Lean & Agile Enterprise Frameworks For Managing Large U.S. Gov’t Cloud Computing Projects 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: http://www.davidfrico.com/daves-agile-resources.htm Agile Cheat Sheet: http://davidfrico.com/key-agile-theories-ideas-and-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
Lean & Agile FRAMEWORK?
Frame-work (frām'wûrk') A support structure, skeletal enclosure, or scaffolding platform; Hypothetical model A multi-tiered framework for using lean & agile methods at the enterprise, portfolio, program, & project levels An approach embracing values and principles of lean thinking, product development flow, & agile methods Adaptable framework for collaboration, prioritizing work, iterative development, & responding to change Tools for agile scaling, rigorous and disciplined planning & architecture, and a sharp focus on product quality Maximizes BUSINESS VALUE of organizations, programs, & projects with lean-agile values, principles, & practices Leffingwell, D. (2011). Agile software requirements: Lean requirements practices for teams, programs, and the enterprise. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
3
How do Lean & Agile INTERSECT?
Agile is naturally lean and based on small batches Agile directly supports six principles of lean thinking Agile may be converted to a continuous flow system
Agile Values
Lean Pillars Lean Principles
Relationships
Empowered Teams
Customer Collaboration
Respect for People
Customer relationships, satisfaction, trust, and loyalty Team authority, empowerment, and resources Team identification, cohesion, and communication
Product vision, mission, needs, and capabilities Customer Value Product scope, constraints, and business value Product objectives, specifications, and performance
Value Stream
As is policies, processes, procedures, and instructions To be business processes, flowcharts, and swim lanes Initial workflow analysis, metrication, and optimization
Batch size, work in process, and artifact size constraints Continuous Flow Cadence, queue size, buffers, slack, and bottlenecks Workflow, test, integration, and deployment automation
Iterative Delivery
Responding to Change
Lean & Agile Practices
Continuous Improvement
Customer Pull Perfection
Roadmaps, releases, iterations, and product priorities Epics, themes, feature sets, features, and user stories Product demonstrations, feedback, and new backlogs Refactor, test driven design, and continuous integration Standups, retrospectives, and process improvements Organization, project, and process adaptability/flexibility
Flow Principles
Decentralization Economic View WIP Constraints & Kanban Control Cadence & Small Batches Fast Feedback Manage Queues/ Exploit Variability
Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean thinking: Banish waste and create wealth in your corporation. New York, NY: Free Press. Reinertsen, D. G. (2009). The principles of product development flow: Second generation lean product development. New York, NY: Celeritas. Reagan, R. B., & Rico, D. F. (2010). Lean and agile acquisition and systems engineering: A paradigm whose time has come. DoD AT&L Magazine, 39(6).
4
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.
5
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.
6
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 APM - 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.
7
Simplified AGILE PROJECT MGT F/W
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.
8
Models of AGILE ENTERPRISE 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
9
Enterprise Scrum (ESCRUM)
Created by Ken Schwaber of Scrum Alliance in 2007 Application of Scrum at any place in the enterprise Basic Scrum with extensive backlog grooming
Schwaber, K. (2007). The enterprise and scrum. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.
10
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.
