Business Value Of Agile Methods
Business Value of Agile Methods Using ROI & Real Options Dr. David F. Rico, PMP, CSEP, FCP, FCT, ACP, CSM, SAFe Twitter: @dr david f rico Website: http://www.davidfrico.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidfrico Agile Capabilities: http://davidfrico.com/rico-capability-agile.pdf Agile Resources: m Agile Cheat Sheet: -principles.pdf
Author Background Gov’t contractor with 32 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 Career systems & software engineering methodologist Lean-Agile, Six Sigma, CMMI, ISO 9001, DoD 5000 NASA, USAF, Navy, Army, DISA, & DARPA projects Published seven books & numerous journal articles Intn’l keynote speaker, 150 talks to 12,000 people Specializes in metrics, models, & cost engineering Cloud Computing, SOA, Web Services, FOSS, etc. Adjunct at five Washington, DC-area universities 2
Today’s Whirlwind Environment Work Life Imbalance Vague Requirements Reduced IT Budgets Global Competition Overruns Attrition Escalation Runaways Cancellation Technology Change Demanding Customers Organization Downsizing System Complexity 81 Month Cycle Times Redundant Data Centers Obsolete Technology & Skills Inefficiency High O&M Lower DoQ Vulnerable N-M Breach Lack of Interoperability Overburdening Legacy Systems Poor IT Security 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. 3
Software in U.S. DoD Systems No. of software-intensive systems is growing 80% of US DoD functions performed in software Major driver of cost, schedule, & tech. performance Kennedy, M. P., & Umphress, D. A. (2011). An agile systems engineering process: The missing link. Crosstalk, 24(3), 16-20. 4
Software in U.S. DoD Avionics 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 Blackburn, M. R. (2014). Transforming systems engineering through a holistic approach to model centric engineering. Washington, DC: Stevens Institute of Technology. 5
Traditional Projects Big projects result in poor quality and scope changes Productivity declines with long queues/wait times Large projects are unsuccessful or canceled Size vs. Change 40% 12.80 32% CHANGE DEFECTS Size vs. Quality 16.00 9.60 6.40 3.20 0.00 0 2 6 25 SIZE 100 24% 16% 8% 0% 400 0 2 60% 4.00 48% 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0 2 6 25 SIZE 100 25 SIZE 100 400 100 400 Size vs. Success 5.00 SUCCESS PRODUCTIVITY Size vs. Productivity 6 400 36% 24% 12% 0% 0 2 6 25 SIZE Jones, C. (1991). Applied software measurement: Assuring productivity and quality. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. 6
Global Project Failures 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 Year 2015 29% 52% 19% 2014 28% 55% 17% 2012 27% 56% 17% 2010 33% 41% 26% 2008 32% 44% 24% 2006 2004 2002 2000 0% 35% 46% 29% 53% 34% Successful 18% 51% 28% 20% 19% 15% 49% 40% 60% Challenged 23% 80% 100% Failed 1.8 Trillions (US Dollars) 1.4 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Expenditures Standish Group. (2015). Chaos summary 2015. Boston, MA: Author. Sessions, R. (2009). The IT complexity crisis: Danger and opportunity. Houston, TX: Object Watch. Failed Investments 7
Requirements Defects & Waste Requirements defects are #1 reason projects fail Traditional projects specify too many requirements More than 65% of requirements are never used at all Defects Waste Never 45% Requirements 47% Other 7% Implementation 18% Always 7% Often 13% Design 28% Sometimes 16% Sheldon, F. T. et al. (1992). Reliability measurement: From theory to practice. IEEE Software, 9(4), 13-20 Johnson, J. (2002). ROI: It's your job. Extreme Programming 2002 Conference, Alghero, Sardinia, Italy. Rarely 19% 8
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, justenough, and just-in-time processes and documentation Highsmith, J. A. (2002). Agile software development ecosystems. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. 9
What are Agile Methods? People-centric way to create innovative solutions Product-centric alternative to documents/process Market-centric model to maximize business value Customer Collaboration Frequent comm. Multiple comm. channels Close proximity Frequent feedback Regular meetings Relationship strength Individuals Leadership Boundaries Empowerment & Interactions Competence Courage Structure Manageability/Motivation Working Systems & Software Clear objectives Timeboxed iterations Small/feasible scope Valid operational results Regular cadence/intervals Acceptance criteria Responding to Change System flexibility Org. flexibility Technology flexibility Mgt. flexibility Process flexibility Infrastructure flexibility valued more than Contracts Contract compliance Contract deliverables Contract change orders valued more than Processes Lifecycle compliance Process Maturity Level Regulatory compliance valued more than Documentation Document deliveries Document comments Document compliance valued more than Project Plans Cost Compliance Scope Compliance Schedule Compliance Agile Manifesto. (2001). Manifesto for agile software development. Retrieved September 3, 2008, from http://www.agilemanifesto.org Rico, 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 10
