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