business value of agile methods - davidfrico.com · business value of agile methods using roi &...

Business Value ofAgile Methods

Using ROI & Real OptionsDr. David F. Rico, PMP, CSEP, FCP, FCT, ACP, CSM, SAFE, DEVOPS

Twitter: @dr_david_f_ricoWebsite: http://www.davidfrico.com

LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidfricoAgile Capabilities: http://davidfrico.com/rico-capability-agile.pdf

Agile Resources: http://www.davidfrico.com/daves-agile-resources.htmAgile Cheat Sheet: http://davidfrico.com/key-agile-theories-ideas-and-principles.pdf

Dave’s NEW Business Agility Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wTXqN-OBzADave’s NEWER Development Operations Security Video: https://vimeo.com/214895416DoD Fighter Jets vs. Amazon Web Services: http://davidfrico.com/dod-agile-principles.pdf

Gov’t contractor with 34+ years of IT experience B.S. Comp. Sci., M.S. Soft. Eng., & D.M. Info. Sys. Large gov’t projects in U.S., Far/Mid-East, & Europe

2

Career systems & software engineering methodologist Lean-Agile, Six Sigma, CMMI, ISO 9001, DoD 5000NASA, USAF, Navy, Army, DISA, & DARPA projects Published seven books & numerous journal articles Intn’l keynote speaker, 195+ talks to 14,300 people Specializes in metrics, models, & cost engineeringCloud Computing, SOA, Web Services, FOSS, etc. Professor at 7 Washington, DC-area universities

Author Background

Today’s Whirlwind Environment

3

OverrunsAttritionEscalationRunawaysCancellation

GlobalCompetition

DemandingCustomers

OrganizationDownsizing

SystemComplexity

TechnologyChange

VagueRequirements

Work LifeImbalance

InefficiencyHigh O&MLower DoQVulnerableN-M Breach

ReducedIT Budgets

81 MonthCycle Times

RedundantData Centers

Lack ofInteroperability

PoorIT Security

OverburdeningLegacy Systems

ObsoleteTechnology & Skills

Pine, B. J. (1993). Mass customization: The new frontier in business competition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Pontius, R. W. (2012). Acquisition of IT: Improving efficiency and effectiveness in IT acquisition in the DoD. Second Annual AFEI/NDIA Conference on Agile in DoD, Springfield, VA, USA.

Software in U.S. DoD Systems

Kennedy, M. P., & Umphress, D. A. (2011). An agile systems engineering process: The missing link. Crosstalk, 24(3), 16-20.

No. of software-intensive systems is growing 80% of US DoD functions performed in software Major driver of cost, schedule, & tech. performance

4

Software in U.S. DoD Avionics

Blackburn, M. R. (2014). Transforming systems engineering through a holistic approach to model centric engineering. Washington, DC: Stevens Institute of Technology.

Software in U.S. DoD avionics growing exponentially 10x growth from F-16 to F-22 (& another 10x to F-35) Productivity must grow by 10x for next gen systems

5

Traditional Projects

6

Big projects result in poor quality and scope changes Productivity declines with long queues/wait times Large projects are unsuccessful or canceled

Jones, C. (1991). Applied software measurement: Assuring productivity and quality. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Size vs. Quality

DE

FEC

TS

0.00

3.20

6.40

9.60

12.80

16.00

0 2 6 25 100 400

SIZE

Size vs. Productivity

PR

OD

UC

TIV

ITY

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

0 2 6 25 100 400

SIZE

Size vs. Change

CH

AN

GE

0%

8%

16%

24%

32%

40%

0 2 6 25 100 400

SIZE

Size vs. SuccessS

UC

CE

SS

0%

12%

24%

36%

48%

60%

0 2 6 25 100 400

SIZE

Global Project Failures

7Standish Group. (2015). Chaos summary 2015. Boston, MA: Author.Sessions, R. (2009). The IT complexity crisis: Danger and opportunity. Houston, TX: Object Watch.

Challenged and failed projects hover at 67% Big projects fail more often, which is 5% to 10% Of $1.7T spent on IT projects, over $858B were lost

$0.0

$0.4

$0.7

$1.1

$1.4

$1.8

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Trill

ions

(US

Dolla

rs)

Expenditures Failed Investments

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

28%

34%

29%

35%

32%

33%

27%

28%

29%

49%

51%

53%

46%

44%

41%

56%

55%

52%

23%

15%

18%

19%

24%

26%

17%

17%

19%

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2015

Year

Successful Challenged Failed

Requirements Defects & Waste

8Sheldon, F. T. et al. (1992). Reliability measurement: From theory to practice. IEEE Software, 9(4), 13-20Johnson, J. (2002). ROI: It's your job. Extreme Programming 2002 Conference, Alghero, Sardinia, Italy.

Requirements defects are #1 reason projects fail Traditional projects specify too many requirements More than 65% of requirements are never used at all

Other 7%

Requirements47%

Design28%

Implementation18%

Defects

Always 7%

Often 13%

Sometimes16%

Rarely19%

Never45%

Waste

What is Agility? A-gil-i-ty (ә-'ji-lә-tē) Property consisting of quickness,

lightness, and ease of movement; To be very nimble The ability to create and respond to change in order to

profit in a turbulent global business environment The ability to quickly reprioritize use of resources when

requirements, technology, and knowledge shift A very fast response to sudden market changes and

emerging threats by intensive customer interaction Use of evolutionary, incremental, and iterative delivery

to converge on an optimal customer solution Maximizing BUSINESS VALUE with right sized, just-

enough, and just-in-time processes and documentationHighsmith, J. A. (2002). Agile software development ecosystems. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

9

What are Agile Methods?

