At IBM Rational we define disciplined agile delivery as:

Disciplined agile delivery is an evolutionary (iterative and incremental) approach which regularly produces high quality solutions in a cost effective and timely manner via a risk and value driven life cycle. It is performed in a highly collaborative, disciplined, and self-organizing manner within an appropriate governance framework, with active stakeholder participation to ensure that the team understands and addresses the changing needs of its stakeholders to maximize business value provided. Disciplined agile delivery teams provide repeatable results by adopting just the right amount of ceremony for the situation which they face.

Let’s explore the key points in this definition:

1. Full delivery life cycle.  Disciplined agile delivery processes have life cycles which are serial in the large and iterative in the small.  Minimally they have a release rhythm which recognizes the need for start up/inception activities, construction activities, and deployment/transition activities.  Better yet, they include explicit phases as well. It is very important to note that these are not the traditional waterfall phases – requirements, analysis, design, and so on – but instead different “seasons” of a project. The point is that we need to look beyond agile software development and consider the full complexities of solution delivery.  Adopting a full delivery life cycle, not just a construction life cycle, is arguably the “zeroth” agile scaling factor. 
2. Evolutionary.  Agile strategies are both iterative and incremental in nature.  Iterative means that you are working in a non-serial manner, on any given day you may do some requirements analysis, some testing, some programming, some design, some more testing, and so on.  Incremental means that you add new functionality and working code to the most recent build, until such time as the stakeholder determines there is enough value to release the product.
3. Regularly produces high quality solutions. Agilists are said to be quality focused.  They prefer to test often and early, and the more disciplined ones even take a test-first approach where they will write a single test and the just enough production code to fulfill that test (then they iterate). Many agile developers have adopted the practice of refactoring, which is a technique where you make simple changes to your code or schema which improves its quality without changing its semantics.  Adoption of these sorts of quality techniques seems to work – it appears that agile teams are more likely to deliver high quality systems than traditional teams (according to the DDJ 2008 Project Success survey). Within IBM we take it one step further and focus on consumability, which encompasses quality and other features such as ease of deployment and system performance.  Furthermore, although some agile methods promote the concept of producing “potentially shippable software” on a regular basis, disciplined agile delivery teams produce solutions: a portion of which may be software, a portion of which may be hardware, and a portion of which will be the manner in which the system is used.
4. Cost effective and timely manner.  Agile teams prefer to implement functionality in priority order [http://www.agilemodeling.com/essays/prioritizedRequirements.htm], with the priority being defined by their stakeholders (or a representative thereof).  Working in priority order enables agile teams to maximize the return on investment (ROI) because they are working on the high-value functionality as defined by their stakeholders, thereby increasing cost effectiveness. Agile teams also prefer to produce potentially shippable solutions each iteration (an iteration is a time-box, typically 2-4 weeks in length), enabling their stakeholders to determine when they wish to have a release delivered to them and thereby improving timeliness.  Short iterations reduce the feedback cycle, improving the chance that agile teams will discover problems early (they “fail fast”) and thereby enable them to address the problems when they’re still reasonably inexpensive to do so.  The DDJ 2008 Project Success survey found that agile teams are in fact more likely to deliver good ROI than traditional teams and more likely to deliver in a timely manner.
5. Value driven life cycle. One result of building a potentially shippable solution every iteration is that agile teams produce concrete value in a consistent and visible manner throughout the life cycle. 
6. Risk and value driven life cycle.  Core agile processes are very clear about the need to produce visible value in the form of working software on a regular basis throughout the life cycle.  Disciplined agile delivery processes take it one step further and actively mitigate risk early in the life cycle – during project start up you should come to stakeholder concurrence regarding the project’s scope, thereby reducing significant business risk, and prove the architecture by building a working skeleton of your system, thereby significantly reducing technical risk.  They also help with transition to agile, allowing traditional funding models to use these milestones before moving to the finer grained iteration based funding that agile allows.
7. Highly collaborative.  People build systems, and the primary determinant of success on a development project is the individuals and the way that they work together.  Agile teams strive to work closely together and effectively as possible.  This is a characteristic that applies to both engineers on the team, as well as their leadership.
8. Disciplined.  Agile software development requires greater discipline on the part of practitioners that what is typically required by traditional approaches. 
9. Self organizing. This means that the people who do the work also plan and estimate the work.
10. Self-organization within an appropriate governance framework. Self-organization leads to more realistic plans and estimates which are more acceptable to the people implementing them.  At the same time these self-organizing teams must work within an appropriate governance framework which reflects the needs of their overall organizational environment.  An “appropriate governance framework” explicitly enables disciplined agile delivery teams to effectively leverage a common infrastructure, to follow organizational conventions, and to work towards organizational goals.  The point is that project teams, regardless of the delivery paradigm they are following, need to work within the governance framework of their organization.  More importantly, effective governance programs should make it desirable to do so.  Our experience is that traditional, command-and-control approaches to governance where senior management explicitly tells teams what to do and how to do it don’t work very well with agile delivery teams.  We’ve also found that lean development governance, an approach which is based on collaboration and enablement, is far more effective in practice.  Good governance increases the chance that agile delivery teams will build systems which fit into your overall organizational environment, instead of yet another stand-alone system which increases your overall maintenance burden and data quality problems.
11. Active stakeholder participation.  Agile teams work closely with their stakeholders, who include end users, managers of end users, the people paying for the project, enterprise architects, support staff, operations stuff, and many more.  Within IBM we distinguish between four categories of stakeholder: principles/sponsors, partners (business partners and others), end users, and insiders These stakeholders, or their representatives (product owners in Scrum, or on-site customers in Extreme Programming, or a resident stakeholder in scaling situations), are expected to provide information and make decisions in a timely manner.
12. Changing needs of stakeholders.  As a project progresses your stakeholders will gain a better understanding of what they want, particularly if you’re showing them working software on a regular basis, and will change their “requirements” as a result.  Changes in the business environment, or changes in organization priority, will also motivate changes to the requirements.  There is a clear need for agile requirements change management [http://www.agilemodeling.com/essays/changeManagement.htm] on modern IT projects.
13. Repeatable results.  Stakeholders are rarely interested in how you delivered a solution but instead in what you delivered.  In particular, they are often interested in having a solution which meets their actual needs, in spending their money wisely, in a high-quality solution, and in something which is delivered in a timely manner.  In other words, they’re interested in repeatable results, not repeatable processes.
14. Right amount of ceremony for the situation.  Agile approaches minimize ceremony in favor of delivering concrete value in the form of working software, but that doesn’t mean they do away with ceremony completely. Agile teams will still hold reviews, when it makes sense to do so.  DDJ’s 2008 Modeling and Documentation Survey found that agile teams will still produce deliverable documentation, such as operations manuals and user manuals, and furthermore are just as likely to do so as traditional teams.  The DDJ September 2009 State of the IT Union survey found that the quality of the documentation delivered by agile teams was just as good as that delivered by traditional teams, although iterative teams (e.g. RUP teams) did better than both agile and traditional.

 Suggested reading:

• The Agile System Delivery Life Cycle (SDLC)
• The Agile Scaling Model (ASM): Adapting Agile Methods for Complex Environments (an IBM Rational white paper)
• The Disciplined Agile Delivery (DAD) home page
  

I was recently involved in an online discussion about how to calculate the benefits realized by software development teams.   As with most online discussions it quickly devolved into camps and the conversation didn’t progress much after that.  In this case there was what I would characterize as a traditional project camp and a much smaller agile/lean product camp.  Although each camp had interesting points, the important thing for me in the conversation was the wide cultural and experience gap between the people involved in the conversation.

The following diagram summarizes the main viewpoints and the differences between them.  The traditional project camp promoted a strategy where the potential return on investment (ROI) for a project would be calculated, a decision would be made to finance the project based (partly) on that ROI, the project would run, the solution delivered into production, and then at some point in the future the actual ROI would be calculated.  Everyone was a bit vague on how the actual ROI would be calculated, but they agreed that it could be done although would be driven by the context of the situation.  Of course several people pointed out that it rarely works that way.  Even if the potential ROI was initially calculated it would likely be based on wishful thinking and it would be incredibly unlikely that the actual ROI would be calculated once the solution was in production.  This is because few organizations are actually interested in investing the time to do so and some would even be afraid to do so.  Hence the planned and actual versions of the traditional strategy in the diagram.

The agile/lean camp had a very different vision.  Instead of investing in upfront ROI calculation, which would have required a fair bit of upfront requirements modelling and architectural modelling to get the information, the idea was that we should instead focus on a single feature or small change.  If this change made sense to the stakeholders then it would be implemented, typically on the order of days or weeks instead of months, and put quickly into production.  If your application is properly instrumented, which is becoming more and more common given the growing adoption of DevOps strategies, you can easily determine whether the addition of the new feature/change adds real value.

Cultural differences get in your way  

The traditional project camp certainly believed in their process.  In theory it sounded good, and I’m sure you could make it work, but in practice it was very fragile.  The long feedback cycle, potentially months if not years, pretty much doomed the traditional approach to measuring benefits of software development to failure. The initial ROI guesstimate was often a work of fiction and rarely would it be compared to actuals.  The cultural belief in bureaucracy motivated the traditional project camp to ignore the obvious challenges with their chosen approach.

The agile/lean camp also believed in their strategy.  In theory it works very well, and more and more organizations are clearly pulling this off in practice, but it does require great discipline and investment in your environment.  In particular, you need investment in modern development practices such as continuous integration (CI), continuous deployment (CD), and instrumented solutions (all important aspects of a disciplined agile DevOps strategy).  These are very good things to do anyway, it just so happens that they have an interesting side effect of making it easy (and inexpensive) to measure the actual benefits of changes to your software-based solutions.  The cultural belief in short feedback cycles, in taking a series of smaller steps instead of one large one, and in their ability to automate some potentially complex processes motivated the agile/lean camp to see the traditional camp as hopeless and part of the problem.  

Several people in the traditional project camp struggled to understand the agile/lean approach, which is certainly understandable given how different that vision is compared with traditional software development environments.  Sadly a few of the traditionalists chose to malign the agile/lean strategy instead of respectfully considering it.  They missed an excellent opportunity to learn and potentially improve their game.  Similarly the agilists started to tune out, dropping out of the conversation and forgoing the opportunity to help others see their point of view.  In short, each camp suffered from cultural challenges that prevented them from coherently discussing how to measure the benefits of software development efforts.

How Should You Measure the Effectiveness of Software Development?

Your measurement strategy should meet the following criteria:

1. Measurements should be actioned.  Both the traditional and agile/lean strategies described above meet this criteria in theory.  However, because few organizations appear willing to calculate ROI after deployment as the traditional approach recommends, in practice the traditional strategy rarely meets this criteria.  It is important to note that I used the word actioned, not actionable.  Key difference.
2. There must be positive value.  The total cost of taking a measure must be less than the total value of the improvement in decision making you gain.  I think that the traditional strategy falls down dramatically here, which is likely why most organizations don’t actually follow it in practice.  The agile/lean strategy can also fall down WRT this criterion but is much less likely to because the feedback cycle between creating the feature and measuring it is so short (and thus it is easier to identify the change in results to the actual change itself).
3. The measures must reflect the situation you face.  There are many things you can measure that can give you insight into the ROI of your software development efforts.  Changes in sales levels, how often given screen or function is invoked, savings incurred from a new way of working, improved timeliness of information (and thereby potentially better decision making), customer retention, customer return rate, and many others.  What questions are important to you right now?  What measures can help provide insight into those questions?  It depends on the situation that you face, there are no hard and fast rules.  For a better understanding of complexity factors faced by teams, see The Software Development Context Framework.
4. The measures should be difficult to game.  Once again, traditional falls down here.  ROI estimates are notoriously flakey because they require people to make guesses about costs, revenues, time frames, and other issues.  The measurements coming out of your instrumented applications are very difficult to game because they’re being generated as the result of doing your day-to-day business.  
5. The strategy must be compatible with your organization.  Once again, this is a “it depends” type of situation.  Can you imagine trying to convince an agile team to adopt the traditional strategy, or vice versa?  Yes, you can choose to improve over time.  

Not surprisingly, I put a lot more faith in the agile/lean approach to measuring value.  Having said that, I do respect the traditional strategy as there are some situations where it may in fact work. Just not as many as traditional protagonists may believe.

The basic idea behind DevOps is that your development strategy and operations strategy should reflect one another, that you should strive to optimize the whole IT process.  This implies that development teams should work closely with your operations staff to deliver new releases smoothly into production and that your operations staff should work closely with development teams to streamline critical production issues.

