of development. We will be might doing the development exercises for a single piece in a loop way and this will cause delay in release.

Personally, I like the agile approach vs mmm waterfall etc.. I like it because it offers up a certain level of flexibility whereby you can engage the customer and engineering. Here is what I mean. I walked into a situation as a director of engineering, and on day 1 I heard all about how engineering was overcommitting and under delivering. Easy enough fix. Lets get all of the engineers to supply their availability for a given sprint. Now, lets take that availability and come up with a ratio of commit and stretch goals, 80/20. Now lets gather input from engineering on what they want to commit to and what they want to stretch to. Now you can take the information collected and present in a consumer friendly way the plan and impact to concerns

Involve stakeholders throughout the project life cycle and make decisions to meet the business needs. Incremental progress and tangible results will help stakeholders gain confidence. This is the very reason agile development has been successful.

The title of this discussion includes the phrase, "How do you defend its necessity?" In my opinion, this question carries an unspoken assumption that you are certain that your own chosen is both the right one and a necessary one and your objective should be to refuse to change your approach and to convince the stakeholder to take it. This is not a valid assumption. You should not assume that your main objective is to persuade the stakeholder that you are correct, and he or she is wrong. You need to accept the fact that the stakeholder might have legitimate ideas that could change your choice of approach, and you should be flexible enough to seriously consider alternatives to your previously chosen approach.