10

People-centric way to create innovative solutions Product-centric alternative to documents/process Market-centric model to maximize business value

Agile Manifesto. (2001). Manifesto for agile software development. Retrieved September 3, 2008, from http://www.agilemanifesto.orgRico, D. F., Sayani, H. H., & Sone, S. (2009). The business value of agile software methods. Ft. Lauderdale, FL: J. Ross Publishing.Rico, D. F. (2012). Agile conceptual model. Retrieved February 6, 2012, from http://davidfrico.com/agile-concept-model-1.pdf

Customer Collaboration

Working Systems & Software

Individuals & Interactions

Responding to Change

valuedmore than

valuedmore than

valuedmore than

valuedmore than

Contracts

Documentation

Processes

Project Plans

Frequent comm. Close proximity Regular meetings

Multiple comm. channels Frequent feedback Relationship strength

Leadership Boundaries Empowerment

Competence Structure Manageability/Motivation

Clear objectives Small/feasible scope Acceptance criteria

Timeboxed iterations Valid operational results Regular cadence/intervals

Org. flexibility Mgt. flexibility Process flexibility

System flexibility Technology flexibility Infrastructure flexibility

Contract compliance Contract deliverables Contract change orders

Lifecycle compliance Process Maturity Level Regulatory compliance

Document deliveries Document comments Document compliance

Cost Compliance Scope Compliance Schedule Compliance

Courage

Agile World View “Agility” has many dimensions other than IT It ranges from leadership to technological agility Today’s focus is on organizational & enterprise agility

Agile Leaders

Agile Organization Change

Agile Acquisition & Contracting

Agile Strategic Planning

Agile Capability Analysis

Agile Program Management

Agile Tech.

Agile Information Systems

Agile Tools

Agile Processes & Practices

Agile Systems Development

Agile Project Management

11

NetworkComputer

Operating SystemMiddlewareApplications

APIsGUI

Agile requirements implemented in slices vs. layers User needs with higher business value are done first Reduces cost & risk while increasing business success

12Shore, J. (2011). Evolutionary design illustrated. Norwegian Developers Conference, Oslo, Norway.

Agile Traditional1 2 3 Faster

Early ROI

Lower Costs

Fewer Defects

Manageable Risk

Better Performance

Smaller Attack Surface

Late

No Value

Cost Overruns

Very Poor Quality

Uncontrollable Risk

Slowest Performance

More Security Incidents Seven Wastes1. Rework2. Motion3. Waiting4. Inventory5. Transportation6. Overprocessing7. Overproduction

MINIMIZES MAXIMIZES

JIT, Just-enough architecture Early, in-process system V&V Fast continuous improvement Scalable to systems of systems Maximizes successful outcomes

Myth of perfect architecture Late big-bang integration tests Year long improvement cycles Breaks down on large projects Undermines business success

How Agile Works

Thousands of TestsContinuously Executed

No More Late BigBang Integration

User needs designed & developed one-at-a-time Changes automatically detected, built, and tested System fully tested and deployed as changes occur

13Humble, J., & Farley, D. (2011). Continuous delivery. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Duvall, P., Matyas, S., & Glover, A. (2006). Continuous integration. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

BuildIntegration

Server

VersionControlServer

BuildScripts

UsesWatches

BuildStatus

ProvidesDeveloper A

Developer B

Developer C

CommitsChanges

CommitsChanges

CommitsChanges

Builds

Database

Analysis

Testing

Reporting

Documentation

Deployment

Early, Automated, Fast,Efficient, & Repeatable

Constant ReadinessState & CM Control

Lean, Waste Free, Low WIP,No Deadlocked Test Queues

Rapidly & SuccessfullyDev. Complex Systems

Agile Mechanics

14

Capability #1

● Feature 1● Feature 2● Feature 3● Feature 4● Feature 5● Feature 6● Feature 7

Capability #2


Capability #3


Capability #4


Capability #5


Capability #6


Capability #7


1

2 3

4

5 6

7

8 9

10

11 12

13

14 15

16

17 18

19

20 21

Evolving “Unified/Integrated” Enterprise Data Model

“Disparate” LEGACY SYSTEM DATABASES (AND DATA MODELS)

ETL

A A

B C

D E F

G H I J K

A

B C

D E F

A

B C

D E

A

B C

D

A

B C

A

B

“Legacy” MS SQL Server Stovepipes “Inter-Departmental” Linux Blade/Oracle/Java/WebSphere Server

“Leased” DWA/HPC/Cloud Services

Sprint 1 Sprint 2 Sprint 3 Sprint 4 Sprint 5 Sprint 6 Sprint 7

ETL ETL ETL ETL ETL ETL

Bente, S., Bombosch, U., & Langade, S. (2012). Collaborative enterprise architecture: Enriching EA with lean, agile, and enterprise 2.0 practices. Waltham, MA: Elsevier.

(for example, assume 25 user stories per feature, 175 user stories per capability, and 1,225 user stories total)

Organize needs into capabilities, features, and stories Prioritize features, group releases, and initiate sprints Develop minimum set of features with highest value

Release

Release

Release

ReleaseMMF- or -MVP

Agile Storymap, Roadmap, Arch.

Models of AGILE DEVELOPMENT

15

Agile methods spunoff flexible manufacturing 1990s Extreme Programming (XP) swept the globe by 2002 Today, over 90% of IT projects use Scrum/XP hybrid

Use Cases

Domain Model

Object Oriented

Iterative Dev.