DevOps has its source in agile software development, and it is an explicit aspect of the Disciplined Agile Delivery (DAD) process framework.  As a result there is a collection of agile development strategies which enable effective DevOps throughout the agile delivery lifecycle.  These strategies include:

1. Initial requirements envisioning.  Disciplined agile teams invest time at the beginning of the project to identify the high-level scope in a light-weight, collaborative manner.  This includes common operations requirements such as the need to backup and restore data sources, to instrument the solution so that it can be monitored in real time by operations staff, or to architect the solution in a modular manner to enable easier deployment. 
2. Initial architecture envisioning. Disciplined agile teams will also identify a viable architectural strategy which reflects the requirements of their stakeholders and your organization’s overall architectural strategy (hence the need to work closely with your enterprise architects and operations staff).  One goal is to ensure that the team is building (or buying) a solution which will work well with the existing operational infrastructure and to begin negotiating any infrastructural changes (such as deploying new technologies) early in the project.   Another goal is to ensure that operations-oriented requirements are addressed by the architecture from the very start. 
3. Initial release planning.  As part of release planning the disciplined agile team works closely with their operations group to identify potential release windows to aim for, any release blackout periods to avoid, and the need for operations-oriented milestone reviews later in the lifecycle (if appropriate).
4. Active stakeholder participation.  Disciplined agile teams work closely with their stakeholders, including both operations and support staff, all the way through the lifecycle to ensure that their evolving needs are understood.   
5. Continuous integration (CI).  This is a common technical agile practice where the solution is built/compiled, regression tested, and maybe even run through code analysis tools.  CI promotes greater quality which in turn enables easier releases into production.  
6. Parallel independent testing. For enterprise-class development or at scale, particularly when the domain or technology is very complex or in regulatory environments, disciplined agile team will find they need to support their whole team testing efforts with an independent test team running in parallel to the development team.  These testing issues often include validation of non-functional requirements – such as security, performance, and availability concerns – and around production system integration.  All of these issues are of clear importance for operations departments.   
7. Continuous deployment.  With this practice you automate the promotion of your working solution between environments.  By automating as much of the deployment effort as possible, and by running it often, the development team increases the chance of a successful deployment and thereby reduces the risk to the operations environment. Note that deployment into production is generally not automatic, as this is an important decision to be made by your operations/release manager(s). 
8. Continuous documentation.  With this practice supporting documentation, including operations and support documentation, is evolved throughout the lifecycle in concert with the development of new functionality. 
9. Production release planning.  This is the subset of your release planning efforts which focuses on the activities required to deploy into production. 
10. Production readiness reviews.  There should be at least one review, performed by the person(s) responsible for your operations environment, before the solution is deployed into production.  The more critical the system, the more product readiness reviews may be required. 
11. End-of-lifecycle testing.  Minimally you will need to run your full automated regression test suite against your baselined code once construction ends.  There may also be manual acceptance reviews or testing to be performed, and any appropriate fixing and retesting required to ensure that the solution is truly ready for production. 

For more detail about this topic, I think that you will find the article I wrote for the December 2011 issue of Cutter IT Journal entitled “Disciplined Agile Delivery and Collaborative DevOps” to be of value.

•  People are assigned to a single team
•  Development teams have easy access to business expertise
• Development teams are organized for agile delivery (not traditional)
• Your organization has an agile support group/community of excellence
• Your organization is explicitly addressing barriers to agility
• There is executive sponsorship for agile
• Agile teams are measured on value creation
• Your organization's IT governance strategy includes an agile path
  

There is a fair bit of rhetoric surrounding agile methods, some of which we subscribe to and some of which we don’t. We’d like to briefly examine the rhetoric which we’ve found to be the most misleading for people trying to be effective at adopting agile techniques. The following list is in the format X but Y, where X is the rhetoric and Y is the strategy promoted by the Disciplined Agile Delivery (DAD) process framework. This includes:

1. Requirements evolve throughout the lifecycle BUT the scope should still be agreed to at the beginning of the project. There has to be an initial vision for a project, a vision which your stakeholders should help define and then agree to, and to come to that vision you will need to perform some initial requirements envisioning. A list of high level features is part of this initial vision. Yes, the details are very likely to evolve over time but the fundamental goals of your project and scope of your effort needs to be defined early in your project. In a very small minority of situations you may not be able to get the right people together, either physically or virtually, to define the initial vision – this should be seen as a significant project risk.
2. Simple designs are best BUT the architecture should be thought out early in the lifecycle. Too many developers interpret the advice to focus on simple designs to mean that they should build everything from scratch. Yet more often than not the simplest design is to take advantage of what is already there, and the best way to do that is to work closely with people who understand your existing technical infrastructure. Investing in a little bit of architectural envisioning early in the lifecycle enables your team to identify existing enterprise assets that you can leverage, to identify your architectural options, and to select what appears to be the best option available to you. The details will still emerge over time, and some decisions will be deferred until a later date when it’s more appropriate to make them, but the bottom line is that disciplined agilists think before they act.
3. Teams should be self organizing BUT they are still constrained (and enhanced) by your organizational ecosystem. Intellectual workers, including IT professionals, are most effective when they have a say in what work they do and how they do it. IT professionals can improve their productivity by following common conventions, leveraging and building out a common “dev-ops” infrastructure, building towards a common vision, and by working to common business and technical visions.  In short, disciplined agile professionals are "enterprise aware".
4. Delivery teams don’t need prescriptive process definitions BUT they do need some high-level guidance to help organize their work. Individual IT professionals are typically highly-skilled and highly-educated people often with years of experience, and teams of such people clearly have a wide range of knowledge. As a result of this knowledge it is incredibly rare for such people to read detailed procedures for how to do their work. However, they often still require some high-level advice to help them to organize their work effectively. Teams can often benefit from techniques and patterns used by other teams and this knowledge sharing should be encouraged.
5. IT professionals know what to do BUT they’re still not process experts. A decade ago the strategy was to provide detailed process advice to teams, but recently the pendulum has swung the other way to provide little or no defined process at all. Over the last few years there’s been a trend within the agile community to advise teams to define their own process so that it’s tailored to their own unique situation. While this clearly strokes people’s egos, it’s relatively poor advice for several reasons. First, although every team is in a unique situation there is significant commonality so having at least a high-level process framework from which to start makes sense. Second, although these teams have a wide range of knowledge it might not be complete, nor consistent, nor is it clear what the trade-offs are of combining all the really good techniques that people know about. There is significant benefit in having a flexible process framework such as DAD which shows how everything fits together.
6. IT professionals should validate their own work to the best of their ability BUT they likely aren’t testing experts so therefore need help picking up the appropriate skills. The mantra in the agile community is to test often and test early, and better yet to test first. As a result agile teams have adopted a “whole team” approach where the development team does its own testing. This works when there are people on the team with sufficient testing skills and more importantly can transfer those skills to others. Minimally you will need to embed testers into your delivery teams, but you should also consider explicit training and mentoring of everyone on the team in testing and quality skills.  You may find my agile testing and quality strategies article to be an interesting read.
7. Disciplined agile teams work in an iterative manner BUT still follow a lifecycle which is serial over time. On any given day people on a DAD project team may be performing analysis, testing, design, programming, deployment, or a myriad of other activities and iterating back and forth between them. But, the DAD lifecycle includes three distinct phases which are performed in order. So, DAD is both iterative in the small but serial in the large.

One of the scaling factors called out in the Agile Scaling Model (ASM) is “geographic distribution".   As with the other scaling factors the level of geographic distribution is a range, with co-located teams at one extreme and far-located at the other.  When your team is co-located the developers and the primary stakeholders are all situated in the same work room.  If you have some team members in cubicles or in separate offices then you're slightly distributed, if you're working on different floors in the same building you're a bit more distributed, if you're working in different buildings within the same geographic area (perhaps your team is spread across different office buildings in the same city or some people work from home some days) then your team is more distributed, if people are working in different cities in the same country you're more distributed, and finally if people are working in different cities around the globe you're even more distributed (I call this far located).

As your team becomes more distributed your project risk increases for several reasons:

1. Communication challenges.  The most effective means of communication between two people is face-to-face around a shared sketching space such as a whiteboard, and that requires you to be in the same room together.  As you become more distributed you begin to rely on less effective communication strategies.
   
2. Temporal challenges.  When people are in different time zones it becomes harder to find common working times, increasing the communication challenges.  One potential benefit, however, is the opportunity to do "follow-the-sun" development where a team does some work during their workday, hands off the work to another team in a significantly different time zone, who picks up the work and continues with it.  This strategy of course requires a high degree of sophistication and discipline on the part of everyone involved, but offers the potential to reduce overall calendar time.
   
3. Cultural challenges.  As the team becomes more distributed the cultural challenges between sites typically increases.  Different cultures have different work ethics, treat intellectual property differently, have different ideas about commitment, have different holidays, different approaches to things, and so on.
   

As you would imagine, because the project risk increases the more distributed your team is, the lower the average success rates of agile projects decrease as they become more distributed.  The 2008 IT Project Success Survey found that co-located agile teams has an average success rate of 79%, that near located teams (members were in same geographic area) had a success rate of 73%, and that far-located agile teams had a success rate of 55%.  The success rate decreases similarly for project teams following other paradigms.

The practices that you adopt, and the way that you tailor the agile practices which you follow, will vary based on the level of geographic distribution of your team.  For example, a co-located team will likely do initial architecture envisioning on a whiteboard and keep it at a fairly high-level.  A far-located team will hopefully choose to fly in key team members at the beginning of the project, at least the architecture owners on the various sub-teams, to do the architecture envisioning together.  They will likely go into greater detail because they will want to identify, to the best of their ability, the interfaces of the various subsystems or components which they'll be building.  They'll also likely use a modeling tool such as Rational Rhapsody to capture this information (note that it is very possible to use CASE tools in an agile manner, and that some agile teams in fact do so as the 2008 Modeling and Documentation Survey shows).

Geographically distributed agile teams, at least the effective ones, will also use tools which reflect the realities of agile geographically distributed development (GDD).  The Jazz platform tools, particularly Rational Team Concert (RTC), are developed with agile GDD in mind.  In fact, the RTC team itself is an agile GDD and they use RTC to develop RTC.  Although index cards are a great way for co-located agile teams to capture high-level requirements such as user stories, you need an electronic strategy for a GDD team.  RTC also supports communication between team members, distributed debugging, and many other features which distributed teams will find useful.

Interestingly, the Agility at Scale 2009 survey found that it was quite common for agile teams to be geographically distributed in some manner:

• 45% of respondents indicated that some of their agile teams were co-located
• 60% of respondents indicated that some of their agile teams had team members spread out through the same building
• 30% of respondents indicated that some of their agile teams were working from home
• 21% of respondents indicated that some of their agile teams had people working in different offices in the same city
• 47% of respondents indicated that some of their agile teams had team members that were far located

The bottom line is that some organizations, including IBM, have been very successful applying agile techniques on geographically distributed teams. In fact, agile GDD is far more common than mainstream agile discussion seem to let on. 

