Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile...

35
Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 1 Barry Boehm, USC JAOO 2009 October 5, 2009

Transcript of Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile...

Page 1: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

Scaling Up Agility:The Architected Agile Approach

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 1

Barry Boehm, USCJAOO 2009

October 5, 2009

Page 2: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

Outline

• Increasing importance of both agility and quality– Scalability, accuracy, availability, safety, …

• Challenges of achieving both agility and quality

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 2

• Approaches for achieving both agility and quality

• Case studies and critical success factors

• Conclusions

Page 3: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

Need for Agility: Increasing Pace of Change

•Technology change

•Related infrastructure and services

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 3

•Marketplace dynamics

•Competition dynamics

•Organizational change

•Software is critical

•User agility aids are even more critical

Page 4: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

The Agile Manifesto

• Individuals and interactions over processes and tools

We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it.

Through this work we have come to value:

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 4

tools• Working software over comprehensive

documentation• Customer collaboration over contract negotiation• Responding to change over following a plan

That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more.

Page 5: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

The Need for Software Quality

• “The world runs on software” – Stroustrup• “With C, you can easily shoot yourself in the foot.

With C++, you can easily blow off your leg” –Stroustrup

• Critical global infrastructure: finance, energy,

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 5

• Critical global infrastructure: finance, energy, transportation, communications, trade

• Dependability: everything you depend on– Accuracy, adaptability, affordability, availability , …– Complex attribute conflicts and tradeoffs

Page 6: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

Traditional Quality Approach

• Complete, consistent, testable requirements • Traceable to design, code, test cases• Heavyweight documentation

• COCOMO documentation rates, Very High

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 6

• COCOMO documentation rates, Very High Reliability projects– Average 120 pp/KSLOC; median 83; range 32-241

• Rewriting needed for 1000 KSLOC project– 160 people; 120,000 pages of documentation– 1% change/month: 1200 pages (7.5 pages/person)– 10% change/month: 12,000 pages (75 pages/person)

Page 7: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

Sarbanes-Oxley• A new US Law

– Congress’ response to Enron, WorldCom, et al– Internal Controls: evaluate and disclose effectiveness– Disclose fraud– Affects public companies and “significant” vendors

• Development process must include internal controls for

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 7

for– Fraud– Asset Management and Safeguarding– Financial Reporting

• Why is this important to executive management?– Executives can go to jail.– IT management can be held grossly negligent and sued by a

company or shareholders.

• In effect since 2004

Page 8: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

What an Auditor Looks for…

Processes and tools over individuals and interactionsComprehensive documentation over working software

Contract negotiation over customer collaborationFollowing a plan over responding to change

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 8

Following a plan over responding to change

An Auditor Manifesto?

Page 9: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

Average Change Processing Time: 2 Systems of Systems

• Average number of days to

100

120

140

160

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 9

days to process changes

0

20

40

60

80

WithinGroups

AcrossGroups

ContractMods

Page 10: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

Agile Methods and Quality

• Responding to change over following a plan– Major source of software-induced rocket failures

• Small releases: It’ll be fixed by next month– OK for discomfort; not for safety

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 10

– OK for discomfort; not for safety

• Test-driven development helps, but often leads to patching– Example: Ada compiler validation suite

Page 11: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

Agile and Plan-Driven Home Grounds: Five Critical Decision Factors

• Size, Criticality, Dynamism, Personnel, Culture

Personnel

25

20

15

(% Level 1B) (% Level 2&3)

20

30

40

Personnel

25

20

15

(% Level 1B) (% Level 2&3)

20

30

40

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 11

Dynamism (% Requirements -change/month)

Culture (% thriving on chaos vs. order)

Size (# of personnel)

Criticality (Loss due to impact of defects)

3010

3.01.0

0.3

90

70

50

30

10

3

10

30

100

300

35

30

25

Essential Funds Discretionary

Funds Comfort

Single Life

Many Lives

0

10

20

Dynamism (% Requirements -change/month)

Culture (% thriving on chaos vs. order)

Size (# of personnel)

Criticality (Loss due to impact of defects)

90

70

50

30

10

3

10

30

100

300

35

30

25

Essential Funds Discretionary

Funds Comfort

Single Life

Many Lives

0

10

20

Page 12: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

Outline

• Increasing importance of both agility and quality

• Challenges of achieving both agility and quality

• Approaches for achieving both agility and quality

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 12

• Approaches for achieving both agility and quality

• Case studies and critical success factors

• Conclusions

Page 13: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

Using Risk to Balance Discipline and Agility - Overview

Step 3.