Risk Planning

Info. Radiators

Planning Poker

Product Backlog

Sprint Backlog

2-4 Week Spring

Daily Standup

Sprint Demo

Feasibility

Business Study

Func. Iteration

Design Iteration

Implementation

Testing

Domain Model

Feature List

Object Oriented

Iterative Dev.

Code Inspection

Testing

Release Plans

User Stories

Pair Programmer

Iterative Dev.

Test First Dev.

Onsite Customer

Cockburn, A. (2002). Agile software development. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2001). Agile software development with scrum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Stapleton, J. (1997). DSDM: A framework for business centered development. Harlow, England: Addison-Wesley.Palmer, S. R., & Felsing, J. M. (2002). A practical guide to feature driven development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Beck, K. (2000). Extreme programming explained: Embrace change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

CRYSTAL METHODS- 1991 -

SCRUM- 1993 -

DSDM- 1993 -

FDD- 1997 -

XP- 1998 -

Reflection W/S Retrospective Quality Control Quality Control Continuous Del.

Basic SCRUM Framework

Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2001). Agile software development with scrum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Created by Jeff Sutherland at Easel in 1993 Product backlog comprised of prioritized features Iterative sprint-to-sprint, adaptive & emergent model

16

Models of AGILE PROJECT MGT.

17

Dozens of Agile project management models emerged Many stem from principles of Extreme Programming Vision, releases, & iterative development common

Prioritization

Feasibility

Planning

Tracking

Reporting

Review

Visionate

Speculate

Innovate

Re-Evaluate

Disseminate

Terminate

Scoping

Planning

Feasibility

Cyclical Dev.

Checkpoint

Review

Envision

Speculate

Explore

Iterate

Launch

Close

Vision

Roadmap

Release Plan

Sprint Plan

Daily Scrum

Retrospective

Thomsett, R. (2002). Radical project management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.DeCarlo, D. (2004). Extreme project management: Using leadership, principles, and tools to deliver value in the face of volatility. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Wysocki, R.F. (2010). Adaptive project framework: Managing complexity in the face of uncertainty. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Highsmith, J. A. (2010). Agile project management: Creating innovative products. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Layton, M. C., & Maurer, R. (2011). Agile project management for dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing.

RADICAL- 2002 -

EXTREME- 2004 -

ADAPTIVE- 2010 -

AGILE- 2010-

SIMPLIFIED- 2011 -

Layton, M. C., & Maurer, R. (2011). Agile project management for dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing.

Created by Mark Layton at PlatinumEdge in 2012 Mix of new product development, XP, and Scrum Simplified codification of XP and Scrum hybrid

18

Simplified AGILE PROJECT MGT.

19

Numerous models of agile portfolio mgt. emerging Based on lean-kanban, release planning, and Scrum Include organization, program, & project management

Schwaber, K. (2007). The enterprise and scrum. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Larman, C., & Vodde, B. (2008). Scaling lean and agile development: Thinking and organizational tools for large-scale scrum. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Ambler, S. W., & Lines, M. (2012). Disciplined agile delivery: A practitioner's guide to agile software delivery in the enterprise. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Thompson, K. (2013). cPrime’s R.A.G.E. is unleashed: Agile leaders rejoice! Retrieved March 28, 2014, from http://www.cprime.com/tag/agile-governanceSchwaber, K. (2015). The definitive guide to nexus: The exoskeleton of scaled scrum development. Lexington, MA: Scrum.Org

Models of AGILE PORTFOLIO MGT.

ESCRUM- 2007 -

SAFe- 2007 -

LESS- 2007 -

DAD- 2012 -

RAGE- 2013 -

SPS- 2015 -

Product Mgt

Program Mgt

Project Mgt

Process Mgt

Business Mgt

Market Mgt

Strategic Mgt

Portfolio Mgt

Program Mgt

Team Mgt

Quality Mgt

Delivery Mgt

Business Mgt

Portfolio Mgt

Product Mgt

Area Mgt

Sprint Mgt

Release Mgt

Business Mgt

Portfolio Mgt

Inception

Construction

Iterations

Transition

Business

Governance

Portfolio

Program

Project

Delivery

Product Mgt

Program Mgt

Sprint Mgt

Team Mgt.

Integ Mgt.

Release Mgt

Created by Dean Leffingwell of Rally in 2007 Knowledge to scale agile practices to enterprise Hybrid of Kanban, XP release planning, and Scrum

20Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

PORTFOLIO

LARGESOLUTION

PROGRAM

TEAM

Scaled Agile Framework (SAFE)

21

Numerous theories of agile leadership have emerged Many have to do with delegation and empowerment Leaders have major roles in visioning and enabling

AGILE- 2005 -

EMPLOYEE- 2009 -

RADICAL- 2010 -

LEAN- 2010 -

LEADERSHIP 3.0- 2011 -

Organic Teams

Guiding Vision

Transparency

Light Touch

Simple Rules

Improvement

Autonomy

Alignment

Transparency

Purpose

Mastery

Improvement

Self Org. Teams

Communication

Transparency

Iterative Value

Delight Clients

Improvement

Talented Teams

Alignment

Systems View

Reliability

Excellence

Improvement

Empowerment

Alignment

Motivation

Scaling

Competency

Improvement

Augustine, S. (2005). Managing agile projects. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Penguin Books.Denning, S. (2010). The leader’s guide to radical management: Reinventing the workplace for the 21st century. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.Poppendieck, M, & Poppendieck, T. (2010). Leading lean software development: Results are not the point. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Appelo, J. (2011). Management 3.0: Leading agile developers and developing agile leaders. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Models of AGILE LEADERSHIP