Recommended Resources:

• A Practical Guide to Distributed Scrum (coming July 2010)
  
• Strategies for Distributed Agile Teams Part 1
• Strategies for Distributed Agile Teams Part 2
• Strategies for Distributed Agile Teams Part 3

Recently I spent some time in the UK with Julian Holmes of Unified Process Mentors. In one of our conversations we deplored what we were seeing in the agile community around certification, in particular what the Scrum community was doing, and he coined the term “integrity debt” to describe the impact it was having on us as IT professionals. Integrity debt is similar to technical debt which refers to the concept that poor quality (either in your code, your user interface, or your data) is a debt that must eventually be paid off through rework. Integrity debt refers to the concept that questionable or unprofessional behavior builds up a debt which must eventually be paid off through the rebuilding of trust with the people that we interact with.
The agile community has been actively increasing their integrity debt through the continuing popularity of Scrum Certification, in particular the program around becoming a Certified Scrum Master (CSM). To become a CSM you currently need to attend, and hopefully pay attention during, a two-day Scrum Master Certification workshop taught by a Certified Scrum Trainer (CST). That’s it. Granted, some CSTs will hold one or more quizzes which you need to pass, an optional practice which isn’t done consistently, to ensure that you pay attention in the workshop. 
Scrum Masters, as you know, take the leadership position on a Scrum team. The idea that someone can master team leadership skills after two entire days of training is absurd. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a firm supporter of people increasing their skillset and have no doubt that many of the CSTs deliver really valuable training. However, there is no possible way that you can master a topic, unless it is truly trivial, in only two days of training. From what I can tell the only thing that is being certified here is that your check didn’t bounce.
The CSM scheme increases the integrity debt of the IT industry by undermining the value of certification. When someone claims that they’re certified there’s an assumption that they had to do something meaningful to earn that certification. Attending a two-day course, and perhaps taking a few quizzes where you parrot back what you’ve heard, clearly isn’t very meaningful. The problem with the term Certified Scrum Master is two-fold: not only does the term Certified imply that the holder of the certification did something to earn it, the term Master implies that they have significant knowledge and expertise gained over years of work. It is very clear that people are falling for the Scrum certification scheme.
A quick search of the web will find job ads requiring that candidates be CSMs, undoubtedly because they don’t realize that there’s no substance behind the certification. Whenever I run into an organization that requires people to be CSMs I walk them through the onerous process of earning the designation and suggest that they investigate the situation themselves. Invariably, once they recognize the level of deception, the customer drops the requirement that people be CSMs.
Another quick search of the web will find people bragging about being a CSM, presumably being motivated by the employment opportunities within the organizations gullible enough to accept Scrum certification at face value. My experience is that the people claiming to be CSMs are for the most part decent, intelligent people who 99.99% of the time have far more impressive credentials to brag about than taking a two-day course. Yet, for some reason they choose to park their integrity at the door when it comes to Scrum certification. I suspect that this happens in part because they see so many other people doing it, in part because they’re a bit desperate to obtain or retain employment in these tough economic times, and in part because the IT industry doesn’t have a widely accepted code of ethical conduct. These people not only embarrass themselves when they indicate on their business cards or in their email signatures that they’re Certified Scrum Masters they also increase the integrity debt of the agile community as a whole.
Yet another search of the web will find people bragging about being Certified Scrum Trainers (CSTs), the people whom have been blessed by the Scrum Alliance to deliver Scrum master certification courses. Once again, my experience is that these are intelligent, skilled people, albeit ones who have also parked their integrity at the door in the pursuit of a quick buck. Surely these people could make a decent living via more ethical means? I know that many of them have done so in the past, so I would presume that they could do so in the future. The actions of the CSTs increase our integrity debt even further.
The group of people who have most embarrassed themselves, in my opinion, are those whom we consider thought leaders within the agile community. Leaving aside the handful who are directly involved with the Scrum certification industry, the real problem lies with those who have turned a blind eye to all of this. The Scrum certification scheme was allowed to fester within our community because few of our thought leaders had the courage to stand up and publicly state what they were talking about in private. This of course is all the more galling when you consider how much rhetoric there is around the importance of courage on software development projects. As Edmund Burke once observed, all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

There are several things that we can do today to start paying off some of our integrity debt:

1. Be discerning, not deceptive. If you’re going to list credentials on your email signature or business card then only choose to list the ones that actually mean something.
2. Educate human resources people. Make them aware of what “Certified Scrum Master” really means and let them think for themselves. I highly suspect that if HR people realized what was going on the demand for CSMs would plummet, and in turn people wouldn’t be tempted by Scrum certification.
3. Act professional, don’t just claim to be certified. Instead of signing up for every easy certification that comes your way why not simply do a good job and let the people you work with be your claim to fame? The good news is that for the past few years the agile community has tried to pay down some of the IT industry’s integrity debt that we have with our stakeholders by providing better return on investment (ROI), delivering systems which are more effective at addressing the needs of your stakeholders, by working in a more timely manner, and by producing greater quality work. All of these claims are borne out by the 2008 Software Development Project Success Rate Survey by the way.
4. Recognize that adding a test doesn’t address the underlying problems. For the past year there’s been a move afoot to have people pass a test as part of earning their CSM (apparently it’s been a challenge to create a non-trivial test to validate your understanding of a topic that you can master by taking a two-day training course). This is something that should have been done from the very beginning, along with some sort of peer review, not years later when the damage has been done. Adding a test at this late date isn’t going to remove the stink that’s built up over the years, but sadly it will fool a few people into believing that they’ve covered it up.
5. Recognize that there is a demand for certification. The agile community needs to put together a decent certification program, something that the Scrum Alliance has clearly failed at doing. My article Coming Soon: Agile Certification provides some thoughts as to what we need to do. The good news is that people such as Ron Jeffries and Chet Hendrickson, and others, are putting together a developer certification program. The really good news is that these are the right people to do this. The really bad news is that they’re doing it under the aegis of the Scrum Alliance, so whatever they accomplish will unfortunately be tainted by the fallout of the CSM debacle.

If we're going to scale agile software development strategies to meet the range of challenges faced by modern organizations, we need to be trustworthy.  Is claiming to be a certified master after taking a two-day course an act which engenders trust?  I don't think so.  As individuals we can choose to do better.  As a community we need to.

Suggested Reading

1. Agile Certification -- A humorous look at certification.
2. IT Surveys -- A great resource for statistics about what IT people are actually doing in practice.

Over the past few months I've had several people ask me whether it makes sense to offshore agile testing, and more importantly when it makes sense to do so.  So I thought I would share my thoughts on the subject:

1. Focus on whole team testing.  The basic strategy is that agile teams should strive to do as much, if not all, of the testing themselves.  We call this whole team testing.  For organizations new to agile this can be daunting because they may be organized in such a way that programmers write code and then hand it over to testers for validation and verification.  The implication is that organizations will need to invest in their staff so that the programmers become more well rounded and pick up testing skills (we refer this as moving from being a specialist to a generalizing specialist).   
2. Offshore entire development teams.  A common strategy for organizing geographically distributed agile teams is to have whole teams at each location.  For example, if your larger team is spread across three locations - Toronto, London, and Bangalore - then each team is responsible for implementing end to end functionality.  With a component-based approach the Toronto team should be fully responsible for one or more subsystems, the London team responsible for one or more subsystems, and the Bangalore team responsible for one or more subsystems.  With a feature-team approach the Toronto team would implement all of the functionality, end-to-end, for a feature regardless of which subsystems that functionality affects.  Agile teams typically aren't organized by job function (e.g. analysis is done in London, design and coding in Toronto, testing in Bangalore) due to the overhead of handoffs between sites, the increased risk of miscommunication due to less effective ways of communicating information, and the increased complexity of managing the work.
3. Adopt independent testing at scale.  You may choose, or be forced to have, an independent test team that focuses on some of the more complex forms of testing.  The general idea is that this team works in parallel to other subteams and tests their working builds on a regular basis.  Having said that, the vast majority of the testing effort should still be done in a whole team fashion. If your team is experiencing agile scaling factors such as domain complexity or technical complexity then you may find that it makes economic sense to have an independent test team focus on forms of testing that are difficult for the subteams to address, in particular pre-production system integration testing.  If your team is in a regulatory domain where independent testing is required, then you're better off to "shift left" this effort with an independent test team to reduce both cost and risk.
4. Offshore independent testing carefully.  I would offshore independent testing only to organizations that I have a very good, long-term relationship with that have proven that they can work in a disciplined agile manner.  I would also want to ensure that they have actual experience with agile independent testing AND are staffing the team with people that have that experience.  A clear sign that they don't understand what is required is if the independent testing team is asking for a detailed requirements specification, an indication that they're planning on doing confirmatory testing which is better suited for whole team testing.  Furthermore, I would only do this if I don't have adequate staff to do so myself AND do not have time to build up my own independent test team.

 

I suspect that you're going to find yourself in serious trouble if:

• You do not have successful experiences with agile delivery in simpler (e.g. non-offshoring) situations first.  Walk before you try to run.
• You think you can save money by having agile programming done in one location and agile testing in another (the coordination costs are going to be much larger than you think)
• You're offshoring testing because you're new to agile (in this situation you don't have the experience to organize let alone govern the offshored activities)   
• You work with a service provider where you don't have a proven track record with them when it comes to agile development (a proven track record with traditional approaches is a good start but still very risky)

In short, it can make sense to offshore agile testing in a very narrow range of situations.  Be very careful.

A fair question to ask is why should your organization consider adopting the Disciplined Agile Delivery (DAD) process framework.  I believe that there are several clear benefits to doing so:

1. DAD shows how agile techniques fit together.  DAD is a hybrid that adopts strategies from a variety of sources, including Scrum, Extreme Programming (XP), Agile Modeling, Kanban, Outside In Development (OID) and many more.  More importantly DAD's process-goal driven approach shows how this all fits together, providing advice for when (and when not) to use each technique and the advantages and disadvantages of doing so.  In doing so DAD enables you to streamline your efforts to tailor agile to reflect the context of the situation you find yourself in.  Furthermore, it provides this advice in the context of a full agile delivery lifecycle, explicitly showing how to initiate a project, construct a solution, and then deploy into production.  Instead of starting with a small agile method such as Scrum and doing all the work to figure out how to tailor ideas from other methods to actually make it work, why not start with a framework that's already done all that work for you?
2. DAD isn't prescriptive.  DAD is far less prescriptive than other agile methods.  For example, where Scrum prescribes a single strategy for managing changing requirements, a strategy called a Product Backlog, DAD suggests several strategies and provides advice for choosing the right one.  Where other agile methods define a single lifecycle, DAD instead describes several lifecycles (an agile Scrum-based one, a lean lifecycle, and a continuous delivery lifecycle to name just three) and once again describes how to choose the right one for your situation.  Your agile team is in a unique situation, and as a result needs a flexible process framework that provides coherent, easy-to-follow tailoring advice.   Isn't it better to adopt strategies that reflect the context that you actually face?
3. DAD explicitly addresses architecture.  Even after a decade of agile software development it still seems that the topic of how agile teams address architecture is a mystery for many people.  As a result DAD builds agile architecture strategies right in, starting with initial architecture envisioning, to proving the architecture with working code, to evolutionary design strategies during construction. 
4. DAD explicitly addresses DevOps.  DevOps is the art of combining development and operations approaches in such a way as to streamline your overall efforts.  DAD "bakes in" DevOps through explicit support for common DevOps practices as well as its robust stakeholder definition which explicitly includes operations and support people.
5. DAD explicitly addresses governance.  Although governance is often considered a dirty word within some agile circles, the reality is that software development teams can and should be governed.  Sadly, many agile teams have traditional governance strategies inflicted upon them, strategies which invariably increase schedule, cost and risk on the project.  But is doesn't have to be this way.  It is possible, and very desirable to adopt agile goverance strategies, strategies which are built right into the DAD framework.
6. DAD explicitly addresses many other important development activities.  Architecture, DevOps, and governance are just the tip of the iceberg.  DAD also shows how critical activities such as analysis, design, testing, quality, technical writing, and many more are addressed in an agile and streamlined manner throughout the delivery lifecycle.  As described earlier, this is done in a non-prescriptive and tailorable manner, thereby removing a lot of the mystery regarding how this agile stuff all fits together into a coherent whole.
7. DAD is solution focused, not software focused.  Although the rhetoric around "potentially shippable software" resonates well with developers it observably and empirically misses the mark.  DAD promotes the more robust idea of "potentially consumable solutions".  Yes, shipping is nice but shipping something that people actually want to use/buy, something that is consumable, is much nicer.  Yes, software is part of the equation but that software runs on hardware, we often also need to develop supporting documentation, we often evolve the business process, and even evolve the organization structure around the usage of the system.  In other words, we're really producing solutions, not just software.  Isn't it better to adopt rhetoric that actually reflects what we're doing in practice?
8. DAD promotes enterprise awareness over team awareness.  One of the great benefits of an agile approach to software development is its focus on the team.  This can also be a bit of a problem, because a team-focused strategy can result in suboptimal decisions for your overall organization.  DAD promotes the idea that disciplined agilists should be enterprise aware, working towards common business and technical goals while leveraging and enhancing the existing infrastructure whenever possible.
9. DAD provides a foundation from which to scale.  The starting point for scaling agile is to understand how agile strategies fit together from project initiation to delivery into production.  If you don't know how to succeed with agile in a straightforward situation then it will prove very difficult to do so in an agility @ scale situation.  DAD not only provides this tailorable foundation from which to scale agile it also takes a robust view of what it means to scale agile (hint: large or distributed teams are only a start).
10. DAD provides a basis for enterprise agile.  As organizations move towards a true "enterprise agile" approach they often find that they need to adopt either DAD as a foundation or invest a fair bit of effort inventing something similar.  They are also starting to adopt strategies from the SAFe framework, or reinventing such, as well as ideas from sources such as Enterprise Unified Process (EUP) (sadly, poorly named in hindsight), ITIL, and even CoBIT.  More on this in a future blog posting.

In short, DAD provides a lot of proven advice culled from years of experience applying agile software techniques in enterprise-class environments.  Instead of figuring all of this stuff out on your own, why not jump ahead and leverage the hard-won lessons learned from other organizations that have already dealt with the challenges that you're struggling with today?