Step 1. Risk Analysis

Step 2. Risk Comparison

Rate the project’s environmental, agility-

oriented and plan-driven risks.

Uncertain about

Compare the agile and Plan-

driven risks

Go Risk-based Agile

Agility risks dominate

Plan-driven risks dominate

No

Go Risk-based Plan-driven

Neither dominate

Step 3.

Step 1. Risk Analysis

Step 2. Risk Comparison

Rate the project’s environmental, agility-

oriented and plan-driven risks.

Uncertain about

Compare the agile and Plan-

driven risks

Go Risk-based Agile

Agility risks dominate

Plan-driven risks dominate

No

Go Risk-based Plan-driven

Neither dominate

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 13

Step 5. Execute and Monitor

Step 4. Tailor Life Cycle

Step 3. Architecture Analysis

about ratings?

Buy information via prototyping, data

collection and analysis

Architect application to encapsulate agile parts

Go Risk-based Agile in agile

parts; Go Risk-based Plan-

driven elsewhere

Yes

Tailor life cycle process around risk patterns

and anchor point commitment milestones

Monitor progress and risks/opportunities,

readjust balance and process as appropriate

Deliver incremental capabilities according to

strategyNote: Feedback loops present, but omitted for

simplicity

Step 5. Execute and Monitor

Step 4. Tailor Life Cycle

Step 3. Architecture Analysis

about ratings?

Buy information via prototyping, data

collection and analysis

Architect application to encapsulate agile parts

Go Risk-based Agile in agile

parts; Go Risk-based Plan-

driven elsewhere

Yes

Tailor life cycle process around risk patterns

and anchor point commitment milestones

Monitor progress and risks/opportunities,

readjust balance and process as appropriate

Deliver incremental capabilities according to

strategyNote: Feedback loops present, but omitted for

simplicity

Page 14: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

Hybrid Agile/Plan-Driven Strategy– CRACK: collaborative, representative, authorized, co mmitted, knowledgeable

LCALCOStartup Teambuilding DevelopmentSystems Architecting

Sta

keh

old

ers

Pro

ject

Lea

der

ship

, Ris

k

Furnish CRACK representatives and alternates

•Develop shared vision

•Negotiate top-level

•Prepare for/select developers

•Formulate/negotiate definitive requirements, architecture, plans,

•Ensure representative exercise of incremental capabilities

•Monitor, adapt to new developments

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 14

Pro

ject

Lea

der

ship

, Ris

k M

anag

emen

t Tea

ms

Ag

ile, P

lan

D

rive

n

Dev

elo

per

s

•Staff and organize to cover major risk areas

•Negotiate top-level system objectives, architecture, plans, feasibility rationales.

architecture, plans, feasibility rationales.

•Monitor and manage project progress, risk resolution, and new technology developments

•Continuously integrate/test growing software infrastructure and components

•Develop compatible architectures, plans, feasibility rationales •Develop system

components

Encapsulate agile

portions

Page 15: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

Incremental Commitment Model:Single Increment View

Rapid Change

Short, Stabilized Increment N Transition/O&M

Short Development Increments

Foreseeable Change (Plan)

Rapid Change

Short, Stabilized Increment N Transition/O&M

Short Development Increments

Foreseeable Change (Plan)

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 15

Increment N Baseline

High Assurance

Short, Stabilized Development of Increment N

Increment N Transition/O&M

Stable Development Increments

Change (Plan) Increment N Baseline

High Assurance

Short, Stabilized Development of Increment N

Increment N Transition/O&M

Stable Development Increments

Change (Plan)

Page 16: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

Incremental Commitment Model:Single Increment View

Future Increment Baselines Rapid

Change Agile

Rebaselining for Future Increments

Short Development Increments

Deferrals

Future Increment Baselines Rapid Change

Agile Rebaselining for Short

Development Increments

Deferrals

Unforseeable Change

(Adapt)

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 16

Increment N Baseline

High Assurance

Short, Stabilized Development of Increment N

V&V of Increment N

Increment N Transition/O&M

Current V&V Future V&V

Stable Development Increments

Continuous V&V

Concerns Artifacts

Foreseeable Change (Plan)

Resources Resources

Increment N Baseline

High Assurance

Short, Stabilized Development of Increment N

V&V of Increment N

Increment N Transition/O&M

Current V&V Future V&V

Stable Development Increments

Continuous V&V

Concerns Artifacts

Foreseeable Change (Plan)

Resources Resources

Page 17: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

The Incremental Commitment Life Cycle Process: Overview

•Anchor Point Milestones

•Concurrently engr.