11
Large Scale Scrum (LESS)
Created by Craig Larman of Valtech in 2008 Scrum for larger projects of 500 to 1,500 people Model to nest product owners, backlogs, and teams Daily Scrum Feature Team + Scrum Master Sprint Planning II
Product Owner
Area Product Owner
Sprint Backlog
2 - 4 hours
Product Backlog
1 Day
2 - 4 Week Sprint
2 - 4 hours
Sprint Planning I
15 minutes
Sprint Retrospective Product Backlog Refinement 5 - 10% of Sprint
Potentially Shippable Product Increment
Sprint Review
Joint Sprint Review
Area Product Backlog
Larman, C., & Vodde, B. (2008). Scaling lean and agile development: Thinking and organizational tools for large-scale scrum. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
12
Disciplined Agile Delivery (DAD)
Created by Scott Ambler of IBM in 2012 People, learning-centric hybrid agile IT delivery Scrum mapping to a model-driven RUP framework
Ambler, S. W., & Lines, M. (2012). Disciplined agile delivery: A practitioner's guide to agile software delivery in the enterprise. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
13
Recipes for Agile Governance (RAGE)
Created by Kevin Thompson of cPrime in 2013 Agile governance model for large Scrum projects Traditional-agile hybrid of portfolio-project planning
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
14
Scaled Professional Scrum (SPS)
Created by Ken Schwaber of Scrum.Org in 2015 Used to develop & sustain scaled Scrum initiatives Formalization of 10 year old Scrum of Scrum concept
Schwaber, K. (2015). The definitive guide to nexus: The exoskeleton of scaled scrum development. Lexington, MA: Scrum.Org
15
Agile Enterprise F/W COMPARISON
Numerous lean-agile enterprise frameworks emerging eScrum & LeSS were 1st (but SAFe & DaD dominate) SAFe is the most widely-used (with ample resources) Factor Simple
Well-Defined
Web Portal Books Measurable Results Training & Cert
Consultants Tools Popularity
eScrum
International Fortune 500 Government Lean-Kanban
SAFe
LeSS
DaD
RAGE
SPS
Rico, D. F. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe) comparison. Retrieved June 4, 2014 from http://davidfrico.com/safe-comparison.xls
16
SAFe REVISITED Proven, public well-defined F/W for scaling Lean-Agile Synchronizes alignment, collaboration, and deliveries Quality, execution, alignment, & transparency focus Portfolio
Value Stream
Program
Team Leffingwell, D. (2015). Scaled agile framework (SAFe). Retrieved January 25, 2016 from http://www.scaledagileframework.com
17
SAFe—Scaling at PORTFOLIO Level
Business objectives mapped to strategic themes Enterprise architecture, Kanban, & economic cases Value delivery via epics, enablers, and value streams
AGILE PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT ● Organize around value streams ● Communicate strategic themes ● Empower decision makers ● Provide visibility and governance ● Guide technology decisions ● Apply enterprise architecture
Strategic Themes
Lean-Agile Budgeting
Visibility & Governance
Enterprise Architecture
Leffingwell, D. (2015). Scaled agile framework (SAFe). Retrieved January 25, 2016 from http://www.scaledagileframework.com
18
SAFe—Scaling at VALUE STREAM Level
Economic framework and value stream budgeting Agile architecture, value stream engineer & Kanban Solution deliveries via capabilities and release trains
AGILE VALUE STREAM MANAGEMENT ● Cadence and centralization ● Local value stream governance ● Value stream roles and budgeting ● Fixed and variable solution intent ● Capability flow with Kanban ● Frequently integrate to validate
Solution Intent
Cadence & Synchronization
Localized Governance
Customer Validation
Leffingwell, D. (2015). Scaled agile framework (SAFe). Retrieved January 25, 2016 from http://www.scaledagileframework.com
19
SAFe—Scaling at PROGRAM Level
Product and release management team-of-team Common mission, backlog, estimates, and sprints Value delivery via program-level enablers & features
AGILE RELEASE TRAINS ● Driven by vision and roadmap ● Cross functional collaboration ● Apply cadence and synchronization ● Measure progress with milestones ● Frequent, early customer feedback ● Inspect, adapt, and improve
Alignment
Collaboration
Synchronization
Value Delivery
Leffingwell, D. (2015). Scaled agile framework (SAFe). Retrieved January 25, 2016 from http://www.scaledagileframework.com
20
SAFe—Scaling at TEAM Level
Empowered, self-organizing cross-functional teams Hybrid of Scrum PM & XP technical best practices Value delivery via empowerment, quality, and CI
AGILE CODE QUALITY ● Pair development ● Emergent design ● Test-first ● Refactoring ● Continuous integration ● Collective ownership