The primary shortcoming of the DAD framework is it makes it very clear that software development, oops I mean solution delivery, is quite complex in practice.  As IT practitioners we inherently know this, but it seems that we need to be reminded of this fact every so often.  DAD doesn't provide a simplistic, feel-good strategy that you can learn in a few hours of training.  Instead it defines a coherent, tailorable strategy that reflects the realities of enterprise IT. 

There is a wealth of information at DAD posted at the  Disciplined Agile Delivery (DAD) web site and great discussions occuring on the DAD LinkedIn discussion forum.  For those of you interested in agile certification, the Disciplined Agile Consortium site will prove valuable too, in particular the list of upcoming DAD workshops provided by several IBM partners.  And of course the book Disciplined Agile Delivery: A Practitioner's Guide to Agile Software Delivery in the Enterprise (IBM Press, 2012) written by Mark Lines and myself is a very good read.

1. You adopt "standard" agile discipline.   Aspects of agile which require discipline include adopting practices such as test-driven development (TDD), active stakeholder participation, working collaboratively, shortening the feedback cycle, and many more.  These strategies are a great start to becoming disciplined IT professionals. 
2. You take a goal-driven approach.  When we first started working on the DAD framework I didn't want to create yet another prescriptive framework, particularly given Rational's track record with the Rational Unified Process (RUP) framework.  Rational has been pilloried for years for the prescriptive nature of RUP, which is unfortunate because there are a lot of great ideas in RUP that agile teams can benefit from, some of which we adopted in DAD and many of which are being actively reinvented with the agile community even as you read this. Furthermore, there are many prescriptive elements of the Scrum method that can get teams in trouble.  For example, Scrum prescribes that you hold a daily stand up meeting, often called a Scrum meeting, where everyone should answer three questions.  That's a great approach for teams new to agile, but it proves problematic in many situations due to it's prescriptive nature. Do you really need to do this once a day?  I've been on teams where we held coordination meetings twice a day and others only once a week.  Do you really need to stand up?  I've been on geographically distrubited agile teams where many of us were sitting down during coordination calls.  Do you really need to answer three questions, two of which are clearly focused on status regardless of claims otherwise?  I've been on lean teams where we met around our Kanban board and focused on potential blockers.  The answers to these questions depends on the context of the situation you find yourself in.  The challenge, at least from the point of view of a process framework, is how do you avoid falling into the trap of being overly prescriptive.  The strategy we adopted in DAD is to take a goal-driven approach.  The observation is that regardless of the situation you find yourself in there are common goals your team will need to fulfill.  For example, at the beginning of a project common goals include developing an initial plan, initially exploring the scope, initially identifying a technical strategy, and securing initial funding (amongst others).  Throughout construction you should coordinate your activities, improve the quality of your ecosystem, and produce a potentially consumable solution on a regular basis (more on this below).  So, instead of prescribing a daily stand up meeting the DAD framework instead indicates you should coordinate your activities, and gives several options for doing so (one of which is a Scrum meeting).  More importantly DAD describes the advantages and disadvantages of your options so that you can make the choice that's best suited for the situation your team finds itself in (see this blog posting for a detailed example of the types of tables included in the DAD book to help you through such process tailoring decisions).  In short, our experience is that it requires discipline to take a goal driven approach to agile delivery over the prescriptive strategies in other agile processes. 
3. You take a context-driven approach.  There are many tailoring factors, which I describe in the Software Development Context Framework (SDCF), which you need to consider when making process, tooling, and team structure decisions.  For example, a large team will adopt a different collection of practices and tools than a small team.  A geographically distributed team will adopt a different strategy than a team that is co-located.  You get the idea.  Other tailoring factors include compliance, team culture, organization culture, technical complexity, domain complexity, and project type.  It requires discipline to recognize the context of the situation you find yourself in and then act accordingly.
4. You deliver potentially consumable solutions.  One of the observations that we made early in the development of the DAD framework was that disciplined agile teams produce potentially consumable solutions, not just potentially shippable software.  Although delivery of high-quality, working software is important it is even more important that we deliver high-quality working solutions to our stakeholders. For example, not only are we writing software but we may also be updating the hardware on which it runs, writing supporting documentation, evolving the business processes around the usage of the system, and even evolving the organizational structure of the people working with the system.  In other words, disciplined agilists focus on solutions over software.  Furthermore, "potentially shippable" isn't sufficient: not only should it be shippable but it should also be usable and should be something people want to use.  In other words it should be consumable (a concept DAD adopted from IBM's Outside In Development).  Minimally IT professionals should have the skills and desire to produce good software, but what they really need are the skills and desire to provide good solutions. We need strong technical skills, but we also need strong "soft skills" such as user interface design and process design to name just two. The incremental delivery of potentially consumable solutions on an incremental basis requires discipline to do successfully.  DAD teams focus on repeatable results not repeatable processes.
5. You are enterprise aware.   Whether you like it or not, as you adopt agile you will constrained by the organizational ecosystem, and you will need to act accordingly. It takes discipline to work with enterprise professionals such as enterprise architects, data admistrators, portfolio managers, or IT governance people who may not be completely agile yet, and have the patience to help them. It takes discipline to work with your operations and support staff in a DevOps manner throughout the lifecycle, particularly when they may not be motivated to do so.  It requires discipline to accept and potentially enhance existing corporate development conventions (programming guidelines, data guidelines, UI guidelines, ...).  It requires discipline to accept that your organization has an existing technology roadmap that you should be leveraging, building out, and in some cases improving as you go.  In short, enterprise awareness requires a level of discipline not typically seen on many agile teams.
6. You adopt a full delivery lifecycle.  Empirically it is very easy to observe that at the beginning of an agile project there are some activities that you need to perform to initiate the project.  Similarly at the end of the project there are activities that you need to perform to release the solution into production or the marketplace.  The DAD process framework addresses the effort required for the full delivery effort, including project initiation, construction, and deployment.  Our experience is that it requires discipline on the part of IT professionals to include explicit phases for Inception/Initation, Construction, and Transition/Deployment and more importantly to focus the appropriate amount of effort on each.  One danger of explicit phases is that you run the risk of taking what's known as a Water-Scrum-Fall approach, a term coined by Dave West the person who wrote the forward for the DAD book, where you take an overly heavy/traditional approach to inception and transition in combination with a lighter agile approach to construction.  Water-Scrum-Fall occurs because many organizations haven't made a full transition to agile, often because they think it's only applicable to construction.  Our experience is that you can be very agile in your approach to inception and transition, experience we've built into the DAD framework.  Having said that it clearly requires discipline to keep inception activities short and similarly it requires discipline to reduce the "transition phase" to an activity. 
7. You adopt a wider range of roles.  An interesting side effect of adopting a full delivery lifecycle is that you also need to adopt a more robust set of roles.  For example, the Scrum method suggests three roles - Scrum Master, Product Owner, and Team Member - a reflection of the Scrum lifecycle's construction focus.  DAD suggests three primary roles - Team Lead, Product Owner, Team Member, Architecture Owner, and Stakeholder - as well as five secondary roles which may appear at scale.   
8. You embrace agile governance.  Governance establishes chains of responsibil­ity, authority and communication in support of the overall enterprise’s goals and strategy. It also establishes measurements, policies, standards and control mechanisms to enable people to carry out their roles and responsibilities effectively. You do this by balancing risk versus return on investment (ROI), setting in place effective processes and practices, defining the direction and goals for the department, and defining the roles that people play with and within the department.  It requires discipline to adopt an agile approach to governance, and that's something built right into the DAD framework.

My new white paper, Disciplined Agile Delivery: An Introduction, is now available free of charge from IBM.com. The paper overviews the Disciplined Agile Delivery (DAD) process framework, a hybrid comprised of strategies from Scrum, XP, Agile Modeling, and other agile methods which is people first, learning oriented, and enterprise aware. DAD is the basis from which you can scale agile.

Topics covered:

• Context counts - The Agile Scaling Model
• People first - People, and the way they interact with each other, are the primary determinant of success for a solution delivery project.
• Learning-oriented - The DAD process framework promotes the ideas that team members should collaborate closely and learn from each other, that the team should invest effort to learn from their experiences and evolve their approach, and that individuals should do so as well.
• Hybrid - DAD adopts and tailors strategies from Scrum, XP, Agile Modeling, UP, Kanban, and many others. It addresses many of the issues Mark Kennaley discusses in SDLC 3.0.
  
• IT solution focused - DAD teams produce potentially consumable solutions every construction iteration.  This extends Scrum's "potentially shippable" strategy to explicitly address usability/consumability plus the fact that we're really delivering full solutions not just software.
• Goal-driven delivery life cycle - The DAD lifecycle is focused on delivery, not just construction.  Furthermore it is goals-driven, the DAD process framework suggests various strategies to fulfill those goals but does not prescribe specific practices.
  
• Risk and value driven - The DAD lifecycle is risk and value driven.  It extends Scrum's value-driven lifecycle which produces potentially shippable software each sprint/iteration so that it explicitly includes light-weight milesstones such as ensuring stakeholder consensus as to the scope of the project early in the lifecycle, proving the architecture with working code early in the lifecycle, ensuring sufficient functionality exists before transition, and ensuring production readiness before actual release of the solution.
  
• Enterprise aware - The DAD process framework promotes the ideas that DAD teams should work closely with their enterprise architecture groups to ensure they leverage and evolve the existing infrastructure, adopt and follow corporate guidelines, and work to the overall organizational vision.  DAD teams are self organizing with appropriate governance.

For some reason, it seems as if everyone's grandfather at one point in time recommended to use the right tools for the job.  That's practical wisdom from my point of view, one that is certainly an issue for agile development. 


One of the primary messages, I hope, of the Agile Scaling Model (ASM) is that context counts.  Although the focus of the ASM is on describing a contextual framework for tailoring your process to meet the needs of the situation that you find yourself in, it's also applicable to your tooling selection.  For example, the tool choices of a co-located team will be much different than that of a geographically distributed team.  A co-located team will likely use a whiteboard or paper for their agile modeling efforts, whereas distributed team members may need to capture their diagrams using a more sophisticated tool such as Rational Requirements Composer (RRC) so that their work can be shared electronically.  Having said that, RRC would be overkill for a co-located team (unless they had regulatory compliance issues).  Different teams, different situations, therefore different tooling choices.


One of the concerns that I run into from customers is that some of our legacy products don't support agile very well.  Once again, it's a matter of context because many of our legacy products reflect the realities faced by more traditional teams.  The challenge occurs when you try to take a legacy product which is well suited for traditional development, such as Rational ClearCase, and try to apply it on agile projects.  Although ClearCase makes sense in certain scaling situations, particularly very large teams that are geographically distributed, you'd be better advised to use something like Rational Team Concert (RTC) for configuration management on most agile teams (note that RTC does far more than just SCM).


So, if you're taking an agile approach you should consider Rational tools such as RTC, RRC, Rational BuildForge, Rational AppScan, and others which support agile development.  Granted, some you would only use at scale -- for example Buildforge is a good option in really complex environments, but if you don't face that complexity then you'll likely find that RTC's build engine is sufficient.  Similarly, if you're taking a traditional approach to development then you'll likely consider products such as ClearCase, Appscan, RTC, and Rational Software Architect (RSA) instead.  Different situations, different tooling choices. 


What's even more confusing is that some products support a range of process paradigms.  For example, RTC supports agile, lean, iterative, and traditional approaches to development.  The same can be said of Appscan and several other products.  Notice how I listed RTC and Appscan for both agile and traditional development above. 


So, if anyone tells you that Rational tools don't support agile development don't believe them.  Ask them which tools that they're talking about, and ask them if they're aware of the Rational products that do support agile development.  Context counts.

There is a distinct rhythm, or cadence, at different levels of the agile process. We call this the agile 3C rhythm, for coordinate, collaborate, and conclude (which is sometimes called stabilize). The agile 3C rhythm occurs at three levels in Disciplined Agile Delivery (DAD):

1. Day. A typical day begins with a short coordination meeting, called a Scrum meeting in the Scrum method. After the daily coordination meeting the team collaborates throughout most of the day to perform their work. The day concludes with a working build, hopefully you had several working builds throughout the day, which depending on your situation may require a bit of stabilization work to achieve.
2. Iteration. DAD construction iterations begin with an iteration planning session (coordinate) where the team identifies a detailed task list of what needs to be done that iteration. Note that iteration modeling is often part of this effort. Throughout the iteration they collaborate to perform the implementation work. They conclude the iteration by producing a potentially consumable solution, a demo of that solution to key stakeholders, and a retrospective to identify potential improvements in the way that they work.
3. Release. The DAD lifecycle calls out three explicit phases - Inception, Construction, and Transition – which map directly to coordinate, collaborate, and conclude respectfully.