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 Project Management Agile Systems Development Agile Processes & Practices Agile Tools Agile Information Systems Agile Tech. 11
How Agile Works Agile requirements implemented in slices vs. layers User needs with higher business value are done first Reduces cost & risk while increasing business success Agile Traditional Faster 1 2 3 GUI Early ROI No Value APIs Lower Costs Applications Cost Overruns Fewer Defects Middleware Very Poor Quality Operating System Manageable Risk Slowest Performance Network Smaller Attack Surface JIT, Just-enough architecture Early, in-process system V&V Fast continuous improvement Scalable to systems of systems Maximizes successful outcomes Uncontrollable Risk Computer Better Performance Late More Security Incidents Seven Wastes MINIMIZES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Rework Motion Waiting Inventory Transportation Overprocessing Overproduction MAXIMIZES Shore, J. (2011). Evolutionary design illustrated. Norwegian Developers Conference, Oslo, Norway. Myth of perfect architecture Late big-bang integration tests Year long improvement cycles Breaks down on large projects Undermines business success 12
Agile Mechanics User needs designed & developed one-at-a-time Changes automatically detected, built, and tested System fully tested and deployed as changes occur Early, Automated, Fast, Efficient, & Repeatable Thousands of Tests Continuously Executed Lean, Waste Free, Low WIP, No Deadlocked Test Queues Build Status Builds Developer A Commits Changes Database Provides Analysis Watches Commits Changes Uses Testing Reporting Developer B Commits Changes Build Integration Server Version Control Server Build Scripts Documentation Deployment Developer C Constant Readiness State & CM Control No More Late Big Bang Integration Rapidly & Successfully Dev. Complex Systems Humble, J., & Farley, D. (2011). Continuous delivery. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Duvall, P., Matyas, S., & Glover, A. (2006). Continuous integration. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. 13
Agile Systems Development Organize needs into capabilities, features, and stories Prioritize features, group releases, and initiate sprints Develop minimum set of features with highest value (for example, assume 25 user stories per feature, 175 user stories per capability/MMF, and 1,225 user stories total) Capability/MMF #1 Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sprint 1 Release Capability/MMF #2 Capability/MMF #3 Capability/MMF #4 Capability/MMF #5 Capability/MMF #6 Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Release Sprint 2 A 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Sprint 3 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Sprint 4 Release Sprint 5 Evolving “Unified/Integrated” Enterprise Data Model A A B B A C B “Legacy” MS SQL Server Stovepipes B D Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Sprint 7 A B D A C E B F “Inter-Departmental” Linux Blade/Oracle/Java/WebSphere Server G C D E F H I J ETL ETL ETL ETL ETL ETL ETL 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 3 5 6 8 9 11 12 14 15 Release “Leased” DWA/HPC/Cloud Services C E 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Sprint 6 A C D 2 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Capability/MMF #7 17 18 20 K 21 “Disparate” LEGACY SYSTEM DATABASES (AND DATA MODELS) Bente, S., Bombosch, U., & Langade, S. (2012). Collaborative enterprise architecture: Enriching EA with lean, agile, and enterprise 2.0 practices. Waltham, MA: Elsevier. 14
Models of AGILE DEVELOPMENT Agile methods spunoff flexible manufacturing 1990s Extreme Programming (XP) swept the globe by 2002 Today, over 90% of IT projects use Scrum/XP hybrid CRYSTAL METHODS - 1991 - SCRUM - 1993 - DSDM - 1993 - FDD XP - 1997 - - 1998 - Use Cases Planning Poker Feasibility Domain Model Release Plans Domain Model Product Backlog Business Study Feature List User Stories Object Oriented Sprint Backlog Func. Iteration Object Oriented Pair Programmer Iterative Dev. 2-4 Week Spring Design Iteration Iterative Dev. Iterative Dev. Risk Planning Daily Standup Implementation Code Inspection Test First Dev. Info. Radiators Sprint Demo Testing Testing Onsite Customer Reflection W/S Retrospective Quality Control Quality Control Continuous Del. 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. 15