Product Quality
Customer Satisfaction
Predictability
Speed
Leffingwell, D. (2015). Scaled agile framework (SAFe). Retrieved January 25, 2016 from http://www.scaledagileframework.com
21
SAFe—Scaling in AGILE METHODS
SAFe created to address Scaling & Discipline Early models such as Scrum & XP were scalable SAFe introduces Enterprise & Portfolio integration Portfolio
Value Stream
Program
Team Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
22
SAFe CASE STUDIES
Most U.S. Fortune 500 companies adopting SAFe Goal to integrate enterprise, portfolios, and systems Capital One going through end-to-end SAFe adoption John Deere
Spotify
Comcast
• Agricultural automation
• Television cable/DVR boxes
• GUI-based point of sale sys
• 800 developers on 80 teams
• Embedded & server-side
• Switched from CMMI to SAFe
• Rolled out SAFe in one year
• 150 developers on 15 teams
• 120 developers on 12 teams
• Transitioned to open spaces
• Cycle time - 12 to 4 months
• QA to new feature focus
• Field issue resolution up 42%
• Support 11 million+ DVRs
• Used Rally adoption model
• Quality improvement up 50%
• Design features vs. layers
• 10% productivity improvement
• Warranty expense down 50%
• Releases delivered on-time
• 10% cost of quality reduction
• Time to production down 20%
• 100% capabilities delivered
• 200% improved defect density
• Time to market down 20%
• 95% requirements delivered
• Production defects down 50%
• Job engagement up 10%
• Fully automated sprint tests
• Value vs. compliance focus
Leffingwell, D. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe) case studies. Denver, CO: Leffingwell, LLC. Rico, D. F. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe) benefits. Retrieved June 2, 2014, from http://davidfrico.com/safe-benefits.txt
23
SAFe BENEFITS
Cycle time and quality are most notable improvement Productivity on par with Scrum at 10X above normal Data shows SAFe scales to teams of 1,000+ people Discount
Station
Tire
Trading
Retail
Nokia
SEI
Telstra
BMC
App
Maps
Trading
DW
IT
Weeks
95.3
2
People
520
400
75
300
100
Teams
66
30
9
10
10
25%
29%
Satis Costs
Mitchell
Market
Insurance
Agricult.
52
52
90
300
800
9
60
80
Deere
Spotify
Comcast
Cable
PoS 51
150
120
286
15
12
30 23%
15%
2000% 95%
Cycle
600%
ROI
2500% 43%
25%
600%
Average
52
50%
Quality
Morale
John
Valpak
52
Product
Trade
Benefit
44%
50%
300%
50%
10%
30%
10%
678%
50%
60%
300%
370% 1350%
200% 63%
10%
Leffingwell, D. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe) case studies. Denver, CO: Leffingwell, LLC. Rico, D. F. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe) benefits. Retrieved June 2, 2014, from http://davidfrico.com/safe-benefits.txt
39%
24
SAFe SUMMARY
Lean-agile frameworks & tools emerging in droves Focus on scaling agility to enterprises & portfolios SAFe emerging as the clear international leader
is extremely well-defined in books and Internet SAFe has ample training, certification, consulting, etc. SAFe leads to increased productivity and quality SAFe is scalable to teams of up to 1,000+ developers SAFe is preferred agile approach of Global 500 firms SAFe is agile choice for public sector IT acquisitions SAFe cases and performance data rapidly emerging SAFe
Rico, 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
25
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
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.
A S B S A C
REDUCE SIZE - Reduce sizes of agile portfolios, acquisitions, products, programs, projects, and teams. CT MALL E MALL
- Get large agile teams to act, behave, collaborate, communicate, and perform like small ones.
- Get small projects to act, behave, and collaborate like small ones instead of trying to act larger.
CT OLLOCATED
- 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.
U
SE ENTERPRISE AUTOMATION
- Automate everything with Continuous Integration, Continuous Delivery, & DevOps.
Rico, 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
26
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
STRENGTHS – Data Mining Gathering & Reporting Performance Data Strategic Planning Executive & Management Briefs Brownbags & Webinars White Papers Tiger-Teams Short-Fuse Tasking Audits & Reviews Etc.
32 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
27
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)
28
Backup Slides
Agile Enterprise F/W ADOPTION
Lean-agile enterprise framework adopt stats emerging Numerous lean-agile frameworks now coming to light SAFe is most widely-adopted “formalized” framework
Holler, R. (2015). Ninth annual state of agile survey: State of agile development. Atlanta, GA: VersionOne.