The agile 3C rhythm is similar conceptually to Deming’s Plan, Do, Check, Act (PDCA) cycle:

• Coordinate maps to plan
• Collaborate maps to do
• Conclude maps to check and act

IBM Rational recently published an update to my Agility@Scale e-book, which can be downloaded free of charge.  The e-book is a 21 page, 2.3 meg PDF (sorry about the size, guess the graphics did it) .   It overviews the Agile Scaling Model (ASM), Disciplined Agile Delivery (DAD), the scaling factors of Agility@Scale, and ends with some advice for becoming as agile as you can be.  In short it's a light-weight coverage of some of the things I've been writing about in this blog the past couple of years.  Could be a good thing to share with the decision makers in your organization if they're considering adoption agile strategies.

One of the scaling factors called out in the Agile Scaling Model (ASM) is domain complexity.  The general idea is that agile teams will find themselves in different situations where some teams are developing fairly straightforward solutions, such as an informational website, whereas others are addressing very complex domains, such as building an air-traffic control system (ATCS).  Clearly the team building an ATCS will work in a more sophisticated manner than the one building an informational website.  I don't know whether agile techniques have been applied in the development of an ATCS, although I have to think that agile's greater focus on quality and working collaboratively with stakeholders would be very attractive to ATCS delivery teams, I do know that agile is being applied in other complex environments: The 2009 Agility at Scale Survey found that 18% of respondents indicated that their organizations had success at what they perceived to be very complex problem domains,.

Increased domain complexity may affect your strategy in the following ways:

1. Reaching initial stakeholder consensus becomes difficult.  One of the risk reduction techniques called out in Disciplined Agile Delivery (DAD) is to come to (sufficient) stakeholder consensus at the beginning of the project during the Inception phase (called Sprint 0 in Scrum or Iteration 0 in other agile methods).  Stakeholder consensus, or perhaps "near concensus" or "reasonable agreement" are better terms, can be difficult to come to the more complex the problem domain is because the stakeholders may not fully understand the implications of what they're making decisions about and because there is likely a greater range of stakeholders with differing goals and opinions.  The implication is that your project initiation efforts may stretch out, increasing the chance that you'll fall back on the old habits of big requirements up front (BRUF) and incur the costs and risks associated with doing so. 
2. Increased prototyping during inception.   It is very common for disciplined agile teams to do some light-weight requirements envisioning during inception to identify the scope of what they're doing and to help come to stakeholder consensus.  The greater the complexity of the domain, and particularly the less your team understands about the domain, the more likely it is that you'll benefit from doing some user interface (UI) prototyping to explore the requirements.  UI prototyping is an important requirements exploration technique regardless of paradigm, and it is something that you should consider doing during both initial requirements envisioning as well as throughout the lifecycle to explore detailed issues on a just in time (JIT) manner.
3. Holding "all-hands reviews".    One strategy for getting feedback from a wide range of people is to hold an "all hands review" where you invite a large group of people who aren't working on a regular basis with your team to review your work to date.  This should be done occasionally throughout the project to validate that the input that you're getting from your stakeholder represenatives/product owners truly reflects the needs of the stakeholders which they represent.  The 2010 How Agile Are You? Survey found that 42% of "agile teams" reported running such reviews.
4. Increased requirements exploration.  Simple modeling techniques work for simple domains.  Complex domains call for more complex strategies for exploring requirements.  The implication is that you may want to move to usage scenarios or use cases from the simpler format of user stories to capture critical nuances more effectively.  A common misunderstanding about agile is that you have to take a "user story driven approach" to development.  This is an effective strategy in many situations, but it isn't a requirement for being agile.
5. The use of simulation.  You may want to take your prototyping efforts one step further and simulate the solution.  This can be done via concrete, functional prototypes, via simulation software, via play acting, or other strategies.
6. Addition of agile business analysts to the team.  Analysis is so important to agile teams we do it every day.  In situations where the domain is complex, or at least portions of the domain is complex, it can make sense to have someone who specializes in exploring the domain so as to increase the chance that your team gets it right.  This is what an agile business analyst can do.  There are a few caveats.  First, even though the domain is complex you should still keep your agile analysis efforts as light, collaborative, and evolutionary as possible.  Second, this isn't a reason to organize your team as a collection of specialists and thereby increase overall risk to your project.  The agile analyst may be brought on because their specialized skills are required, but the majority of the people on the team should still strive to be generalizing specialists.  This is also true of the agile analyst because their may not be eight hours a day of valuable business analysis work on the team, and you don't want the BA filling in their time with needless busy work.

The important thing is to recognize that the strategies which work well when you're dealing with a simple domain will not work well for a complex domain.  Conversely, techniques oriented towards exploring complex domains will often be overkill for simple domains.  Process and tooling flexiblity is key to your success.

1. Does the team regularly produce value for their stakeholders?
2. Does the team validate its own work to the best of its ability?
3. Are stakeholders actively involved?
4. Is the team self organizing?
5. Does the team strive to improve their process?

Some interesting results include:

• 94% of teams which are claiming to be agile are providing value to stakeholders on a regular basis.  
• 87% of teams which are claiming to be agile are validating their own work.  
• 95% of teams which are claiming to be agile are working closely with stakeholders.  
• 56% of teams which are claiming to be agile are self organizing. 
• 88% of teams which are claiming to be agile are improving the process that they follow throughout the lifecycle.  
• Teams which are claiming to be agile often aren't.  53% of "agile teams" meet the five criteria, although 72% meet all but the self-organization criteria.
• Teams which are moving towards agile but aren't there yet are reasonably close.  39% of those teams meet all five criteria and 63% meet all but self-organization.

• Whenever someone claims to be on an agile team you may want to explore that claim a bit deeper.
• The low level of self organization may be an indicator of cultural challenges with organizations in that their project managers aren't giving up sufficient control.  The Agility at Scale survey in November 2009 found that 59% of respondents who indicated that their organization hadn't adopted agile techniques yet that a rigid culture was hampering their efforts.  The IT Governance and Project Management survey in July 2009 discovered that "questionable behaviors", many of which were ethically questionable (I'm being polite), were far too common within IT project management.
• Although "agile teams" may not be as agile as they claim, they're still doing better than traditional V-model teams, as revealed (again) by the 2010 IT Project Success survey.
• If there was some sort of consensus within the agile community as to the criteria for determining whether a team is agile, I highly suspect that the agileness ratings would increase over time.  What gets measured often improves.
• However, how agile you are isn't anywhere near as important as getting better at what you're doing.  So perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree on this issue.  ;-) 

People who are new to agile are often confused about how agile teams address architecture, but luckily we're seeing more discussion around agile architecture now in the community so this problem is slowly being addressed from what I can tell.  But, what I'm not seeing enough discussion about, at least not yet, is how is enterprise architecture addressed in the overall agile ecosystem.  So I thought I'd share some thoughts on the subject, based on both my experiences over the years (see the recommended resources at the bottom of this posting) as well as on an enterprise architecture survey which I ran in January/February 2010. 

My belief is that effective enterprise architecture, particularly in an agile environment, is:

1. Business driven.  Minimally your EA effort should be driven by your business, not by your IT department.  Better yet it should be business owned, although this can be a challenge in many organizations because business executives usually aren't well versed in EA and view it as an IT function.  Yes, IT is clearly an important part of EA but it's not the entirety of EA nor is it the most critical part.  In many organizations the IT department initiates EA programs, typically because the business doesn't know to do so, but they should quickly find a way to educate the business in the need to own your organization's EA efforts.
   
2. Evolutionary. Your enterprise architecture should evolve over time, being developed iteratively and introduced incrementally over time.  An evolutionary approach enables you act on the concrete feedback that you receive when you try to actually implement it, thereby enabling you to steer its development successfully.
   
3. Collaborative. The EA survey clearly pointed to "people issues" being critical determinants of success, and of failure, of EA programs.  My experience is that the best enterprise architects, just like the best application architects, work closely with the intended audience of their work, both on the business side of things as well as on the IT side.  They will "roll up their sleeves" and become active members of development teams, often in the role of Architecture Owner on agile teams or Architect on more traditional teams.  Their mission is to ensure that the development teams that they work with leverage the EA, to mentor developers in architecture skills, and to identify what works and what doesn't in practice so that they can evolve the EA accordingly.  Enterprise architects, architects in general, who don't participate actively on development teams (holding architecture reviews isn't active participation) run the risk of being thought of as "ivory tower" and thus easy to ignore.
   
4. Focused on producing valuable artifacts.  The most valuable artifacts are useful to the intended audience, are light weight, and ideally are executable.  Many EA programs run aground when the enterprise architects focus on artifacts that they've always wanted but that development teams really aren't very excited about -- yes, it might be interesting to have a comprehensive comparison of cloud technologies versus mainframe technologies, but a collection of reusable services would be fare more interesting to them.  A detailed enterprise data model indicating suggested data attributes would be intellectually interesting to develop, but a list of legacy data sources with a high-level description of their contents would be immediately valuable to many development teams.  A detailed model depicting desired web services would be useful, but an actual collection of working services that I can reuse now would be even better.
   
5. An explicit part of development.  In Disciplined Agile Delivery (DAD) architectural activities are an explicit part of the overall delivery process.  Part of the architectural advice is that delivery teams should work closely with their organization's enterprise architects so that they can leverage the common infrastructure, and sometimes to help build it out, effectively.  Disciplined agile teams realize that they can benefit greatly by doing so. 
   

The Agile Scaling Model (ASM) calls out addressing enterprise disciplines, such as enterprise architecture, as one of eight scaling factors which may apply to a given project.  The interesting thing about this scaling factor is that it's the only one where things get potentially easier for development teams when we move from the simple approach, having a project focus, to the more complex approach, where we have an enterprise focus. By having a common infrastructure to build to, common guidelines to follow, and valuable artifacts to reuse project teams can benefit greatly.  So, I guess my advice is to seriously consider adding enterprise disciplines to your agile strategy.


Recommended Resources:

• Agile Architecture: Strategies for Scaling Agile
• Agile Enterprise Architecture
• The Architecture Owner Role: How Architects Fit in on Agile Teams
• Enterprise Architecture: Reality over Rhetoric
• Enterprise Architecture Survey Results

My new paper Scaling Agile: An Executive Guide is now available.  As the title suggests the paper overviews how to scale agile strategies to meet your organization's unique needs. 

The executive summary:
Agile software development is a highly collaborative, quality-focused approach to software and systems delivery, which emphasizes potentially shippable working solutions produced at regular intervals for review and course correction. Built upon the shoulders of iterative development techniques, and standing in stark contrast to traditional serial or sequential software engineering methods, agile software delivery techniques hold such promise that IBM has begun to adopt agile processes throughout its Software Group, an organization with over 25,000 developers. But how can practices originally designed for small teams (10-12) be “scaled up” for significantly larger operations? The answer is what IBM calls “agility@scale.”

There are two primary aspects of scaling agile techniques that you need to consider. First is scaling agile techniques at the project level to address the unique challenges individual project teams face. This is the focus of the Agile Scaling Model (ASM). Second is scaling your agile strategy across your entire IT department, as appropriate. It is fairly straightforward to apply agile on a handful of projects, but it can be very difficult to evolve your organizational culture and structure to fully adopt the agile way of working.

The Agile Scaling Model (ASM) defines a roadmap for effective adoption and tailoring of agile strategies to meet the unique challenges faced by a software and systems delivery team. Teams must first adopt a disciplined delivery lifecycle that scales mainstream agile construction techniques to address the full delivery process, from project initiation to deployment into production. Then teams must determine which agile scaling factors – team size, geographical distribution, regulatory compliance, domain complexity, organizational distribution, technical complexity, organizational complexity, or enterprise discipline, if any — are applicable to a project team and then tailor their adopted strategies accordingly to address their specific range of complexities.

When scaling agile strategies across your entire IT organization you must effectively address five strategic categories — the Five Ps of IT: People, principles, practices, process, and products (i.e., technology and tooling). Depending on your organizational environment the level of focus on each area will vary. What we are finding within many organizations, including IBM, is that the primary gating factor for scaling agile across your entire organization is your organization’s ability to absorb change.

When you are first adopting agile techniques in your organization a common strategy is to run one or more pilot projects.  When organizing these projects you typically do as much as you can to make them successful, such as finding:

1. Projects where the stakeholders are willing to actively work with you.
2. IT people who are flexible, willing to try new things, and willing to collaborate with one another.
3. IT people who are generalizing specialists, or at least willing to become so.
4. Finding a project which is of medium complexity (therefore it's "real" in the sense that it's significant to your organization) but not one where it can make or break your organization (therefore it's safe to experiment with).