9/25/2009

•Synchronize, stabilize concurrency via FEDs

•Risk patterns determine life cycle process

17

•Concurrently engr. Incr.N (ops), N+1 (devel), N+2 (arch)

Page 18: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

Milestone Feasibility Rationales

• Evidence provided by developer and validated by independent experts that:If the system is built to the specified architectur e, it will– Satisfy the requirements: capability, interfaces, level of

service, and evolution– Support the operational concept– Be buildable within the budgets and schedules in th e plan

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 18

– Be buildable within the budgets and schedules in th e plan– Generate a viable return on investment– Generate satisfactory outcomes for all of the succe ss-critical

stakeholders

• All major risks resolved or covered by risk management plans

• Serves as basis for stakeholders’ commitment to proceed

Page 19: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

Case Studies andCritical Success Factors

• Diversified, USA (AgileTek)

• Medical, USA

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 19

• Enterprise Resource Planning, Germany

• Enterprise Infrastructure, Germany

Page 20: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

Agile Tek and Agile+

• Agile+ is XP + …+ Business Process Analyses (BPAs)+ Story “Actors”+ Delphi-STE Estimation+ Risk-Based Situation Audits (RBSAs)+ Componentized Architecture

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 20

+ Componentized Architecture+ Wall Gantts and Instrument Panels+ Automated Contract and Regression Testing+ Automatic Document Generation Strict Pair Programming40-Hour Work Week Restriction+ Flexibility to meet special needs

Page 21: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

Agile Tek: Solutions to quality issues• Scaling

– Componentized Architecture/Interface Definitions– Automated Build and Test Processes – (Virtual) Team Rooms

• Unpredictability at Macro Scale– Delphi Estimation– STE usage for larger projects

• Vulnerability to changes at system level– Componentized Architecture

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 21

– Componentized Architecture

• Vague about system testing– Automated Contract and Regression Testing

• Inflexible to special needs– Treat the Special Need as a User Story and prioritize it accordingly

• Some ADM Practices Are Impractical– Use practices that make sense and work in real-world situations– Abandon or modify those that don’t

• Do not Manage Risks Explicitly– Use Risk Based Situation Audits– Establish a risk management philosophy

Page 22: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

Medical Case Study -- USA

• 1400 software people; 7M SLOC; 7 sites– 4 in Europe, 2 in India

• 500 medical applications; 500 financial; others• Survivability-critical software problems

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 22

– Reliability, productivity, performance, interoperab ility– Sarbanes-Oxley requirements– Management receptive to radical change

• Some limited experimental use of agile methods– Led by top software technologist/manager

• Committed to total change around Scrum and XP

Page 23: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

Medical-USA Adoption Profile

5060708090

100 • July 2004 - July 2005– Recruit top people from all

sites into core team(s)– Get external expert help– Develop architecture– Early Scrum successes with

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 23

01020304050

2004Jul

2005Jul

2006Jul

2007Mar

ScrumTeams

– Early Scrum successes with infrastructure

– Revise policies and practices– Train, reculture everyone– Manage expectations

• July 2005 – July 2006– Begin full-scale development– Core teams as mentors

Page 24: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

Key Practices – USA Medical

• Include customers and marketers– New roles; do’s/don’ts/opportunities; CRACK personn el; full

collaboration and teamwork; expectations management• Scrum; most XP practices; added company practices

– 6-12 person teams with team rooms, dedicated server s– Hourly smoke test; nightly build and regression tes t– Just-in-time analysis; story-point estimates; fail fast; detailed short-

term plans; company architecture compliance

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 24

term plans; company architecture compliance– Embrace change in applications and practices– Global teams: wikis, daily virtual meetings, act as if next-door

• Release management– 2-12 week architecting Sprint Zero; 3-10 1-month Sp rints; Release

Sprint; 1-6 month beta test– Next Sprint Zero concurrent with Release Sprint

• Initiative manager and team– Define practices; evolve infrastructure; provide tr aining; guide

implementation; evaluate compliance/usage; continuo us improvement

Page 25: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

ERP Case Study -- Germany

• 35,000 employees; 32,000 customers worldwide– Major development centers in India, Israel

• Need to improve software development productivity, adaptability of Product Innovation Life Cycle– Invent, Define, Develop, Deploy, Optimize

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 25

– Invent, Define, Develop, Deploy, Optimize

• Proposed agile development cycle– Scrum; tailored corporate practices; strong, >70%-t ime