30
SAFe METRICS
Leffingwell, D. (2015). Scaled agile framework (SAFe). Retrieved June 12, 2015 from http://www.scaledagileframework.com
31
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.
32
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 33
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
Real-time Messaging
Instant Messaging
Twitter
20%
3 - $10M • Gen App • Reliable • Low Cplx 2 - $100M • Schema • Dist P2P • Med Cplx
14
Real-time, Memory-cached, Performance, Persistence, Replication, Data structures, Age-off, etc.
14
HBase
2007
Mike Carafella
Powerset Scale
Wide Column
Java REST
Petabyte-size Image Data Stores Repository
Ebay
10%
8
Scalable, Performance, Data-replication, Flexible, Consistency, Auto-sharding, Metrics, etc.
16
Elastic Search
2004
Shay Banon
Compass Search Document Java REST
Full-text Search
Information Portals
Wikimedia
5%
1 - $1B • Limited • Sin PoF • High Cplx
7
Real-time, Distributed, Multi-tenant, Document-based, Schema-free, Persistence, Availability, etc.
Kovacs, K. (2015). Comparison of nosql databases. Retrieved on January 9, 2015, from http://kkovacs.eu Sahai, S. (2013). Nosql database comparison chart. Retrieved on January 9, 2015, from http://www.infoivy.com DB-Engines (2014). System properties comparison of nosql databases. Retrieved on January 9, 2015, from http://db-engines.com
34
Agile Scaling w/AMAZON WEB SVCS
AICPA
CSA
DoD CSM
DIACAP
Analytics
MPAA
Compute & Networking Storage & Content Del.
Deployment & Management
HITECH
NIST
FIPS
Database
Cross Service Application Services
FedRAMP
GLBA
PCI
COBIT
FISMA
SSAE
SOC
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.
SAS
ITAR
ISAE
ISO/IEC
NoSQL Sols • MongoDB • Cassandra • HBase
HIPAA
Barr, J. (2014). AWS achieves DoD provisional authorization. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from http://aws.amazon.com Dignan, L. (2014). Amazon web services lands DoD security authorization. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from http://www.zdnet.com Amazon.com (2015). AWS govcloud earns DoD CSM Levsl 3-5 provisional authorization. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from http://aws.amazon.com
35
Agile Scaling w/CONTINUOUS DELIVERY
Created by Jez Humble of ThoughtWorks in 2011 Includes CM, build, testing, integration, release, etc. Goal is one-touch automation of deployment pipeline
CoQ
• • • • •
Humble, 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.
80% MS Tst 8/10 No Val $24B in 90s Rep by CD Not Add MLK
36
Agile Scaling w/CONT. DELIV.—Stats
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 TYPE CYCLE TIME
IMPROVEMENTS
DEVELOPMENT COST EFFORT DISTRIBUTION
METRIC MANUAL DEVOPS MAJOR GAINS Build Time 40 Hours 3 Hours 13 x No. Builds 1-2 per Day 10-15 per Day 8x Feedback 1 per Day 100 per Day 100 x Regression Testing 240 Hours 24 Hours 10 x Integration 10% 2% 5x Planning 20% 5% 4x Porting 25% 15% 2x Support 25% 5% 5x Testing 15% 5% 3x Innovation 5% 40% 8x
Gruver, G., Young, M. & Fulghum, P. (2013). A practical approach to large-scale agile development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
37
Agile Scaling w/DEVOPS
Created by Patrick Debois of Jedi BVBA in 2007 Collaboration of developers & infrastructure people Goal to automate the deployment to end-user devices
Bass, 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.
38
Agile Scaling w/DEVOPS—Stats
Assembla went from 2 to 45 releases every month 15K Google developers run 120 million tests per day 30K+ Amazon developers deliver 8,600 releases a day 3,645x Faster U.S. DoD IT Project
62x Faster U.S. DoD IT Project
Singleton, A. (2014). Unblock: A guide to the new continuous agile. Needham, MA: Assembla, Inc.
