Lean & Agile Enterprise Frameworks For Managing Large U.S. Gov’t Cloud Computing Projects Dr. David F. Rico, PMP, CSEP, ACP, CSM, SAFe Twitter: @dr_david_f_rico Website: http://www.davidfrico.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidfrico Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/david.f.rico.9 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, 100+ talks to 11,000 people Adjunct at GWU, UMBC, UMUC, Argosy, & NDMU Specializes in metrics, models, & cost engineering Cloud Computing, SOA, Web Services, FOSS, etc. 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 organization, program, and 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 Basic SCRUM Framework Created by Jeff Sutherland at Easel in 1993 Product backlog comprised of needed features Sprint-to-sprint, iterative, adaptive emergent model Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2001). Agile software development with scrum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 5 Basic SCRUM-XP Hybrid Created by Sanjiv Augustine of Lithespeed in 2008 Release planning used to create product backlog Extends Scrum beyond Sprint-to-sprint planning Initial Planning Sprint Cycle Discovery Session Sprint Agile Training Project Discovery Process Discovery Team Discovery Initial Backlog Release Planning Business Case Desired Backlog Hi-Level Estimates Prioritize Backlog Select Tasks and Create Tests Create Simple Designs Code and Test Software Units Perform Integration Testing Maintain Daily Burndown Chart Update Sprint Backlog Sprint Planning Set Sprint Capacity Identify Tasks Estimate Tasks Daily Scrum Completed Backlog Items Planned Backlog Items Impediments to Progress Sprint Review Present Backlog Items Record Feedback Adjust Backlog Finalize Backlog Sprint Retrospective Product Backlog Prioritized Requirements Sprint Backlog List of Technical Tasks Assigned to a Sprint Potentially Shippable Product Working Operational Software Augustine, S. (2008). Certified scrum master training: Not just how, buy why. Herndon, VA: LitheSpeed. 6 Simplified AGILE PROJECT MGT F/W Created by Mark Layton at PlatinumEdge in 2012 Mix of new product development, XP, and Scrum Simple codification of common XP-Scrum hybrid Layton, M. C., & Maurer, R. (2011). Agile project management for dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing. 7 Agile ENTERPRISE FRAMEWORKS Dozens of Agile project management models emerged Many stem from principles of Extreme Programming All include product, project, & team management eScrum - 2007 - SAFe LeSS DaD RAGE - 2007 - - 2007 - - 2012 - Product Mgt Strategic Mgt Business Mgt Business Mgt Business Program Mgt Portfolio Mgt Portfolio Mgt Portfolio Mgt Governance Project Mgt Program Mgt Product Mgt Inception Portfolio Process Mgt Team Mgt Area Mgt Construction Program Business Mgt Quality Mgt Sprint Mgt Iterations Project Market Mgt Delivery Mgt Release Mgt Transition Delivery - 2013 - 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 8 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. 9 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. 10 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 Sprint Backlog Sprint Area Planning I Product ProductBacklog Owner 2 - 4 hours 1 Day 2 - 4 Week Sprint 2 - 4 hours Product ProductBacklog Owner 15 minutes Sprint Retrospective Product Backlog Refinement 5 - 10% of Sprint Potentially Shippable Product Increment Sprint Review Joint Sprint Review Larman, C., & Vodde, B. (2008). Scaling lean and agile development: Thinking and organizational tools for large-scale scrum. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. 11 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. 12 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 13 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 Measurable Web Portal Books Results Training & Cert Consultants Tools Popularity eScrum International Fortune 500 Government Lean-Kanban SAFe LeSS DaD RAGE Rico, D. F. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe) comparison. Retrieved June 4, 1024 from http://davidfrico.com/safe-comparison.xls 14 SAFe REVISITED Proven, public well-defined F/W for scaling Lean-Agile Synchronizes alignment, collaboration, and deliveries Quality, execution, alignment, & transparency focus Portfolio Program Team Leffingwell, D. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe). Retrieved June 2, 1024 from http://www.scaledagileframework.com 15 SAFe—Scaling at PORTFOLIO Level Vision, central strategy, and decentralized control Investment themes, Kanban, and objective metrics Value delivery via epics, streams, and release trains AGILE PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT ● Decentralized decision making ● Demand-based continuous flow ● Lightweight epic business cases ● Decentralized rolling wave planning ● Objective measures & milestones ● Agile estimating and planning Strategy Investment Funding Governance Program Management Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. 16 SAFe—Scaling at PROGRAM Level Product and release management team-of-team Common mission, backlog, estimates, and sprints Value delivery via program-level epics and features AGILE RELEASE TRAINS ● Driven by vision and roadmap ● Lean, economic prioritization ● Frequent, quality deliveries ● Fast customer feedback ● Fixed, reliable cadence ● Regular inspect & adapt CI Alignment Collaboration Synchronization Value Delivery Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. 17 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. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. 18 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% 19 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 20 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 21 Dave’s PROFESSIONAL CAPABILITIES Organization Change Government Acquisitions Government Contracting Cost Estimating Systems Engineering BPR, IDEF0, & DoDAF 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 Innovation Management 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 ● ● ● ● ● Action-oriented. Do first (talk about it later). Data-mining/analysis. Collect facts (then report findings). Simplification. Communicating complex ideas (in simple terms). Git-r-done. Prefer short, high-priority tasks (vs. long bureaucratic projects). Team player. Consensus-oriented collaboration (vs. top-down autocratic control). PMP, CSEP, ACP, CSM, & SAFE 22 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) 23 Backup Slides 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 25 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 26 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 27 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 28 Agile Scaling at ASSEMBLA Goal of continuous delivery is releases vs. build/tests Market-driven releases creates rapid business value Assembla went from 2 to 45 monthly releases w/CD 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. 