Basic SCRUM Framework Created by Jeff Sutherland at Easel in 1993 Product backlog comprised of prioritized features Iterative sprint-to-sprint, adaptive & emergent model Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2001). Agile software development with scrum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 16
Models of AGILE PROJECT MGT. Dozens of Agile project management models emerged Many stem from principles of Extreme Programming Vision, releases, & iterative development common RADICAL - 2002 - EXTREME - 2004 - ADAPTIVE - 2010 - AGILE - 2010- SIMPLIFIED - 2011 - Prioritization Visionate Scoping Envision Vision Feasibility Speculate Planning Speculate Roadmap Planning Innovate Feasibility Explore Release Plan Tracking Re-Evaluate Cyclical Dev. Iterate Sprint Plan Reporting Disseminate Checkpoint Launch Daily Scrum Review Terminate Review Close 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. 17
Simplified AGILE PROJECT MGT. Created by Mark Layton at PlatinumEdge in 2012 Mix of new product development, XP, and Scrum Simplified codification of XP and Scrum hybrid Layton, M. C., & Maurer, R. (2011). Agile project management for dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing. 18
Models of AGILE PORTFOLIO MGT. Numerous models of agile portfolio mgt. emerging Based on lean-kanban, release planning, and Scrum Include organization, program, & project management ESCRUM - 2007 - SAFe LESS DAD RAGE - 2013 - SPS - 2007 - - 2007 - - 2012 - - 2015 - Product Mgt Strategic Mgt Business Mgt Business Mgt Business Product Mgt Program Mgt Portfolio Mgt Portfolio Mgt Portfolio Mgt Governance Program Mgt Project Mgt Program Mgt Product Mgt Inception Portfolio Sprint Mgt Process Mgt Team Mgt Area Mgt Construction Program Team Mgt. Business Mgt Quality Mgt Sprint Mgt Iterations Project Integ Mgt. Market Mgt Delivery Mgt Release Mgt Transition Delivery Release Mgt 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-governance Schwaber, K. (2015). The definitive guide to nexus: The exoskeleton of scaled scrum development. Lexington, MA: Scrum.Org 19
Scaled Agile Framework (SAFE) Created by Dean Leffingwell of Rally in 2007 Knowledge to scale agile practices to enterprise Hybrid of Kanban, XP release planning, and Scrum Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. 20
Models of AGILE LEADERSHIP 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 LEAN - 2010 - - 2010 - LEADERSHIP 3.0 - 2011 - Organic Teams Autonomy Self Org. Teams Talented Teams Empowerment Guiding Vision Alignment Communication Alignment Alignment Transparency Transparency Transparency Systems View Motivation Light Touch Purpose Iterative Value Reliability Scaling Simple Rules Mastery Delight Clients Excellence Competency Improvement Improvement Improvement Improvement 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. 21
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 Radical Leadership Model Delighting Clients Self Org. Teams Client Driven Iterations Delivering Value Radical Transparency Continuous Improvement Interactively Communicate Identify clients Purpose Client focus Team focus Client interface Line-of-sight Storytelling Tacit desires Communicate Prioritize Preparation Daily contact Capture stories Simplicity Empowerment Client value Estimation Retrospectives Alignment Focus teams Offer less Tailor oversight Involvement Small batches Improvement Stimulation Exploration Recognition Simplicity Empowerment Radiators Make changes Succ. Stories People focus Remuneration Validate Communicate Impediments Get feedback Listen Meet clients Consistency Improve Sustainability Go-and-see Info. sharing Recognition Success Root causes Denning, S. (2010). The leader’s guide to radical management: Reinventing the workplace for the 21st century. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. 22
Burndown Work (Story, Point, Task) or Effort (Week, Day, Hour) Work (Story, Point, Task) or Effort (Week, Day, Hour) Agile Performance Measurement Earned Value Management - EVM CPI SPI PPC APC Time Unit (Roadmap, Release, Iteration, Month, Week, Day, Hour, etc.) Time Unit (Roadmap, Release, Iteration, Month, Week, Day, Hour, etc.) Work (Story, Point, Task) or Effort (Week, Day, Hour) Work (Story, Point, Task) or Effort (Week, Day, Hour) Time Unit (Roadmap, Release, Iteration, Month, Week, Day, Hour, etc.) Cumulative Flow Earned Business Value - EBV Time Unit (Roadmap, Release, Iteration, Month, Week, Day, Hour, etc.) 23