In North America we refer to this as "cherry picking" because you're picking the cherry/best situation that you can find.

Some thoughts:

1. Being agile may not have been the primary determinant of success.  You set up an environment where you have a good relationship with your stakeholders, where you have good people who want to work together, and the project is challenging but not impossible.  Oh, and by the way you adopted a few agile techniques as well.  Sounds to me that situation you could have adopted a few not-so-agile techniques instead and still succeed.  Although my various project success surveys, see my IT surveys page for details, have shown time and again that agile project teams are more successful than traditional project teams I haven't been able to tease out (yet) whether this success is attributable to agile or just attributable to improved project initiation efforts.
   
2. When adopting agile/lean widely across your organization, you can't cherry pick any more.  For the past few years I've been working with IT organizations that are in the process of adopting agile/lean strategies across their entire organization, not just across a few pilot projects.  What these organizations are finding is that they need to find ways to adopt agile where the business isn't as willing to work with IT, where some of the people aren't so flexible or collaborative, where some of the people are narrowly specialized and not as willing to expand their skills, or where the project exhibits scaling factors which motivates you to tailor your agile approach.  It's harder to succeed with agile in these situations because they're not as "cherry" as what you've experienced previously.  Luckily, if you've been successful previously then you now have some agile experienced people, you have successes to reference, and you've likely overcome some problems even in the cherry situations which you have learned from.  So, your cherry successes will hopefully improve your ability to succeed even in "non cherry" situations.
   
3. You need to work smarter, not harder. If the source of your success was actually from improved project initiation practices and not from agile, then recognize that and act accordingly.  Realistically part of your success was from that and part was from agile, and the organizations that adopt a measured improvement approach potentially have the data to determine which practices lead to success and which didn't.  Without the metrics you're effectively flying blind when it comes to deciding how to improve.  There is clearly a mandate for smarter work practices within IT, within your organization as a whole for that matter.
   

If you want to gain more insight into some of the issues that you'll face when adopting agile across your organization, I suspect that you'll find my recent paper Scaling Agile: An Executive Guide to be interesting.  I've got a more detailed paper in the works, so stay tuned to this blog.

• Examining the Agile Manifesto 
• Reworking the Agile Manifesto for Enterprise Agile
• Scaling Agile: Start with a Disciplined Foundation
• Scaling Agile: The Software Development Context Framework
• Disciplined Agile Delivery (DAD) home page
• Generalizing Specialists: Improving Your IT Skills

Agile requirements activities are evolutionary (iterative and incremental) and highly collaborative in nature.  Initially requirements are explored at a high level via requirements envisioning at the beginning of the project and the details are explored on a just-in-time (JIT) basis via iteration modeling and model storming activities.  The way that you perform these agile practices, and the extent to which you do so, depends on the situation in which a project team finds itself.  The Agile Scaling Model (ASM) is a contextual framework for effective adoption and tailoring of agile practices to meet the unique challenges faced by a system delivery team of any size.  To see how this works, let's apply the concepts of the ASM to see how we would scale our agile approach to requirements. 

First, let's consider how a small, co-located team would work.  The first two categories of the ASM are core agile development and disciplined agile delivery, the focus of both are small co-located teams in a fairly straightforward situation.   In these situations simple techniques such as user stories written on index cards and sketches on whiteboards work very well, so the best advice that I can give is to stick with them.  Some teams will take a test-driven development (TDD) approach where they capture their requirements and design in the form of executable specifications, although this sort of strategy isn't as common as it should be (yet!), likely because of the greater skill and discipline that it requires. Traditionalists often balk at this approach, believing that they need to document the requirements in some manner.  But, for a small co-located team working in a collaborative manner, requirements documentation proves to be little more than busy work, often doing nothing more than justifying the existence of a business analyst who hasn't made the jump to agile yet.  Don't get me wrong, there are good reasons to write some requirements documentation, and we'll see this in a minute, but you should always question any request for written specifications and try to find more effective ways to address the actual goal(s) motivating the request.  Never forget that written documentation is the least effective communication option available to you.

Although inclusive tools such as whiteboards and paper work well for requirements, for development activities you will need electronic tools.  You will either put together an environment from point-specific tools or adopt something more sophisticated such as IBM Rational Team Concert (RTC) which is already fully integrated and instrumented.  RTC is a commercial tool, but luckily you can download a 10-license environment free of charge, which is just perfect for a small team.   Larger teams, of course, will need to purchase licenses. One of the things that a disciplined agile delivery approach adds to core agile development is it addresses the full delivery life cycle, which is important because it explicitly includes pre-construction activities such as requirements envisioning.  The first step in scaling agile techniques is to adopt a full delivery life cycle which covers the full range of activities required to initiate a project, produce the solution, and then release to solution to your end users. 

More interesting is the third category of the ASM, Agility@Scale, and how its eight agile scaling factors affect the way that you tailor your process and tooling strategy.  Let's explore how each one could potentially affect your agile requirements strategy:

1. Geographical distribution.  The majority of agile teams are distributed in some manner -- some people are working in cubicles or private offices, on different floors, in different buildings, or even in different countries -- and when this happens your communication and coordination risks goes up.  To counter this risk you will need to perform a bit more requirements envisioning up front to help ensure that everyone is working to the same vision, although this doesn't imply that you need to write detailed requirements speculations which would dramatically increase the risk to your project.  Remember, agilists do just barely enough modeling and are prepared to iteratively elicit the details when they need to do so.  The more distributed the team is the more likely they will need to adopt software-based requirements modeling tools such as IBM Rational Requirements Composer (RRC) which supports streamlined, agile requirements elicitation throughout the delivery life cycle. Index cards and whiteboards are great, but they're difficult to see if you're outside the room where they're posted.  I've written a fair bit about distributed agile development in this blog.
   
2. Team size.  Some organizations, including IBM, are successfully applying agile techniques with teams of hundreds of people.  A team of one hundred people will naturally work much differently than a team of ten people, or of one thousand people.  Large teams are organized into collections of smaller teams, and the requirements for the overall project must be divvied up somehow between those teams.  The implications are that as the team size grows you will need to invest a bit more time in initial requirements envisioning, and in initial architecture envisioning for that matter; you will need to use more sophisticated tools; and may need to use more sophisticated modeling techniques such as use cases and functional user interface prototypes. See large agile teams for more advice.
   
3. Compliance requirement.  When regulatory issues – such as Sarbanes Oxley, ISO 9000, or FDA CFR 21 – are applicable you are likely going to be required to capture requirements specifications in some manner and to enact traceability between those requirements.  However, I highly recommend that you read the actual regulations yourself and don't let bureaucrats interpret them for you (doesn't it always seem that their interpretation always results in an onerous, documentation heavy solution?) because I have yet to run into a regulation which required you to work in an ineffective manner.  Managing your requirements as work items in RTC can often more than meet your regulatory requirements for documentation and traceability, although you may want to consider a tool such as IBM Rational RequisitePro for complex regulatory situations.
4. Domain complexity.  The manner in which you elicit requirements for a data entry application or an informational web site will likely be much simpler than for a bio-chemical process monitoring or air traffic control system.  More complex domains will require greater emphasis on exploration and experimentation, including but not limited to prototyping, modeling, and simulation.  Although user stories may be effective as a primary requirements artifact in simple domains, in more complex domains you are likely to find that you need to drive your requirements effort with more sophisticated modeling techniques.
   
5. Organization distribution.  Sometimes a project team includes members from different divisions, different partner companies, or from external services firms.  In these cases, particularly where the work is strictly organized between the various organizations (perhaps for security concerns), you may need a more sophisticated approach to managing the requirements.  RTC enables you to organize the requirements between teams, and then to automatically track progress in real time via the RTC project dashboard.
   
6. Technical complexity.  The technical complexity of a solution can vary widely, from a single platform silo application to a multi-platform application working with legacy systems and data to a full-blown systems engineering effort.  Complex technical domains, just like complex business domains, require more complex strategies for requirements elicitation and management.  The requirements for your legacy systems are likely to have been captured using tools and techniques appropriate for that platform, for example the requirements for your COBOL application may have been captured using data flow diagrams and data models, whereas the requirements for your Java legacy application where captured using UML diagrams.   The subteam working on the COBOL system might be using IBM Rational Application Developer (RAD) and RTC for Z whereas the Java subteam may use Eclipse with RTC.  Because systems engineering projects can stretch on for years, particularly when the hardware is being developed in parallel to the software, sophisticated tooling such as IBM Rational DOORS is often used in these situations.  For more information about systems engineering, see the IBM Rational Harmony process.
7. Organizational complexity.  Your approach to requirements elicitation and management will be affected by a host of organizational complexities, including your corporate culture.  When the culture is flexible and collaborative you can be very agile in your approach to requirements, but as it becomes more rigid you become more constrained in what is considered acceptable and thus take on greater project risk.  For example, many organizations still struggle with their approach to funding projects, often demanding that the project team provides an "accurate" estimate up front to which they will be held to.  This in turn motivates risky behavior on the part of the development, including a "big requirements up front (BRUF)" approach where a detailed requirements speculation is developed early in the project.  This is just one example of how questionable corporate culture can impact the way in which an agile team works.
   
8. Enterprise discipline.  Some organizations have enterprise-level disciplines, such as enterprise architecture, enterprise business modeling, strategic reuse, and portfolio management in place.  These disciplines can easily be agile and from what I can tell the more successful efforts appear to lean more towards the agile end of the spectrum rather than the traditional end.  Having an enterprise business modeling effort underway will affect your project-level requirements strategy -- you'll be able to leverage existing models, have access to people who understand the domain at an enterprise level, and will likely need to map your project efforts back to your enterprise models.  The enterprise modelers will likely be using tools such as IBM Rational System Architect or IBM Websphere Business Modeler.
   

It is important to note that the way that you tailor the agile practices that you follow, and the tools that you use, will reflect the situation that you find yourself in.  In other words, you need to right size your process and the Agile Scaling Model (ASM) provides the context to help you do so.  As you saw above, in simpler situations you will use the simpler tools and techniques which are commonly promoted within the core agile development community.  But, when things become a bit more complex and one or more of the scaling factors applies you need to modify your approach -- just don't forget that you should strive to be as agile as you can be given the situation that you find yourself in.


Further reading:
• Rational's Agile Software Development Home Page (for webcasts, whitepapers, ...)
• The Agile Scaling Model (ASM): Adapting Agile Methods for Complex Environments white paper download
• DDJ's November 2009 State of the IT Union Survey for statistics around how organizations are scaling agile in practice
• Requirements Envisioning on Agile Projects at Scale
• Rethinking the Role of Business Analysts: Towards Agile Business Analysis?

Preview



+Advanced Settings
Emoticons
Delay publishing the entry until the following time:
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59   (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)

Allow comments forunlimited days1 day2 days3 days4 days5 days7 days10 days20 days30 days60 days90 days

Specify a custom URL for this entry:
URL: https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/ambler/entry/agile_requirements_at_scale

Include URL linking to external media (such as a podcast)
External media URL:


Return To Edit ModePreview
• Print this page
• Share this page
• Follow developerWorks
Share this page:
• Facebook
• LinkedIn
• Twitter
• Delicious
• Digg
• StumbleUpon
• Close [x]
Follow developerWorks:
• Facebook
• Twitter
• Close [x]
Technical topics
• AIX and UNIX
• IBM i
• Information
  Management
• Lotus
• Rational
• Tivoli
• WebSphere
• Cloud computing
• Industries
• Integrated Service
  Management
• Java technology
• Linux
• Open source
• SOA and web services
• Web development
• XML
More...
Evaluation software
• By IBM product
• By evaluation method
• By industry
Events
• Briefings
• Webcasts
• Find events
Community
• Forums
• Groups
• Blogs
• Wikis
• Terms of use
• Report abuse
• IBM Champion
  program
More...
About developerWorks
• Site help and feedback
• Contacts
• Article submissions
Related resources
• Students and faculty
• Business Partners
IBM
• Solutions
• Software
• Software services
• Support
• Product information
• Redbooks
• Privacy
• Accessibility

In 2009 I wrote a white paper entitled The Agile Scaling Model (ASM): Adapting Agile Methods for Complex Environments for IBM Rational.  Apparently it's been taken down, which I think is unfortunate as it contains some interesting ideas that your organization may be able to benefit from. 