RADICAL LEADERSHIP Model Created by bestselling author Steve Denning in 2010 Integrates leadership, client focus and agile methods Goal is delighting clients by exceeding expectations

22Denning, S. (2010). The leader’s guide to radical management: Reinventing the workplace for the 21st century. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Radical Leadership ModelDelighting

Clients

Identify clients

Tacit desires

Simplicity

Offer less

Exploration

People focus

Meet clients

Self Org. Teams

Purpose

Communicate

Empowerment

Tailor oversight

Recognition

Remuneration

Consistency

Client Driven Iterations

Client focus

Prioritize

Client value

Involvement

Simplicity

Validate

Improve

Delivering Value

Team focus

Preparation

Estimation

Small batches

Empowerment

Communicate

Sustainability

Radical Transparency

Client interface

Daily contact

Retrospectives

Improvement

Radiators

Impediments

Go-and-see

Continuous Improvement

Line-of-sight

Success

Alignment

Root causes

Make changes

Get feedback

Info. sharing

Interactively Communicate

Storytelling

Capture stories

Focus teams

Stimulation

Succ. Stories

Listen

Recognition

23

Agile Performance MeasurementW

ork

(Sto

ry, P

oint

, Tas

k)or

Eff

ort

(Wee

k, D

ay, H

our)

Time Unit (Roadmap, Release, Iteration, Month, Week, Day, Hour, etc.)

Burndown

Wor

k (S

tory

, Poi

nt, T

ask)

or E

ffor

t (W

eek,

Day

, Hou

r)


Cumulative Flow

Wor

k (S

tory

, Poi

nt, T

ask)

or E

ffor

t (W

eek,

Day

, Hou

r)


Earned Value Management - EVMCPI

SPI

PPC

APC

Wor

k (S

tory

, Poi

nt, T

ask)

or E

ffor

t (W

eek,

Day

, Hou

r)


Earned Business Value - EBV

Agile Cost of Quality (CoQ) Agile testing is 10x better than code inspections Agile testing is 100x better than traditional testing Agile testing is done earlier “and” 1,000x more often

24Rico, D. F. (2012). The Cost of Quality (CoQ) for Agile vs. Traditional Project Management. Fairfax, VA: Gantthead.Com.

Agile Cost & Benefit Analysis Costs based on avg. productivity and quality Productivity ranged from 4.7 to 5.9 LOC an hour Costs were $588,202 and benefits were $3,930,631

25Rico, D. F., Sayani, H. H., & Sone, S. (2009). The business value of agile software methods: Maximizing ROI with just-in-time processes and documentation. Ft. Lauderdale, FL: J. Ross Publishing.

d1 = [ln(Benefits Costs) + (Rate + 0.5 Risk2) Years] Risk Years, d2 = d1 Risk Years

5

1i

Benefits of Agile Methods Analysis of 23 agile vs. 7,500 traditional projects Agile projects are 54% better than traditional ones Agile has lower costs (61%) and fewer defects (93%)

Mah, M. (2008). Measuring agile in the enterprise: Proceedings of the Agile 2008 Conference, Toronto, Canada.

Project Cost in Millions $

0.75

1.50

2.25

3.00

2.8

1.1

Before Agile

After Agile

61%LowerCost

Total Staffing

18

11

Before Agile

After Agile

39%LessStaff

5

10

15

20

Delivery Time in Months

5

10

15

20

18

13.5

Before Agile

After Agile

24%Faster

Cumulative Defects

625

1250

1875

2500

2270

381

Before Agile

After Agile

93%Less

Defects

26

Agile vs. Traditional Success Traditional projects succeed at 50% industry avg. Traditional projects are challenged 20% more often Agile projects succeed 3x more and fail 3x less often

Standish Group. (2012). Chaos manifesto. Boston, MA: Author.

27

Agile Traditional

Success42%

Failed9%

Challenged49%

Success14%

Failed29%

Challenged57%

Hoque, F., et al. (2007). Business technology convergence. The role of business technology convergence in innovation and adaptability and its effect on financial performance. Stamford, CT: BTM Institute. 28

Study of 15 agile vs. non-agile Fortune 500 firms Based on models to measure organizational agility Agile firms out perform non agile firms by up to 36%

Benefits of Organizational Agility

Agile Adoption

29Holler, R. (2015). Ninth annual state of agile survey: State of agile development. Atlanta, GA: VersionOne.

VersionOne found 94% using agile methods today Most are using Scrum with several key XP practices Lean-Kanban is a rising practice with a 31% adoption

ContinuousIntegration

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

Agile Proliferation

Scrum Alliance. (2013). Scrum certification statistics. Retrieved April 28, 2015, from http://www.scrumalliance.orgTaft, D. K. (2012). Agile developers needed: Demand outpaces supply. Foster City, CA: eWeek. 30

Number of CSMs have doubled to 400,000 in 4 years 558,918 agile jobs for only 121,876 qualified people 4.59 jobs available for every agile candidate (5:1)

Projected

Projected

* PMI-PMPs grew from 552,977 to 625,346 in 2014 (i.e., added 72,369)

Agile in Government

Suhy, S. (2014). Has the U.S. government moved to agile without telling anyone? Retrieved April 24, 2015, from http://agileingov.comPorter, M. E., & Schwab, K. (2008). The global competitiveness report: 2008 to 2009. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum. 31

U.S. gov’t agile jobs grew by 13,000% from 2006-2013 Adoption is higher in U.S. DoD than Civilian Agencies GDP of countries with high adoption rates is greater

High

Low

Low HighAGILITY

CO

MP

ET

ITIV

EN

ES

S

GOVERNMENT AGILE JOB GROWTH

PE

RC

EN

TAG

E

13,000%

02006 2013YEARS

GOVERNMENT COMPETITIVENESS

Agile Industry Case Studies 84% of worldwide IT projects use agile methods Includes regulated industries, i.e., DoD, FDA, etc. Agile now used for safety critical systems, FBI, etc.

