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