The original white paper addresses several key issues:

1. It provides and explains a definition for disciplined agile delivery.  A more up to date discussion of DAD can be found on the Disciplined Agile Delivery site.
2. It describes criteria to determine is a team is agile.  I've explored this issue via several surveys over the years since then.  See the January 2013 How Agile Are You? results.
3. It describes the ASM, which distinguishes between core agile development techniques, disciplined agile delivery strategies, and agility at scale.  The ASM was superceded in early 2013 by the Software Development Context Framework (SDCF).  Perhaps this is why the ASM paper was taken down??
4. It overviews the eight scaling factors which a delivery team may face, scaling factors which motivate changes in the process that you will follow and the tools that you will adopt.  The SDCF provides my recent thoughts regarding scaling factors.  I have also run various IT Surveys over the years exploring how well organizations fare at scaling agile. 
5. It describes the implications of the ASM.  My blog posting Scaling Agile: Start with a Disciplined Foundation covers this very well.
6. It argues that you should strive to be as agile as you need to be, and that will be driven by the situation that you face.

 

The Agile Scaling Model (ASM) is a contextual framework for effective adoption and tailoring of agile practices to meet the unique challenges faced by a system delivery team of any size.

The ASM distinguishes between three scaling categories:

1. Core agile development. Core agile methods, such as Scrum and Agile Modeling, are self governing, have a value-driven system development lifecycle (SDLC), and address a portion of the development lifecycle. These methods, and their practices, such as daily stand up meetings and requirements envisioning, are optimized for small, co-located teams developing fairly straightforward systems.
2. Disciplined agile delivery. Disciplined agile delivery processes, which include Dynamic System Development Method (DSDM) and Open Unified Process (OpenUP), go further by covering the full software development lifecycle from project inception to transitioning the system into your production environment (or into the marketplace as the case may be). Disciplined agile delivery processes are self organizing within an appropriate governance framework and take both a risk and value driven approach to the lifecycle. Like the core agile development category, this category is also focused on small, co-located teams delivering fairly straightforward systems. To address the full delivery lifecycle you need to combine practices from several core methods, or adopt a method which has already done so.
3. Agility at Scale. This category focuses on disciplined agile delivery where one or more scaling factors are applicable. The eight scaling factors are team size, geographical distribution, regulatory compliance, organizational complexity, technical complexity, organizational distribution, domain complexity, and enterprise discipline. All of these scaling factors are ranges, and not all of them will likely be applicable to any given project, so you need to be flexible when scaling agile approaches to meet the needs of your unique situation. To address these scaling factors you will need to tailor your disciplined agile delivery practices and in some situations adopt a handful of new practices to address the additional risks that you face at scale.

The first step in scaling agile approaches is to move from partial methods to a full-fledged, disciplined agile delivery process. Mainstream agile development processes and practices, of which there are many, have certainly garnered a lot of attention in recent years. They’ve motivated the IT community to pause and consider new ways of working, and many organizations have adopted and been successful with them. However, these mainstream strategies (such as Extreme Programming (XP) or Scrum, which the ASM refers to as core agile development strategies) are never sufficient on their own; as a result organizations must combine and tailor them to address the full delivery life cycle. When doing so the smarter organizations also bring a bit more discipline to the table, even more so than what is required by core agile processes themselves, to address governance and risk.

The second step to scaling agile is to recognize your degree of complexity. A lot of the mainstream agile advice is oriented towards small, co-located teams developing relatively straightforward systems. But once your team grows, or becomes distributed, or you find yourself working on a system that isn’t so straightforward, you find that the mainstream agile advice doesn’t work quite so well – at least not without sometimes significant modification. Each of the scaling factors introduces their own risks, and when addressed effectively can actually reduce project risk, and for your project team to succeed you will want to identify the scaling factors applicable to the situation that you face and act accordingly. Unfortunately, this is a lot easier said (OK, in this case blogged about) than done.

IBM Rational advocates disciplined agile delivery as the minimum that your organization should consider if it wants to succeed with agile techniques. You may not be there yet, still in the learning stages. But our experience is that you will quickly discover how one or more of the scaling factors is applicable, and as a result need to change the way you work.


Further reading:

• The white paper The Agile Scaling Model (ASM): Adapting Agile Methods for Complex Environments goes into greater detail
• Rational's Agile Software Development Home Page (for webcasts, whitepapers, ...)

In the early days of agile, the applications where agile development was applied were smaller in scope and relatively straightforward. Today, the picture has changed significantly and organizations want to apply agile development to a broader set of projects. Agile hence needs to adapt to deal with the many business, organization, and technical complexities today’s software development organizations are facing. This is what Agility@Scale is all about – explicitly addressing the complexities which disciplined agile delivery teams face in the real world.These agile scaling factors which we've found to be important are:

1. Team size. Mainstream agile processes work very well for smaller teams of ten to fifteen people, but what if the team is much larger? What if it’s fifty people? One hundred people? One thousand people? Paper-based, face-to-face strategies start to fall apart as the team size grows.
2. Geographical distribution. What happens when the team is distributed, perhaps on floors within the same building, different locations within the same city, or even in different countries? Suddenly effective collaboration becomes more challenging and disconnects are more likely to occur.
3. Compliance requirement. What if regulatory issues – such as Sarbanes Oxley, ISO 9000, or FDA CFR 21 – are applicable? These issues bring requirements of their own that may be imposed from outside your organization in addition to the customer-driven product requirements.
4. Enterprise discipline. Most organizations want to leverage common infrastructure platforms to lower cost, reduce time to market, and to improve consistency. To accomplish this they need effective enterprise architecture, enterprise business modeling, strategic reuse, and portfolio management disciplines. These disciplines must work in concert with, and better yet enhance, your disciplined agile delivery processes.
5. Organizational complexity. Your existing organization structure and culture may reflect traditional values, increasing the complexity of adopting and scaling agile strategies within your organization. To make matters worse different subgroups within your organization may have different visions as to how they should work. Individually the strategies can be quite effective, but as a whole they simply don’t work together effectively.
6. Organization distribution. Sometimes a project team includes members from different divisions, different partner companies, or from external services firms. This lack of organizational cohesion can greatly increase the risk to your project.
7. Technical complexity. Some applications are more complex than others. It’s fairly straightforward to achieve high-levels of quality if you’re building a new system from scratch, but not so easy if you’re working with existing legacy systems and legacy data sources which are less than perfect. It’s straightforward to build a system using a single platform, not so easy if you’re building a system running on several platforms or built using several disparate technologies. Sometimes the nature of the problem that your team is trying to address is very complex in its own right.

Each factor has a range of complexities, and each team will have a different combination and therefore will need a process, team structure, and tooling environment tailored to meet their unique situation.


Further reading:

• Rational's Agile Software Development Home Page (for webcasts, whitepapers, ...)

[Read More]

The popular Agile literature can often seam naive when it comes to how Agilists work with project stakeholders:- Extreme Programming (XP) has a practice called On-Site Customer where one or more people work closely with your team to provide information and to make decisions in a timely manner.- Scrum has the role of Product Owner who is the one single person that the development team goes to for decisions about requirements. - Agile Modeling (AM) has the practice of Active Stakeholder Participation which extends On-Site Customer to get the stakeholder(s) actively involved with the modeling effort through the use of inclusive tools and techniques.

These are great strategies for small, co-located teams doing straightforward development, but they quickly fall apart at scale. This occurs for several reasons:1. Stakeholders are a diverse group. Your stakeholders include end users, business management, project funders, enterprise architects, operations staff, support staff, other system development teams, and many others. Different people have different, and often contradictory, requirements and they certainly have different priorities. It's questionable whether a single person, or a handful of persons, can adequately represent this diverse group.2. One person becomes a bottleneck. Even with a small co-located team this is a problem, let alone one that is geographically distributed or one that is very large. There's no way that a single person can be available 24/7 in a responsive manner to support distributed teams.3. It's a difficult role. The Product Owner/Customer (POC) is responsible for representing the business to the development team. They're making important decisions on a regular basis, decisions which they'll be held accountable for.4. One person becomes a serious project risk. Not only is it questionable whether a single person can fairly represent all stakeholders, even if they could what happens if you lose that person? They effectively become a single point of failure for your team.

To scale this role, consider the following strategies:1. Recognize the true scope of the POC role. Not only are they stakeholder proxies they also are a development team representative to the stakeholder community as a whole. As stakeholder proxies they'll make decisions and prioritize the work, they'll run requirements elicitation sessions, they'll negotiate priorities, and they'll put the development team in contact with stakeholders who have expertise in specific aspects of the domain. As team representatives they'll often demo the current version of the system to other stakeholders, communicate the status of the project to people, and respond to various requests for information from the stakeholders.2. Have multiple people in it. A single POC works well for small, co-located teams developing simple software. At scale you'll soon discover that you need multiple people in this role so that they don't become a bottleneck. For distributed teams it's common to see each subteam have one or more POCs who are managed by a primary/chief POC. The primary POC typically works on the coordinating team with the chief architect (I'll talk about this role in a future blog posting) and the program manager (also a topic for a future blog posting).3. Train them in business analysis skills. The person(s) in the POC role need good business analysis skills. If fact, it's common for people who were formerly BAs for traditional teams to step into the POC role, particularly with BAs who originally come from the business side of your organization. This strategy has its advantages and disadvantages. As a BA they've likely got solid business knowledge but their instincts may motivate them to take a documentation-driven approach to providing information to the development team instead of a collaboration-based approach. Be careful.4. Consider the full system development lifecycle. There's far more to the POC role than supporting the development team during Construction iterations. During "Iteration 0", the Inception phase for an Agile RUP project or the warm-up phase for an Eclipse Way project, the POC(s) will often lead the initial requirements envisioning efforts. The product backlog, or better yet your work item list, needs to come from somewhere after all. During the release iteration(s), the Transition phase for RUP or the End-Game phase for Eclipse Way, the POC(s) will focus on communicating the upcoming release to the stakeholder community, will be actively involved with any final user acceptance testing (UAT), and may even be involved with training end users.

In my January 2008 column in Dr Dobb's Journal, posted at http://www.ddj.com/architect/204801134 , I provide detailed advice about how to scale the way that you work with stakeholders on Agile projects by applying the practices of Agile Model Driven Development (AMDD). There's no magic solution, you just need to choose to organize yourself effectively. The good news is that you can easily work with stakeholders at scale.[Read More]

On April 25, 2013 I gave a webcast for the Global Rational User Community entitled Disciplined Agile Delivery: Going beyond Scrum .  During the webcast a large number of questions were asked but unfortunately I couldn’t get to all of them.  So I’ve taken the opportunity to write up the answers in this blog posting.