32

Industry

ShrinkWrapped

ElectronicCommerce

HealthCare

LawEnforcement

Org 20 teams 140 people 5 countries

Size

15 teams 90 people Collocated 4 teams 20 people Collocated 10 teams 50 people Collocated 3 teams 12 people Collocated

U.S.DoD

Primavera

Google

Stratcom

FBI

FDA

Project

Primavera

Adwords

SKIweb

Sentinel

m2000

Purpose

ProjectManagement

Advertising

KnowledgeManagement

Case FileWorkflow

BloodAnalysis

1,838 User Stories 6,250 Function Points 500,000 Lines of Code

Metrics

26,809 User Stories 91,146 Function Points 7,291,666 Lines of Code 1,659 User Stories 5,640 Function Points 451,235 Lines of Code 3,947 User Stories 13,419 Function Points 1,073,529 Lines of Code 390 User Stories 1,324 Function Points 105,958 Lines of Code

Rico, D. F. (2010). Lean and agile project management: For large programs and projects. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Lean Enterprise Software and Systems, Helsinki, Finland, 37-43.

Conclusion Agile methods DON’T mean deliver it now & fix it later Lightweight, yet disciplined approach to development Reduced cost, risk, & waste while improving quality

33Rico, D. F. (2012). What’s really happening in agile methods: Its principles revisited? Retrieved June 6, 2012, from http://davidfrico.com/agile-principles.pdfRico, D. F. (2012). The promises and pitfalls of agile methods. Retrieved February 6, 2013 from, http://davidfrico.com/agile-pros-cons.pdfRico, D. F. (2012). How do lean & agile intersect? Retrieved February 6, 2013, from http://davidfrico.com/agile-concept-model-3.pdf

What How ResultFlexibility Use lightweight, yet disciplined processes and artifacts Low work-in-process

Customer Involve customers early and often throughout development Early feedback

Prioritize Identify highest-priority, value-adding business needs Focus resources

Descope Descope complex programs by an order of magnitude Simplify problem

Decompose Divide the remaining scope into smaller batches Manageable pieces

Iterate Implement pieces one at a time over long periods of time Diffuse risk

Leanness Architect and design the system one iteration at a time JIT waste-free design

Swarm Implement each component in small cross-functional teams Knowledge transfer

Collaborate Use frequent informal communications as often as possible Efficient data transfer

Test Early Incrementally test each component as it is developed Early verification

Test Often Perform system-level regression testing every few minutes Early validation

Adapt Frequently identify optimal process and product solutions Improve performance

Books on ROI of SW Methods Guides to software methods for business leaders Communicates the business value of IT approaches Rosetta stones to unlocking ROI of software methods

http://davidfrico.com/agile-book.htm (Description) http://davidfrico.com/roi-book.htm (Description)

34

Dave’s PROFESSIONAL CAPABILITIES

35

SoftwareQuality

Mgt.

TechnicalProject

Mgt.

SoftwareDevelopment

Methods

Leadership &Org. Change

SystemsEngineering

Cost Estimates& Scheduling

Acquisition &Contracting

Strategy &Roadmapping

Lean, Kanban,& Six Sigma

Modeling &Simulations

Big Data,Cloud, NoSQL

WorkflowAutomation

Metrics,Models, & SPC

BPR, IDEF0,& DoDAF

DoD 5000,TRA, & SRA

PSP, TSP, &Code Reviews

CMMI &ISO 9001

InnovationManagement

Statistics, CFA,EFA, & SEM

ResearchMethods

EvolutionaryDesign

Valuation — Cost-Benefit Analysis, B/CR, ROI, NPV, BEP, Real Options, etc.

Lean-Agile — Scrum, SAFe, Continuous Integration & Delivery, DevOpsSec, etc.

STRENGTHS – Data Mining Gathering & Reporting Performance Data Strategic Planning Executive & Manage-ment Briefs Brownbags & Webinars White Papers Tiger-Teams Short-Fuse Tasking Audits & Reviews Etc.

● Data mining. Metrics, benchmarks, & performance.● Simplification. Refactoring, refinement, & streamlining.● Assessments. Audits, reviews, appraisals, & risk analysis.● Coaching. Diagnosing, debugging, & restarting stalled projects.● Business cases. Cost, benefit, & return-on-investment (ROI) analysis.● Communications. Executive summaries, white papers, & lightning talks.● Strategy & tactics. Program, project, task, & activity scoping, charters, & plans.

PMP, CSEP,FCP, FCT, ACP,CSM, SAFE, &

DEVOPS

34+ YEARSIN IT

INDUSTRY

Backup Slides

Agile for SECURITY ENGINEERING Microsoft created software security life cycle in 2002 Waterfall approach tailored for Scrum sprints in 2009 Uses security req, threat modeling & security testing

37

Microsoft. (2011). Security development lifecycle: SDL Process Guidance (Version 5.1). Redmond, WA: Author.Microsoft. (2010). Security development lifecycle: Simplified implementation of the microsoft SDL. Redmond, WA: Author.Microsoft. (2009). Security development lifecycle: Security development lifecycle for agile development (Version 1.0). Redmond, WA: Author.Bidstrup, E., & Kowalczyk, E. C. (2005). Security development lifecycle. Changing the software development process to build in security from the start. Security Summit West.