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 Rico, D. F. (2012). The Cost of Quality (CoQ) for Agile vs. Traditional Project Management. Fairfax, VA: Gantthead.Com. 24
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 5 i 1 d1 [ln(Benefits Costs) (Rate 0.5 Risk2) Years] Risk Years, d2 d1 Risk Years Rico, 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. 25
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%) 2.8 Before Agile 3.00 After Agile 2.25 Project Cost in Millions 18 After Agile 10 0.75 20 Before Agile 11 15 1.1 1.50 18 20 61% Lower Cost Before Agile 13.5 After Agile Total Staffing 2270 1875 10 1250 24% Faster Delivery Time in Months Before Agile 2500 15 5 39% Less Staff 5 After Agile 381 625 Cumulative Defects 93% Less Defects Mah, M. (2008). Measuring agile in the enterprise: Proceedings of the Agile 2008 Conference, Toronto, Canada. 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 Agile Traditional Success 14% Success 42% Failed 9% Challenged 49% Failed 29% Challenged 57% Standish Group. (2012). Chaos manifesto. Boston, MA: Author. 27
Benefits of Organizational Agility 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% 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
Agile Adoption 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 Continuous Integration Holler, R. (2015). Ninth annual state of agile survey: State of agile development. Atlanta, GA: VersionOne. 29
Agile Proliferation 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) Scrum Alliance. (2013). Scrum certification statistics. Retrieved April 28, 2015, from http://www.scrumalliance.org Taft, D. K. (2012). Agile developers needed: Demand outpaces supply. Foster City, CA: eWeek. 30
Agile in Government 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 13,000% High COMPETITIVENESS GOVERNMENT COMPETITIVENESS PERCENTAGE GOVERNMENT AGILE JOB GROWTH 0 Low 2006 YEARS 2013 Low AGILITY Suhy, S. (2014). Has the U.S. government moved to agile without telling anyone? Retrieved April 24, 2015, from http://agileingov.com Porter, M. E., & Schwab, K. (2008). The global competitiveness report: 2008 to 2009. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum. High 31
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. Industry Electronic Commerce Shrink Wrapped Health Care Law Enforcement U.S. DoD Org Google Project Adwords Purpose Advertising Size 20 teams 140 people 5 countries 15 teams Project 90 people Primavera Primavera Management Collocated FDA FBI Stratcom Metrics 1,838 User Stories 6,250 Function Points 500,000 Lines of Code 26,809 User Stories 91,146 Function Points 7,291,666 Lines of Code m2000 Blood Analysis 4 teams 20 people Collocated 1,659 User Stories 5,640 Function Points 451,235 Lines of Code Sentinel Case File Workflow 10 teams 50 people Collocated 3,947 User Stories 13,419 Function Points 1,073,529 Lines of Code SKIweb Knowledge 3 teams 12 people Management Collocated 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. 32
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 What How Result Flexibility 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 Rico, D. F. (2012). What’s really happening in agile methods: Its principles revisited? Retrieved June 6, 2012, from http://davidfrico.com/agile-principles.pdf Rico, D. F. (2012). The promises and pitfalls of agile methods. Retrieved February 6, 2013 from, http://davidfrico.com/agile-pros-cons.pdf Rico, D. F. (2012). How do lean & agile intersect? Retrieved February 6, 2013, from http://davidfrico.com/agile-concept-model-3.pdf 33
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 Strategy & Roadmapping Organization Change Acquisition & Contracting Cost Estimating Systems Engineering BPR, IDEF0, & DoDAF Innovation Management Valuation — Cost-Benefit Analysis, B/CR, ROI, NPV, BEP, Real Options, etc. CMMI & ISO 9001 Technical Project Mgt. PSP, TSP, & Code Reviews Software Development Methods Evolutionary Design Software Quality Mgt. Research Methods Lean-Agile — Scrum, SAFe, Continuous Integration & Delivery, DevOps, etc. DoD 5000, TRA, & SRA Statistics, CFA, EFA, & SEM Lean, Kanban, & Six Sigma Metrics, Models, & SPC Workflow Automation Big Data, Cloud, NoSQL Modeling & Simulations STRENGTHS – Data Mining Gathering & Reporting Performance Data Strategic Planning Executive & Management Briefs Brownbags & Webinars White Papers Tiger-Teams Short-Fuse Tasking Audits & Reviews Etc. 33 YEARS IN IT INDUSTRY 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 35
