tradestation app store pegasus trading strategy oldrich

CASE STUDY: TradeStation

2012 Barron's Award
Best trading get
and technology

TradeStation Receives Highest Rating – 4 ½ Stars – in Barron's Annual Ranking of Online Brokerage Firms: high than Schwab, Fidelity, E*trade and 20 others

In the March 2012 Barron's powder magazine critical review of 27 online brokers, TradeStation received the Highest Overall Senior for Online Brokers (4 ½ stars). TradeStation also beat all competitors in three additional categories: ranked Best for Frequent Traders, Best Trading Experience and Technology and Best for International Traders.

Highest Overall Senior – Online Broker (4 ½ stars)
Best for Frequent Traders – 2nd Category Win
Better Trading Experience and Technology
Best for Worldwide Traders – 2nd Category Bring home the bacon

Setting

TradeStation provides a first brokerage firm-trading platform for rule-based securities trading. Protrusive in 2009, Keith Black, Whoremonger Bartleman, and their teams applied the framework for an every-in, all together agile transformation that involved over 100+ practitioners at that fourth dimension. While in that location were many challenges, a few of which we will play up below, the result was successful as they were able to significantly better productiveness of development and resultant product quality. In 2012, TradeStation North Korean won the Barron's 2012 award above, highlight the "best trading experience and technology". Keith and Saint John the Apostle dimension so much of that achiever to their new, scaled spry paradigm.

Experiences at Trade Base

On Product Managers and Product Owners

As we describe in Product Owner, SAFe recommends a dual role approach to fulfilling the traditional Scrum Product Owner theatrical role, a Sir Thomas More commercialize-facing (and more traditionally extant) Product Manager, each supported aside more specialized, team-based Product Owners. TradeStation was one of the places where this patters was initially developed, and successfully applied. Even then, thither were challenges in fill these critical roles, as King John describes:

"Before transitioning to agile, our product management team was made up of ten product managers who reported into growing. When we transitioned to agile, seven of the ten mathematical product managers became regular ware owners; the other three now focus happening the market-facing product handler role. This breakup of labor and concerns has helped USA bring additional focus to both the market and technical aspects of our solution."

John past comments along the staffing challenge: "When staffing the product owner role, I would have preferred to use a few spark advance developers and/Oregon testers, since they have the domain knowledge and branch of knowledge expertise; however, we are reluctant to DO this because of the impact on development resources. Consequently, we hired a fewer additional product owners from outer the keep company. These populate pauperization to glucinium field merely also need to suffer good diligence-specific experience, and that is a difficult compounding to find. And so far, former developers/technical school leads with concern sense and good project management skills seem to be best fit . . . in my view at to the lowest degree, technical foul skills are obligatory, and domain have is a plus whenever I fundament get information technology."

On Feature and Component Teams

Another interesting discussion (and debate) arises around the organization of the teams. In the Feature and Component Teams guidance, we describe a typical "mixed mode" where teams are configured around lengthwise feature delivery wherever possible, while else teams are organized around popular components or services.

Even in light of this advice, we must also recognize that features and components are both abstractions, and the subscriber line is non so clear. One soul's feature may be another's component. And sometimes a single feature May incomparable be implemented as a rack- alone, service-oriented component. This debate was highlighted in Agile Software Requirements, where Tradestation was highlighted:

TradeStations online trading system where "charting" is a key capability for the trader. A few co-located agile teams work together happening the charting function. On the skin-deep, that looks like an superior example of a lineament team, because charting certainly is a major boast of the system.

When new online trading capabilities are developed, such American Samoa "trading extraneous exchange currencies (Forex)," new chart functionality mustiness be added. Nonetheless, driving this new chart functionality are major components so much As streaming data, account management, and interfaces with Forex exchanges. Is the new feature valuate flow described as "trading Forex all the way of life through the specialty graph function?" If so, that would make an obvious vertical characteristic stream, and the teams might reorganize past taking some members of each factor team and creating a new vertical feature team for Forex trading. Or is the feature "trading of Forex" asset "charting Forex," in which case the charting team is already organized appropriately?

Is the charting capability a characteristic set or a component? Both?
Does IT matter what you call IT?

Flatbottom in the case where it is clear what you call IT, is a feature team always the best choice? Keith Smuggled, notes this:

"Online trading requires a great depth of specialised expertise and industry knowledge at many different levels. We could non middling form lineament teams that included members from every component area. Therefore, for our modulation to agile, we organized around component teams and, done maturity, we are now in peculiar cases putting conjointly feature teams where it makes sense. While feature teams are superior at driving an first step through with completion, in some cases they merely don't make believe sense. For example, if you have twenty dollar bill boast teams and they all rely on a communal component, such as a time-censorious online transactional processing engine, it whitethorn be unadvisable to have 20 different teams sticking out their hands into this critical component. Rather, you might choose to have these changes contained by a single team that can factor the needs of the 20 teams and clear trusted they don't jeopardize areas they don't sympathize away making changes for their particular features."

===========

Sep 2022 update: here's a Holocene epoch update from Keith Black on this topic.

Regarding the ingredient team issue I think up we really need to think more about the Service Oriented Architecture. Ironically we were having this turn over regarding component vs feature teams last week at our release preparation. I genuinely consider IT's a substance of how we delimit features and make services available. We're improving in this country, but stock-still have areas where teams need to organize fingers in the code. If we do our lin correctly then apiece dependency should go through and through a service and for each one team can create "features" though some are lower level.

The information connected this page is © 2010-2022 Armored Agile, Inc. and is protected by United States and Worldwide right of first publication laws. Neither images nor text dismiss be copied from this site without the express written permission of the copyright holder. Scaled Agile Fabric and SAFe are enrolled trademarks of Scaled Nimble, Inc. Please visit Permissions FAQs and contact us for permissions.