SEE DETAILED - SECURITY LIFE CYCLE STEPShttp://davidfrico.com/agile-security-lifecycle.txt

Agile for EMBEDDED SYSTEMS 1st-generation systems used hardwired logic 2nd-generation systems used PROMS & FPGAs 3rd-generation systems use APP. SW & COTS HW

38Pries, K. H., & Quigley, J. M. (2010). Scrum project management. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Pries, K. H., & Quigley, J. M. (2009). Project management of complex and embedded systems. Boca Raton, FL: Auerbach Publications.Thomke, S. (2003). Experimentation matters: Unlocking the potential of new technologies for innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

● Short Lead● Least Cost● Lowest Risk● 90% Software● COTS Hardware● Early, Iterative Dev.● Continuous V&V

● Moderate Lead● Moderate Cost● Moderate Risk● 50% Hardware● COTS Components● Midpoint Testing● “Some” Early V&V

● Long Lead● Highest Cost● Highest Risk● 90% Hardware● Custom Hardware● Linear, Staged Dev.● Late Big-Bang I&T

AGILE“Software Model”- MOST FLEXIBLE -

NEO-TRADITIONAL“FPGA Model”

- MALLEABLE -

TRADITIONAL“Hardwired Model”

- LEAST FLEXIBLE -

GOAL – SHIFT FROM LATE HARDWARE TO EARLIER SOFTWARE SOLUTION

RISKEmbeddedSystemsMore HWThan SW

STOPCompeting

With HW

STARTCompeting

With SW

Iter

atio

ns, I

nteg

rati

ons,

& V

alid

atio

ns

39Kovacs, K. (2015). Comparison of nosql databases. Retrieved on January 9, 2015, from http://kkovacs.euSahai, S. (2013). Nosql database comparison chart. Retrieved on January 9, 2015, from http://www.infoivy.comDB-Engines (2014). System properties comparison of nosql databases. Retrieved on January 9, 2015, from http://db-engines.com

Rank Database Year Creator Firm Goal Model Lang I/F Focus Example User Rate KPro

2007 Steve Francia

10gen Gener-ality

Document C++ BSON Large-scale Web Apps

CRM Expedia 45% 48

2008 Avinash Lakshman

Facebook Relia-bility

Wide Column

Java CQL Fault-tolerant Data Stores

Mission Critical Data

iTunes 20% 15

2009 Salvatore Sanfilippo

Pivotal Speed Key Value C Binary Real-time Messaging

Instant Messaging

Twitter 20% 14

2007 Mike Carafella

Powerset Scale Wide Column

Java REST Petabyte-size Data Stores

Image Repository

Ebay 10% 8

2004 Shay Banon

Compass Search Document Java REST Full-text Search

Information Portals

Wiki-media 5% 7

Real-time, Distributed, Multi-tenant, Document-based, Schema-free, Persistence, Availability, etc.

8

Redis10

HBase14

Rapid-prototyping, Queries, Indexes, Replication, Availability, Load-balancing, Auto-Sharding, etc.

Distributed, Scalable, Performance, Durable, Caching, Operations, Transactions, Consistency

Real-time, Memory-cached, Performance, Persistence, Replication, Data structures, Age-off, etc.

Scalable, Performance, Data-replication, Flexible, Consistency, Auto-sharding, Metrics, etc.

16Elastic Search

MongoDB5

Cassandra

3 - $10M•Gen App•Reliable•Low Cplx

2 - $100M•Schema•Dist P2P•Med Cplx

1 - $1B•Limited•Sin PoF•High Cplx

Agile Scaling w/CLOUD COMPUTING 1st-generation systems used HPCs & Hadoop 2nd-generation systems used COTS HW & P2P 3rd-generation systems use APP. SW & COTS HW

AWS is most popular cloud computing platform Scalable service with end-to-end security & privacy AWS is compliant & certified to 30+ indiv. S&P stds.

40Barr, J. (2014). AWS achieves DoD provisional authorization. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from http://aws.amazon.comDignan, L. (2014). Amazon web services lands DoD security authorization. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from http://www.zdnet.comAmazon.com (2015). AWS govcloud earns DoD CSM Levsl 3-5 provisional authorization. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from http://aws.amazon.com

Analytics DatabaseSSAE

CrossService

Compute &NetworkingSO

C

ApplicationServices

Deployment &Management

Storage &Content Del.

DoD CSM DIACAP FedRAMP FIPSCOBIT CSAAICPA

FISMA

GLBAHITECHSA

S

ITAR ISO/IEC ISAE HIPAANIST MPAAPCI

NoSQL Sols• MongoDB• Cassandra• HBase

Agile Scaling w/AMAZON WEB SVCS

Term coined by Martin Fowler in 1998 Process of automated build/regression testing Evaluates impact of changes against entire system

41Duvall, P., Matyas, S., & Glover, A. (2006). Continuous integration: Improving software quality and reducing risk. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

ALL DEVELOPERS RUN PRIVATE BUILDS

DEVELOPERS COMMIT CODE TO VERSION CONTROL

INTEGRATION BUILDS OCCUR SEVERAL TIMES PER DAY

100% OF SYSTEM TESTS MUST PASS FOR EVERY BUILD

A SHIPPABLE PRODUCT RESULTS FROM EVERY BUILD

FIXING BROKEN BUILDS IS OF THE HIGHEST PRIORITY

REPORTS AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED & REVIEWED

Agile Scaling w/CONTINUOUS INTEG.