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 SEE DETAILED - SECURITY LIFE CYCLE STEPS http://davidfrico.com/agile-security-lifecycle.txt 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. 37
Agile for EMBEDDED SYSTEMS Iterations, Integrations, & Validations 1st-generation systems used hardwired logic 2nd-generation systems used PROMS & FPGAs 3rd-generation systems use APP. SW & COTS HW AGILE “Software Model” - MOST FLEXIBLE - Lead Short Least Cost START Competing With SW Lowest Risk 90% Software COTS Hardware Early, Iterative Dev. Continuous V&V NEO-TRADITIONAL “FPGA Model” - MALLEABLE - Moderate Lead Moderate Cost Moderate Risk 50% Hardware COTS Components Midpoint Testing “Some” Early V&V TRADITIONAL “Hardwired Model” - LEAST FLEXIBLE - Long Lead Highest Cost Highest Risk 90% Hardware Custom Hardware Linear, Staged Dev. Late Big-Bang I&T GOAL – SHIFT FROM LATE HARDWARE TO EARLIER SOFTWARE SOLUTION Pries, 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. RISK Embedded Systems More HW Than SW STOP Competing With HW 38
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 Rank Database Year Creator Firm 2007 Steve Francia 10gen 5 MongoDB Goal Model Lang I/F Focus GenerLarge-scale Document C BSON ality Web Apps Example CRM User Rate KPro Expedia 45% 48 Rapid-prototyping, Queries, Indexes, Replication, Availability, Load-balancing, Auto-Sharding, etc. 8 Cassandra 2008 Avinash ReliaFacebook Lakshman bility Wide Column Java CQL Fault-tolerant Mission iTunes Data Stores Critical Data 20% 15 Distributed, Scalable, Performance, Durable, Caching, Operations, Transactions, Consistency 10 Redis 2009 Salvatore Sanfilippo Pivotal Speed Key Value C Binary R
Agile World View "Agility" has manydimensions 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.
1. Agile methods are undisciplined and not measurable. 2. Agile methods have no project management. 3. Agile methods apply only to software development. 4. Agile methods have no documentation. 5. Agile methods have no requirements. 6. Agile methods only work with small colocated teams.-7. Agile methods do not include planning. 8.
1. The need for an agile way of working 6 2. The need for an agile way of working 9 3. Agile Core Values - Agile Project Management Vs. 10 Agile Event Management 4. Agile principles 12 _Agile Principles of Agile Project Management 13 _Agile Principles of VOK DAMS Agile Event Management 14 5. Agile Methods 16 _Scrum in Short 16 _Kanban in Short 18
The most popular agile methodologies include: extreme programming (XP), Scrum, Crystal, Dynamic Sys-tems Development (DSDM), Lean Development, and Feature Driven Development (FDD). All Agile methods share a common vision and core values of the Agile Manifesto. Agile Methods: Some well-known agile software development methods include: Agile .
1.1 Purpose of the Agile Extension to the BABOK Guide1 1.2 What is Agile Business Analysis?2 1.3 Structure6 Chapter 2:The Agile Mindset 2.1 What is an Agile Mindset?7 2.2 The Agile Mindset, Methodologies, and Frameworks8 2.3 Applying the Agile Mindset9 2.4 Agile Extension and the Agile Ma
Agile Estimating and Planning by Mike Cohn Agile Game Development with Scrum by Clinton Keith Agile Product Ownership by Roman Pichler Agile Project Management with Scrum by Ken Schwaber Agile Retrospectives by Esther Derby and Diana Larsen Agile Testing: A Practical Guide for Testers and Agile Teams by Lisa Crispin and .
2. Quality Assurance AND Methods of Agile 3. Metrics of quality AND Agile quality assurance 4. Agile AND Quality 5. Agile Quality AND Software Development 6. Agile quality AND Agile methods The search keywords for agile particulars have been merged by using the Boolean ''OR" operator, which
The Agile Scaling Model (ASM) defines a roadmap for effective adoption and tailoring of agile strategies to meet the unique challenges faced by a system . delivery team. The first step to scaling agile strategies is to adopt a disciplined agile delivery lifecycle which scales mainstream agile construction techniques
Interpretations ASME A17.1 Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators Appendix B Background - ASME A17.1, an American National Standard First edition published January 1921 Sponsored by American Engineering Standards Committee AESC January 1922 Several iterations later, ANSI became incorporated in October 1969 17th edition of the Code issued April 30, 2004 and effective October .