29 Agile Scaling at GOOGLE Google early adopter of agile methods and Scrum Google also uses agile testing at enterprise scale 15,000 developers run 120 million tests per day 440 billion unique users run 37 trillion searches each year Single monolithic code tree with mixed language code Submissions at head – One branch – All from source 20+ code changes/minute – 50% code change/month 5,500+ submissions/day – 120 million tests per day 80,000 builds per day – 20 million builds per year Auto code inspections – For low defect density 10X programming productivity improvement $150 million in annual labor savings (ROI as a result) Micco, J. (2013). Continuous integration at google scale. Eclipse Con, Boston, MA. Whittaker, J., Arbon, J., & Carollo, J. (2012). How google tests software. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. 30 Agile Scaling at AMAZON Amazon adopted agile in 1999 and Scrum in 2004 Using enterprise-scale continuous delivery by 2010 30,000+ developers deploy over 8,600 releases a day Software deployment every 11.6 seconds (as of 2011) 24,828 to 86,320 releases per Iteration 161,379 to 561,080 releases per Quarter 645,517 to 2,244,320 releases per Year Automatic, split-second roll-forward & backward 75-90% reduction in release-caused outages (0.001%) Millions of times faster (than traditional methods) 4,357,241 to 15,149,160 per traditional release Thousands of times faster (than manual agility) 161,379 to 561,080 per Scrum/SAFe release Used agile methods long before U.S. government (1999) Atlas, A. (2009). Accidental adoption: The story of scrum at amazon.com. Proceedings of the Agile 2009 Conference, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 135-140. Jenkins, J. (2011). Velocity culture at amazon.com. Proceedings of the Velocity 2011 Conference, Santa Clara, California, USA. Elisha, S. (2013). Continuous deployment with amazon web services. Proceedings of the AWS Summit 2013, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 31 Agile LEADERSHIP Models Power & authority delegated to the lowest level Tap into the creative nuclear power of team’s talent Coaching, communication, and relationships key skills Personal Project Enterprise • Don't Be a Know-it-All • Be Open & Willing to Learn • Customer Communication • Business Value vs. Scope • Product Visioning • Interactions vs. Contracts • Treat People Respectfully • Distribution Strategy • Relationship vs. Regulation • • • • • Team Development • Conversation vs. Negotiation • Consensus vs. Dictatorship Be Gracious, Humble, & Kind Listen & Be Slow-to-Speak Be Patient & Longsuffering Be Objective & Dispassionate • Standards & Practices • Telecom Infrastructure • Development Tools • Collaboration vs. Control • Openness vs. Adversarialism • Exploration vs. Planning • Don't Micromanage & Direct • High-Context Meetings • Exhibit Maturity & Composure • Don't Escalate or Exacerbate • Don't Gossip or be Negative • Coordination & Governance • F2F Communications • Delegate, Empower, & Trust • Performance Management • Entrepreneurial vs. Managerial • Creativity vs. Constraints • Satisfaction vs. Compliance • Personal Development • Quality vs. Quantity • Gently Coach, Guide, & Lead • Consensus Based Decisions • Incremental vs. All Inclusive Rico, D. F. (2013). Agile coaching in high-conflict environments. Retrieved April 11, 2013 from http://davidfrico.com/agile-conflict-mgt.pdf Rico, D. F. (2013). Agile project management for virtual distributed teams. Retrieved July 29, 2013 from http://www.davidfrico.com/rico13m.pdf Rico, D. F. (2013). Agile vs. traditional contract manifesto. Retrieved March 28, 2013 from http://www.davidfrico.com/agile-vs-trad-contract-manifesto.pdf 32 Agile ORG. CHANGE Models Change, no matter how small or large, is difficult Smaller focused changes help to cross the chasm Shrinking, simplifying, and motivation key factors SWITCH Direct the Rider Follow the bright spots Script the critical moves Make it Desirable Create new experiences Create new motives Surpass your Limits Point to the destination Perfect complex skills Build emotional skills Motivate the Elephant Find the feeling Shrink the change Find Strength in Numbers Grow your people Utilize teamwork Enlist the power of social capital Shape the Path Tweak the environment Build habits Rally the herd Harness Peer Pressure Recruit public personalities Recruit influential leaders Change Environment Make it easy Make it unavoidable Purpose Purpose and profit equality Business and societal benefit Share control of profits Delegate implementation Culture and goal alignment Remake society and globe Autonomy Be accountable to someone Self-selected work tasks Self-directed work tasks Self-selected timelines Self-selected teams Self-selected implementation Villains of Good Decisions Narrow framing Confirmation bias Short term emotion Over confidence Widen Your Options Avoid a narrow frame Multi-track Find someone who solved problem Reality Test Assumptions Consider the opposite Zoom out & zoom in Ooch Attain Distance Design Rewards Use incentives wisely Use punishment sparingly DECISIVE DRIVE INFLUENCER Mastery Experimentation and innovation Align tasks to abilities Continuously improve abilities Elevate learning over profits Create challenging tasks Establish high expectations Overcome short-term emotion Gather more info & 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. Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2013). Decisive: How to make better choices in life and work. New York, NY: Random House. 33 Agile ACQUISITION-CONTRACT Model 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 34 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 35
© Copyright 2024