Product Owner and Scrum Master– 10-person teams best; up to 3-team Scrum of Scrums– Release cycle similar to Medical-USA

• Strong, highly experienced agile initiative leader– With top management support

Page 26: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

ERP-Germany Adoption Profile

300350400450500

Scrum-trained

• Two large projects– 8 teams, 2 countries– 5 teams, 5 Product

Owners, 3 countries

• Mentoring new teams– Pre-training

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 26

050

100150200250300

2005Nov

2006Apr

2006Nov

trainedScrumprojects

– Pre-training– Experienced Scrum

Master– Mentor first sprint– Coach second sprint

• Benefits: visibility, communication, productivity

Page 27: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

Challenges and Lessons Learned

• Challenges– Keeping roles straight– Setup for large projects– Rebaselining, reprioritizing backlog– Cross-cultural training, jelling– Team learning culture

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 27

– Team learning culture

• Lessons learned– Need strong Product Owner and Scrum Master

• Training for Product Owner, other stakeholders• Especially for scaling up to multiple teams

– Reinforce, evolve common corporate Scrum process– Can’t neglect CM, version control, change managemen t

• Of applications and process

Page 28: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

Corporate Infrastructure -- Germany

• Fortune World 100 company• Global development

– Especially US, India, China

• Need to rebaseline corporate infrastructure– Business processes, services, IT infrastructure– Multi -platform portability, always on

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 28

– Multi -platform portability, always on– With worldwide participation and buy-in– Strategy: RUP/Spiral architecting; Scrum-based deve lopment

• Began with multi-site core team of top personnel– Led by strong, results-oriented project/technology leader– With top management support and backing

• Grown to 4 sites, 250 people, 24 teams in 2.5 years– Largest project: 10 teams of 10-person Scrums

Page 29: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

Corporate Infrastructure: Principles

• Service-oriented architecture– Business processing: IBM, SAP, Microsoft– Generic applications: phone, Web, user interface– Infrastructure: servers, gateways, networks

• Learn form others

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 29

• Select, protect best team• Inclusive stakeholder communication and

involvement• Plan for early wins• Corporate product and process framework with

explicit tailoring areas, continuous improvement

Page 30: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

Development Practices

• RUP/Spiral startup– 2 Inception, 3 Elaboration, 4 Construction cycles– Proposal bay with wall stickies for risk prioritiza tion– 30 top people from all 4 sites

• NetMeeting for remote office involvement

– SharePoint vs. heavy documentation– Dedicated specialists (architecture, performance, t est)

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 30

– Dedicated specialists (architecture, performance, t est)

• Initial Operational Capability development– Timeboxed sprints with prioritized requirements

• 30% of initial requirements dropped to admit new fe atures• Use backlog as management instrument• Post-IOC release sprint for documentation, installa tion, traning

– Followed by field test, concurrent detailed expansi on planning, return of offsite core team members to le ad distributed-development scaleup

Page 31: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

Critical Success Factors

• Management commitment, with incremental feasibility checkpoints– Clear message about objectives, scope, and strategy– Involve top people from stakeholder organizations– Build in growth to expansion sites– Lead through early successes

• Thoroughly prepare the ground– Infrastructure, policies, practices, roles, trainin g

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 31

– Infrastructure, policies, practices, roles, trainin g– Customer buy-in and expectations management– Get help from experts

• Make clear what’s essential, optional– Most frequently, Scrum plus organizational essential s– Precede Development Sprints by Architecting Sprint

• Follow by Release Sprint, beta testing– Where needed, work compliant mandate interpretation s

• Monitor, reflect, learn, evolve

Page 32: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

Conclusions

• Success-critical to achieve both agility and qualit y• Hybrid agile/plan-driven methods emerging

– Incremental commitment framework– Concurrent engineering with synchronization milesto nes– Scrum plus organizational essentials

• Success stories emerging

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 32

• Success stories emerging– Management commitment to objectives and strategy

• With incremental feasibility checkpoints

– Strong core team of technical and management leader s– Thorough preparation of organizations, people, infr astructure

• Involvement, architecture, policies, practices, pla ns, training

– Continuous change monitoring and adaptation

Page 33: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

Backup Charts

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 33

Page 34: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

Different Risk Patterns Yield Different Processes

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 34

Page 35: Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approachgotocon.com/dl/jaoo-aarhus-2009/slides/BarryBoehm... · Scaling Up Agility: The Architected Agile Approach 10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE

ICM HSI Levels of Activity for Complex Systems

10/05/2009 (c) USC-CSSE 35