39
Agile Testing—DevOps CoQ
Agile testing is orders-of-magnitude more efficient Based on millions of automated tests run in seconds One-touch auto-delivery to billions of global end-users Activity Development Operations
Def
CoQ
100 0.001
DevOps Economics
Hours
ROI
100 Defects x 70% Efficiency x 0.001 Hours
0.070 72,900% 0.210 24,300%
Continuous Delivery
30
0.01
30 Defects x 70% Efficiency x 0.01 Hours
Continuous Integration
9
0.1
9 Defects x 70% Efficiency x 0.1 Hours
0.630
8,100%
Software Inspections
3 0.81
1 10
2.7 Defects x 70% Efficiency x 1 Hours 0.81 Defects x 70% Efficiency x 10 Hours
1.890 5.670
2,700%
0.243 Defects x 70% Efficiency x 100 Hours
17.010
300%
"Traditional" Testing Manual Debugging Operations & Maintenance
0.243 100
0.073 1,000 0.0729 Defects x 70% Efficiency x 1,000 Hours 51.030
900% n/a
Rico, D. F. (2016). Devops cost of quality (CoQ): Phase-based defect removal model. Retrieved May 10, 2016, from http://davidfrico.com
40
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.
41
Models of AGILE ORG. CHANGE
Change, no matter how small or large, is difficult Smaller focused changes help to cross the chasm Simplifying, motivating, and validation key factors SWITCH
MAKE IT DESIRABLE
DIRECT THE RIDER Follow the bright spots Script the critical moves
Create new experiences Create new motives
SURPASS YOUR LIMITS
Point to the destination
Perfect complex skills Build emotional skills
Recruit public figures Recruit influential leaders
Find the feeling Shrink the change
STRENGTH IN NUMBERS
Grow your people
Utilize teamwork Power of social capital
SHAPE PATH
DESIGN REWARDS
Tweak the environment
Use incentives wisely Use punishment sparingly
Rally the herd
USE PEER PRESSURE
MOTIVATE ELEPHANT
Build habits
DRIVE
INFLUENCER
CHANGE ENVIRONMENT Make it easy Make it unavoidable
PURPOSE Purpose-profit equality Business& societal benefit Share control of profits Delegate implementation Culture & goal alignment Remake society-globe AUTONOMY Accountable to someone Self-select work tasks Self-directed work tasks Self-selected timelines Self-selected teams Self-selected implement.
TO SELL
IS
HUMAN
DECISIVE
ATTUNEMENT Reduce Your Power Take Their Perspective Use Strategic Mimicry
COMMON ERRORS Narrow framing Confirmation bias Short term emotion Over confidence WIDEN OPTIONS
BUOYANCY
Avoid a narrow frame Multi-track Find out who solved it
Use Interrogative Self-Talk Opt. Positivity Ratios Offer Explanatory Style
MASTERY
CLARITY
Experiment & innovate Align tasks to abilities Continuously improve Learning over profits Create challenging tasks Set high expectations
Find the Right Problem Find Your Frames Find an Easy Path
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
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.
42
Models of AGILE CONTRACTING
Communication, cooperation, and interaction key Shared responsibility vs. blame and adversarialism Needs greater focus on collaboration vs. legal terms 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 Customer Satisfaction and Quality OVER Policies & Governance 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
43
Agile for PUBLIC SECTOR
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
44
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
S M E F C C
FEWER - Fewer high-priority acquisition priorities and needs (vs. kitchen-sink way of buying everything). MALLER
- Smaller low-cost single-mission throwaway acquisitions (vs. century-long, trillion-dollar systems).
ICRO TIMELINES -
MERGENT DESIGN
LATTER
Hyper fast acquisition lifecycles measured in months and years (vs. decades and centuries).
- Micro-thin capability-based designs (vs. wasteful heavyweight century-long architectures).
- Flatter gov’t agencies, acquisition, organizations & program offices (vs. top-heavy oversight teams).
OLLABORATIVE
- Smaller flatter cross-functional buyer-supplier teams (vs. adversarial legalistic contracting).
ROWDSOURCED
- 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). Rico, D. F. (2014). Dave's Notes: Principles for Transforming U.S. DoD Acquisition & Systems Engineering Practices. Retrieved March, 2015 from http://davidfrico.com
45