Fewer integrations leave in higher bug counts Frequent, early integrations eliminate most defects Goal is to have as many early integrations as possible

42Lacoste, F. J. (2009). Killing the gatekeeper: Introducing a continuous integration system. Proceedings of the Agile 2009 Conference, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 387-392.

Number ofIntegrations

Less Defects•More Integrations•Early IntegrationsMore Defects

•Few Integrations•Late Integrations

Agile Scaling w/CONT. INTEG.—Stats

Created by Jez Humble of ThoughtWorks in 2011 Includes CM, build, testing, integration, release, etc. Goal is one-touch automation of deployment pipeline

43Humble, J., & Farley, D. (2011). Continuous delivery. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Duvall, P., Matyas, S., & Glover, A. (2006). Continuous integration. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Ohara, D. (2012). Continuous delivery and the world of devops. San Francisco, CA: GigaOM Pro.

CoQ

• 80% MS Tst• 8/10 No Val• $24B in 90s• Rep by CD• Not Add MLK

Source CodeControl

BuildAutomation

TestAutomation

ContinuousIntegration

ReleaseAutomation

ContinuousDelivery

Agile Scaling w/CONTINUOUS DELIVERY

44

Hewlett-Packard is a major user of CI, CD, & DevOps 400 engineers developed 10 million LOC in 4 years Major gains in testing, deployment, & innovation

Gruver, G., Young, M. & Fulghum, P. (2013). A practical approach to large-scale agile development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

TYPE METRIC MANUAL DEVOPS MAJOR GAINS

CYCLE TIME

IMPROVEMENTS

Build Time 40 Hours 3 Hours 13 x

No. Builds 1-2 per Day 10-15 per Day 8 x

Feedback 1 per Day 100 per Day 100 xRegression Testing 240 Hours 24 Hours 10 x

DEVELOPMENT

COST EFFORT

DISTRIBUTION

Integration 10% 2% 5 x

Planning 20% 5% 4 x

Porting 25% 15% 2 x

Support 25% 5% 5 x

Testing 15% 5% 3 x

Innovation 5% 40% 8 x

Agile Scaling w/CONT. DELIV.—Stats

Created by Patrick Debois of Jedi BVBA in 2007 Collaboration of developers & infrastructure people Goal to automate the deployment to end-user devices

45Bass, L., Weber, I., & Zhu, L. (2015). Devops: A software architect's perspective. Old Tappan, NJ: Pearson Education.Gruver, G., & Mouser, T. (2015). Leading the transformation: Applying agile and devops at scale. Portland, OR: IT Revolution Press.Humble, J., Molesky, J., & O'Reilly, B. (2015). Lean enterprise: How high performance organizations innovate at scale. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media.

Collaboration

Agile Scaling w/DEVOPS

Assembla went from 2 to 45 releases every month 15K Google developers run 120 million tests per day 30K+ Amazon developers deliver 136K releases a day

46Singleton, A. (2014). Unblock: A guide to the new continuous agile. Needham, MA: Assembla, Inc.

62 x FasterU.S. DoD

IT Project

3,645 x FasterU.S. DoD

IT Project

Agile Scaling w/DEVOPS—Stats

Key Agile SCALING POINTERS One must think and act small to accomplish big things Slow down to speed up, speed up ‘til wheels come off Scaling up lowers productivity, quality, & business value

47Rico, D. F. (2014). Dave's Notes: For Scaling with SAFe, DaD, LeSS, RAGE, ScrumPLoP, Enterprise Scrum, etc. Retrieved March 28, 2014 from http://davidfrico.com

EMPOWER WORKFORCE - Allow workers to help establish enterprise business goals and objectives.

ALIGN BUSINESS VALUE - Align and focus agile teams on delivering business value to the enterprise.

PERFORM VISIONING - Frequently communicate portfolio, project, and team vision on continuous basis.

REDUCE SIZE - Reduce sizes of agile portfolios, acquisitions, products, programs, projects, and teams.

ACT SMALL - Get large agile teams to act, behave, collaborate, communicate, and perform like small ones.

BE SMALL - Get small projects to act, behave, and collaborate like small ones instead of trying to act larger.

ACT COLLOCATED - Get virtual distributed teams to act, behave, communicate and perform like collocated ones.

USE SMALL ACQUISITION BATCHES - Organize suppliers to rapidly deliver new capabilities and quickly reprioritize.

USE LEAN-AGILE CONTRACTS - Use collaborative contracts to share responsibility instead of adversarial legal ones.

USE ENTERPRISE AUTOMATION - Automate everything with Continuous Integration, Continuous Delivery, & DevOps.

TO SELL IS HUMAN

Reduce Your Power Take Their Perspective Use Strategic Mimicry

Use Interrogative Self-Talk Opt. Positivity Ratios Offer Explanatory Style

Find the Right Problem Find Your Frames Find an Easy Path

ATTUNEMENT

BUOYANCY

CLARITY

Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2010). Switch: How to change things when change is hard. New York, NY: Random House.Patterson, K., et al. (2008). Influencer: The power to change anything: New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.Pink, D. H. (2012). To sell is human: The surprising truth about moving others. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2013). Decisive: How to make better choices in life and work. New York, NY: Random House.

