136 lines
6.3 KiB
Markdown
136 lines
6.3 KiB
Markdown
# Brainstorming Session Results
|
|
|
|
**Session Date:** 2025-10-10
|
|
**Facilitator:** Business Analyst Mary
|
|
**Participant:** BMaD-Man
|
|
|
|
## Executive Summary
|
|
|
|
**Topic:** VisaAI PRD & BMAD Documentation Alignment
|
|
|
|
**Session Goals:** Surface requirement gaps, ideation opportunities, and risks across the VisaAI PRD and BMAD workflows.
|
|
|
|
**Techniques Used:** Six Thinking Hats (structured analysis)
|
|
|
|
**Total Ideas Generated:** 10
|
|
|
|
### Key Themes Identified:
|
|
|
|
- Scope Framing & Prioritisation: MVP/Stretch/Post-MVP tagging is essential to tame scope bloat and stage delivery.
|
|
- Governance Alignment: BMAD validation gates and CLAUDE autonomy directives need an explicit reconciliation playbook.
|
|
- Operational Safeguards: Brownfield rollout demands documented rollback, monitoring, and dependency sequencing.
|
|
- Documentation Coherence: Sharded PRD assets require synthesis artifacts (heatmaps, runbooks, swim-lanes) to stay actionable.
|
|
- Compliance & Support Readiness: Stories need embedded compliance acceptance criteria and operations handoffs.
|
|
|
|
## Technique Sessions
|
|
|
|
### Six Thinking Hats (Structured)
|
|
|
|
- White Hat captured objective facts from PRD shards, checklist, and CLAUDE directives.
|
|
- Red Hat surfaced intuitive unease about missing rollback coverage and conflicting guidance.
|
|
- Yellow Hat highlighted strengths in requirements clarity and governance tooling.
|
|
- Black Hat mapped brownfield risks, scope creep, and governance conflicts.
|
|
- Green Hat generated the ten actionable ideas categorised later.
|
|
- Blue Hat synthesised process learnings and guided the convergent/action phases.
|
|
|
|
## Idea Categorization
|
|
|
|
### Immediate Opportunities
|
|
|
|
_Ideas ready to implement now_
|
|
|
|
• MVP vs Stretch vs Post-MVP matrix per epic/story
|
|
• Integrate brainstorming outputs into docs/prd/07-next-steps action items
|
|
• Readiness Heatmap visual in docs/prd/06
|
|
|
|
### Future Innovations
|
|
|
|
_Ideas requiring development/research_
|
|
|
|
• Brownfield Launch Runbook with rollout/rollback/monitoring plan
|
|
• Dependency swim-lanes mapping
|
|
• Compliance acceptance criteria appendices per story
|
|
• Phased backlog translation of CLAUDE.md directives aligned with BMAD gating
|
|
|
|
### Moonshots
|
|
|
|
_Ambitious, transformative concepts_
|
|
|
|
• SCAMPER-driven advanced enhancements tying AI alerts to automation across modules
|
|
• Governance reconciliation playbook harmonising autonomous directives and BMAD validation gates
|
|
• Documentation synthesis playbook to prevent overwhelm at scale
|
|
|
|
### Insights and Learnings
|
|
|
|
_Key realizations from the session_
|
|
|
|
1. Without an MVP matrix, downstream teams will treat every story as critical path, prolonging brownfield risk exposure.
|
|
2. A launch runbook is the missing bridge between strategic vision and safe deployment; its absence blocks stakeholder confidence.
|
|
3. Aligning CLAUDE directives with BMAD governance converts conflicting instructions into a phased backlog that teams can trust.
|
|
4. Visual readiness cues (heatmap, dependency swim-lanes) accelerate comprehension of complex documentation.
|
|
5. Embedding compliance criteria at story level ensures regulatory obligations are designed in, not bolted on later.
|
|
|
|
## Action Planning
|
|
|
|
### Top 3 Priority Ideas
|
|
|
|
#### #1 Priority: MVP vs Stretch vs Post-MVP matrix per epic/story
|
|
|
|
- Rationale: Clarifies delivery scope, reduces brownfield risk, and supplies downstream teams with staged targets aligned to readiness gaps.
|
|
- Next steps: Inventory all epics/stories → classify into MVP/Stretch/Post-MVP → review with PO/architect → publish matrix in docs/prd/05 and shard story files.
|
|
- Resources needed: Product owner, architect, tech leads, docs/prd shards, BMAD story templates.
|
|
- Timeline: 5 working days.
|
|
|
|
#### #2 Priority: Brownfield Launch Runbook (rollout, rollback, monitoring)
|
|
|
|
- Rationale: Provides the operational safety net missing from the PRD checklist, enabling confident portal deployment.
|
|
- Next steps: Gather environment details and integration points → define rollout stages & feature flags → document rollback triggers and communication paths → embed monitoring dashboards and incident response.
|
|
- Resources needed: Architect, DevOps/infra lead, QA, security/compliance stakeholders, docs/prd & docs/architecture sources.
|
|
- Timeline: 10 working days.
|
|
|
|
#### #3 Priority: Phased backlog translating CLAUDE directives into BMAD-aligned stages
|
|
|
|
- Rationale: Resolves conflicting guidance between autonomous execution and governance gates, giving teams a trusted roadmap.
|
|
- Next steps: Deconstruct CLAUDE.md directives → map items to BMAD workflow stages (plan/validate/build) → create phased backlog with entry/exit criteria → socialize with delivery leads.
|
|
- Resources needed: Product owner, programme lead, engineering leads, CLAUDE.md, BMAD workflow docs.
|
|
- Timeline: 7 working days.
|
|
|
|
## Reflection and Follow-up
|
|
|
|
### What Worked Well
|
|
|
|
- Six Thinking Hats delivered balanced coverage of facts, risks, and creative avenues.
|
|
- Immediate/Future/Moonshot categorisation crystallised the backlog into actionable horizons.
|
|
- Lessons Learned elicitation surfaced coherent themes for scope, governance, and operations.
|
|
|
|
### Areas for Further Exploration
|
|
|
|
- Detail the technical and operational steps inside the Brownfield Launch Runbook.
|
|
- Validate resource capacity to execute the phased backlog and MVP matrix simultaneously.
|
|
- Expand compliance acceptance criteria into reusable story templates.
|
|
|
|
### Recommended Follow-up Techniques
|
|
|
|
- SCAMPER workshop on portal collaboration features.
|
|
- Dependency Mapping session with architecture and engineering leads.
|
|
- Pre-mortem analysis ahead of portal rollout to stress-test the runbook.
|
|
|
|
### Questions That Emerged
|
|
|
|
- How will rollout sequencing coordinate between SwiftUI app, Phoenix backend, and automation services?
|
|
- What monitoring metrics will signal rollback triggers versus incident escalation?
|
|
- Who owns maintaining the CLAUDE-to-BMAD phased backlog once initial alignment is done?
|
|
|
|
### Next Session Planning
|
|
|
|
- **Suggested topics:**
|
|
- Detailed Brownfield Launch Runbook drafting
|
|
- Compliance acceptance criteria template design
|
|
- Dependency swim-lane visualisation workshop
|
|
- **Recommended timeframe:** Schedule follow-up workshops within the next 3 weeks, sequenced after MVP matrix delivery.
|
|
- **Preparation needed:** Compile environment diagrams, integration inventories, and existing operational playbooks before sessions.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
_Session facilitated using the BMAD CIS brainstorming framework_
|