Change, no matter how small or large, is difficult Smaller focused changes help to cross the chasm Simplifying, motivating, and validation key factors

48

SWITCH

Follow the bright spots Script the critical moves Point to the destination

Find the feeling Shrink the change Grow your people

Tweak the environment Build habits Rally the herd

DIRECT THE RIDER

MOTIVATE ELEPHANT

SHAPE PATH

INFLUENCER

Create new experiences Create new motives

Perfect complex skills Build emotional skills

Recruit public figures Recruit influential leaders

Utilize teamwork Power of social capital

Use incentives wisely Use punishment sparingly

Make it easy Make it unavoidable

MAKE IT DESIRABLE

SURPASS YOUR LIMITS

USE PEER PRESSURE

STRENGTH IN NUMBERS

DESIGN REWARDS

CHANGE ENVIRONMENT

DRIVE

PURPOSE

AUTONOMY

MASTERY

Purpose-profit equality Business& societal benefit Share control of profits Delegate implementation Culture & goal alignment Remake society-globe

Accountable to someone Self-select work tasks Self-directed work tasks Self-selected timelines Self-selected teams Self-selected implement.

Experiment & innovate Align tasks to abilities Continuously improve Learning over profits Create challenging tasks Set high expectations

DECISIVE

COMMON ERRORS Narrow framing Confirmation bias Short term emotion Over confidence

WIDEN OPTIONS Avoid a narrow frame Multi-track Find out who solved it

TEST ASSUMPTIONS Consider the opposite Zoom out & zoom in Ooch

ATTAIN DISTANCE Overcome emotion Gather & shift perspective Self-directed work tasks

PREPARE TO BE WRONG Bookend the future Set a tripwire Trust the process

Models of AGILE ORG. CHANGE

Rico, D. F. (2011). The necessity of new contract models for agile project management. Fairfax, VA: Gantthead.Com.Rico, D. F. (2013). Agile vs. traditional contract manifesto. Retrieved March 28, 2013 from http://www.davidfrico.com 49

Dynamic Value Performance Based Target Cost Optional Scope Collaborative

Business & Mission Value OVER Scope, Processes, & Deliverables

Personal Interactions OVER Contract, Auditor, & Legal Interactions

Conversations and Consensus OVER Contract Negotiations & Control

Collaboration & Co-Dependency OVER Methodology & Adversarialism

Exploration, Evolution, & Emergence OVER Forecasting & Control

Early Continuous Quality Solutions OVER Late, Long-Term Deliveries

Entrepreneurialism & Openness OVER Compliance & Self-Interest

Personnel Delight, Happiness, & Joy OVER Policies & Governance

Cross-Functionalism, Talent, & Flexibility OVER Rigid Specialization

Communication, cooperation, and interaction key Shared responsibility vs. blame and adversarialism Needs greater focus on collaboration vs. legal terms

Models of AGILE CONTRACTING

Principles of AGILE GOVERNMENT Manage agile contracts like your personal checkbook Optimize value of dollars, i.e., get most bang for buck Don’t burden taxpayers with billion dollar acquisitions

50Rico, D. F. (2014). Dave's Notes: Principles for Transforming U.S. DoD Acquisition & Systems Engineering Practices. Retrieved March, 2015 from http://davidfrico.com

FEWER - Fewer high-priority acquisition priorities and needs (vs. kitchen-sink way of buying everything). SMALLER - Smaller low-cost single-mission throwaway acquisitions (vs. century-long, trillion-dollar systems). MICRO TIMELINES - Hyper fast acquisition lifecycles measured in months and years (vs. decades and centuries). EMERGENT DESIGN - Micro-thin capability-based designs (vs. wasteful heavyweight century-long architectures). FLATTER - Flatter gov’t agencies, acquisition, organizations & program offices (vs. top-heavy oversight teams). COLLABORATIVE - Smaller flatter cross-functional buyer-supplier teams (vs. adversarial legalistic contracting). CROWDSOURCED - Global bottom-up planning, decisions, funding, risk-sharing & designs (vs. local groupthink). RESULTS BASED - Blackbox, outcome, and product-oriented acquisitions (vs. whitebox, work-in-process focus). MAXIMIZE FLOW - Low-cost intensive automated processes (vs. human-intensive decisions and governance). COMMERCIALIZE - Maximize use of commercial products and services (vs. customized in-sourced solutions). OUTSOURCED DATA - Use commercial open source data & analytics (vs. internal collection, analysis, & reports).

21ST CENTURY LEADERSHIP Summary 21st century leadership is about empowerment vs. ctrl Flatter organizations of talented self-organizing teams Lean-agile ideas to constantly adapt to market needs

51

FLATTER - Develop flatter enterprises, organizations, agencies, non-profits, firms, etc. BOTTOMS UP - Deploy bottoms up visioning, missioning, strategic/tactical planning, etc. VISIONING - Continuously proliferate jointly developed visions, missions, strategies, etc. DELEGATE - Delegate authority and responsibility to lowest operational level possible. LEAN THINKING - Promote small batch sizes, low work in process (WIP), Kanban, etc. ADAPTABILITY - Continuously sense and respond to ever changing market needs. MICRO THINKING - Use small throwaway micro batches, products, services, timelines, etc. FLEXIBILITY - Use flexible and inexpensive processes, products, suppliers, services, etc. EMERGENCE - Allow business, product, and service offerings to evolve, emerge, grow, etc. SELF ORGANIZATION - Develop loose coalitions of inter-networked teams vs. hierarchies. CONVERSATIONS - Foster open, informal communications, dialogues, conversations, etc. BALANCE - Strike a balance between organizational commitments and creative pursuits. AGILITY - Find balance of flexibility and discipline for creative, high-quality solutions. IMPROVEMENT - Create a culture of continuous improvement, learning, perfection, etc. MASTERY - Foster an environment of learning, education, self-mastery, perfection, etc. COLLABORATION - Integrate market, customer, and voice, feedback, participation, etc.

business value of agile methods - davidfrico.com · business value of agile methods using roi &...

Documents