1. Fequently asked questions. Many of the questions are addressed in the DAD FAQ.
2. DAD elevator pitch - I will be starting work in a couple of weeks for a company that has just started its Agile journey this year by implementing Scrum. What would Scott put in an elevator chat as to why they should be moving towards DAD.  The Disciplined Agile Delivery (DAD) decision process framework is a people-first, learning-oriented hybrid agile approach to IT solution delivery. It has a risk-value delivery lifecycle, is goal-driven, is enterprise aware, and is scalable.  There are clearly some interesting aspects to the DAD framework. DAD is a hybrid approach which extends Scrum with proven strategies from Agile Modeling (AM), Extreme Programming (XP), Unified Process (UP), Kanban, Lean Software Development, Outside In Development (OID) and several other methods. DAD is a non-proprietary, freely available framework. DAD extends the construction-focused lifecycle of Scrum to address the full, end-to-end delivery lifecycle from project initiation all the way to delivering the solution to its end users. It also supports lean and continuous delivery versions of the lifecycle: unlike other agile methods, DAD doesn’t prescribe a single lifecycle because it recognizes that one process size does not fit all. DAD includes advice about the technical practices such as those from Extreme Programming (XP) as well as the modeling, documentation, and governance strategies missing from both Scrum and XP. But, instead of the prescriptive approach seen in other agile methods, including Scrum, the DAD framework takes a goals-driven approach. In doing so DAD provides contextual advice regarding viable alternatives and their trade-offs, enabling you to tailor DAD to effectively address the situation in which you find yourself. By describing what works, what doesn’t work, and more importantly why, DAD helps you to increase your chance of adopting strategies that will work for you.  The article Introduction to Disciplined Agile Delivery provides a more detailed description.
3. The book: Could you please repeat the name of the book that Scott is talking about?  The book is Disciplined Agile Delivery: A Practitioner’s Guide to Agile Software Delivery in the Enterprise published by IBM Press, June 2012.  The Disciplined Agile Delivery (DAD) website  and the Disciplined Agile Consortium website are also good DAD resources.
4. The Surveys: Where is the data published about geographic distribution and effectiveness?  All of my survey data, the original questions as asked, and my analysis can be downloaded free of charge from my IT Surveys page.  If you ever see a request from me to fill out a survey, please take a few minutes and do so.  I think you'll agree that my surveys page is in fact a very useful resource, so please contribute when you can.
5. Project success criteria: Where would a goal of defining success criteria fall?  In the DAD book we describe how the success criteria for the project should be initially identified during Inception. Success criteria, like other things, could evolve throughout the project.  You might find the IT Process Success Surveys to be of interest as several of them explored what success criteria projects actually have.  Interestingly, its rarely “on time, on budget, to specification”.
6. Transitioning to DAD: How would you typically phase a DAD implementation, let's say in a project pilot where they haven't been exposed yet to Agile?  Same question, any variance if the development team has already started Scrum?  This is a fairly complex question to answer.  The short story is that you need to invest some time to understand what your strengths and weaknesses are so that you can identify what you need to focus on.  You will then likely need to pilot strategies/techniques which are new to your organization before rolling them out widely.  You may also need to invest in training and coaching/mentoring depending on your needs.  My company, Scott Ambler + Associates, offers these sorts of services and more for organizations interesting in adopting disciplined agile strategies. 
7. Skills: I am aware that ideally developer should also be able to test but in reality theses are usually separate roles. Is it in line with your beliefs\suggestions?  Many organizations that are new to agile still have roles that reflect their existing strategy.  Non-agile approaches often have people in specific roles such as programmer, tester, designer, and so on. In DAD we promote a different set of agile roles that reflect agile thinking.  The implication is that you’re going to have to help individuals transition over to the new way of thinking, something we cover in Chapter 4 of the DAD book.  You might also find Mark Lines' blog, No role in DAD for an Analyst?  to provide some insights into issues surrounding the transition from traditional to agile roles.
8. Teaming: What happens with the Product Owner and the Architecture Owner don’t Agree?  See my blog What Happens When People Don’t Agree 
9. Skillsets: Different people of the team have different skills, experience, and time horizons.  We can't all be generalists, can we?  There are several agile roles in DAD, each of which have different rights, responsibilities, and skillsets.  So we’re not promoting the idea that everyone have the same skillset.  However, we do promote the philosophy that people should strive to be T-skilled generalizing specialists so as to improve their productivity.
10. Teaming: What are your thoughts on team cohesion?  Teams will gel over time.  Being co-located helps.  Having people who are dedicated 100% to the team helps.  Building a team of people who want to be there helps.  Self organization helps. 
11. Tool support: Is there an RMC plug-in for DAD + Is there any software behind DAD... or some software that supports it... such as Jazz (RTC) for Agile/Scrum?  Yes, IBM Rational does in fact have an RMC plug in for DAD.  There is also a template for Microsoft TFS from RDA Corp, Software Development Expert’s Practices Advisor supports DAD comprehensively, and I’m currently working with MethodPark to do so too.    Stay tuned to the Disciplined Agile Delivery website for information about tool support.
12. Governance: Regarding enterprise governance and enterprise IT, how do you start taking a culture that imposes common-process, common-tools, central (often outsourced) IT services, and heavyweight stage/gate across all organizations, and get that evolving toward a (still enterprise aware) lean/agile approach?  This is a hard one.  I’m often called into organizations to help with this very issue.  The challenge is that you need to have a deep understanding of IT governance techniques as well as how to govern agile teams.  Governance is something we discussed in detail in the DAD book as well as on the DAD site, see Adopting Agile Governance Requires Discipline. 
13. Executable specifications: TDD was mentioned, can you comment on Behavior Driven Development (BDD) and any impact on this lifecycle?  BDD is a slight nuance to acceptance test-driven development (ATDD).  BDD/ATDD and TDD are both potential practices that you might choose to follow on a DAD team.  I’ve written a fair bit about agile testing and quality strategies and about TDD in detail.
14. Architecture: When does the first version of architecture gets established and what would require to establish it? You typically start thinking about architecture early in a DAD project during Inception following a practice called architecture envisioning.  I’ve also written a fair bit about agile architecture techniques and the potential misconceptions about agile architecture that you may find interesting.
15. Travel plans: Will you be coming to South Africa at some point?  The good news is that Mark Lines, my co-author, will be in South Africa the week of May 20 in Joburg and the following week in Capetown.  Contact us for details.  I hope to be visiting SA later this year but exact dates haven’t been set yet.  So, please stay tuned on Twitter at @scottwambler for further announcements. 
16. Other travel plans: If you'd like me to speak at a local event, including corporate conferences or training events, please contact me. 

 

 

 

 

• Pre-production system integration testing.  Does the solution work within your overall organizational ecosystem?  Importantly, if this is one of several teams currently developing new solutions, does this team's solution work with what will be in production (including the work in progress of other teams) when they go to release?  In mid-to-large organizations the only economical way to do this sort of testing is via an independent, centralized team.
• Usability testing.  Although it's possible to do usability testing on the development team, the reality is that usability testing is a specialized skill that few people have (although could pick up via non-solo development).  Furthermore, particularly for solutions with many potential users, you may want to invest in a usability testing lab.  This is a centralized resource, or an outsourced resource these days, which is shared across many teams.
• Security testing.  Security testing is also a specialized skill, albeit one well supported with sophisticated security testing tools such as the Rational Appscan suite which can be included in your continuous integration (CI) strategy.  Many organizations will centralize their security testing efforts.
• Exploratory testing.  The fundamental goal of exploratory testing is to discover where the solution breaks, as opposed to confirmatory testing which focuses on showing that the solution conforms to the requirements (this is the type of testing the development team typically focuses on).  Exploratory testing is also a skill, a good one which everyone should strive to pick up, but exploratory testers are often few in number in many organizations.  So, to leverage their skills effectively you may want to have some of them on the independent test team while they mentor others while doing so.
• Non-functional testing. Non-functional requirements have a tendency to fall through the cracks on some development teams.  Knowing this the independent test team will often "test to the risk" and focus on non-functional issues.
• And much more.  The above points are just exemplars, not an exact list.  Please follow some of the links above for greater detail.

1. The developers still do the majority of the testing.  Just because there's an independent test team it doesn't imply that they are the ones doing all the testing.  In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.  They should be doing the minority of the testing effort, albeit the more difficult forms of it.
2. An independent test team will support multiple dev teams.  For example, a test team of 5-6 people could support several development teams totalling 70 to 80 people.  I typically look for a 15:1 or 20:1 ratio of developers to independent testers, hopefully even higher than that.
3. You need to consider better tooling.  Although the development team will still be using common agile testing tools such as the xUnit and FIT frameworks the independent test team (ITT) will need more sophisticated tooling.  First, the ITT will need to be able to report defects back to the team easily.  When the development team is using a Jazz-based tool such as Rational Team Concert (RTC) then this can easily be done using either RTC (the web interface may be sufficient) or another Jazz-enabled product such as Rational Quality Manager (RQM).  Second, the ITT will likely need more sophisticated testing tools, such as Rational Appscan for static and dynamic security testing and Rational Performance Tester (RPT) for performance testing (just two of several software quality management tools you should consider).
4. Independent testing is economical. Although I listed several tools in my previous point (hey, I do work for a vendor after all) an "unfortunate" implication of my advice (unfortunate for IBM at least) is that you can reduce the number of licenses that you require and still get this critical testing done by centralizing their use.
5. It may be a bit more complicated in regulatory environments.  In a strict regulatory environment the independent test team may need to repeat, or at least validate, the testing efforts of the development team.  In regulatory environments my fundamental advice is always this -- Have practical people, including yourself, read and interpret the regulations.  If you leave it to the bureaucrats you'll get a bureaucratic solution.
6. This is an important scaling technique.  Parallel independent testing, when done in an agile manner, is an important technique which you should consider when scaling agile strategies to meet the uniques needs of the situation that you find yourself in. 

This article has been replaced by an official "Disciplined Agile Manifesto".

 

The text of the original article remains below.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've recently been working with Mark Lines of UPMentors and we've had some interesting discussions around evolving the Agile Manifesto which I thought I would share here to obtain feedback.  Note that this is not any sort of official position of IBM, nothing in my blog is by the way (unless explicitly stated so), nor is it some sort of devious plot to take over the agile world (although if we did have some sort of devious plot, we'd make the exact same claim).  What we hope to accomplish is to put some ideas out there in the hopes of getting an interesting conversation going.

Over the past decade we’ve applied the ideas captured in the Agile Manifesto and have learned from our experiences doing so.  What we’ve learned has motivated us to suggest changes to the manifesto to reflect the enterprise situations which we have applied agile and lean strategies in.  We believe that the changes we’re suggesting are straightforward:

1. Where the original manifesto focused on software development, a term which too many people have understood to mean only software development, we suggest that it should focus on solution delivery.
2. Where the original focused on customers, a word that for too many people appears to imply only the end users, we suggest that it focus on the full range of stakeholders instead.
3. Where the original manifesto focused on development teams, we suggest that the overall IT ecosystem and its improvement be taken into consideration.
4. Where the original manifesto focused on the understanding of, and observations about, software development at the time there has been some very interesting work done within the lean community since then (and to be fair there was very interesting work done within that community long before the Agile Manifesto was written).  We believe that the Agile Manifesto can benefit from lean principles.

Our suggested rewording of the Agile Manifesto follows, with our suggested changes in italics.

Updating the Values of the Agile Manifesto

We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it.  Through this work we have come to value:

1. Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
2. Working solutions over comprehensive documentation
3. Stakeholder collaboration over contract negotiation
4. 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.

Updating the Principles behind the Agile Manifesto

1. Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable solutions.
2. Welcome changing requirements, even late in the solution delivery lifecycle. Agile processes harness change for the stakeholder’s competitive advantage.
3. Deliver working solutions frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale.
4. Stakeholders and developers must work together daily throughout the project.
5. Build projects around motivated individuals.  Give them the environment and support they need, and trust them to get the job done.
6. The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a delivery team is face-to-face conversation.
7. Quantified business value is the primary measure of progress.
8. Agile processes promote sustainable development.  The sponsors, developers, and users should be able to maintain a constant pace indefinitely.
9. Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility.
10. Simplicity--the art of maximizing the amount of work not done--is essential.
11. The best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-organizing teams.
12. At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly.
13. Leverage and evolve the assets within your organizational ecosystem, and collaborate with the people responsible for those assets to do so.
14. Visualize workflow to help achieve a smooth flow of delivery while keeping work in progress to a minimum.
15. The organizational ecosystem must evolve to reflect and enhance the efforts of agile teams, yet be sufficiently flexible to still support non-agile or hybrid teams. 

We’re agile – things evolve, including manifestos.  Looking forward to your feedback (add a comment).

 

Updates Since this Was First Published:

• February 2011: At the 10th Anniversary of the Agile Manifesto get together several people, including myself, brought up the idea of updating the Agile Manifesto.  Unfortunately the decision by the original writers of the manifesto was to adopt a very strict, non-agile change management approach where any changes to the manifesto would need the approval of all 17 of them.  So, pretty much zero chance of there ever being any changes (hence the lack of changes so far). 
• June 2012: This extension to the manifesto was retitled "A Disciplined Agile Manifesto" and published as in the book Disciplined Agile Delivery written by myself and Mark Lines.
• November 2012: Mark and I formed Scott Ambler+Associates.
• February 2013: The Disciplined Agile Consortium (DAC) is formed.  The mission of DAC is to evolve and support the Disciplined Agile Delivery (DAD) framework.
• April 2014: Official Disciplined Agile Manifesto posted on the Disciplined Agile Delivery (DAD) site.

Further reading:

• The Declaration of Interdependence (some other thoughts about, arguably, evolving the manifesto)
• Examining the Agile Manifesto
• Disciplined Agile Delivery website

 

 

 

One of the scaling factors of the Agile Scaling Model (ASM) is technical complexity.  The fundamental observation is that the underlying technology of solutions varies and as a result your approach to developing a solution will also need to vary.  It’s fairly straightforward to achieve high-levels of quality if you’re building a new system from scratch on a known technology platform, but not so easy when there are several technologies, the technologies are not well known, or legacy assets are involved.  

There are several potential technical complexities which a Disciplined Agile Delivery (DAD) team may face:

1. New technology platforms.  Your team may choose to work with a technology platform which is either new to the team or sometimes even new to the industry.  In the past few years new technology platforms include the Android operating system, Apple’s iPad platform, and various cloud computing (http://www.ibm.com/ibm/cloud/) platforms.  Working with these platforms may require you to adopt new development tools and techniques, not to mention the need to train and mentor your staff in their usage.  Furthermore, your team may need to allocate time for architectural spikes to explore how to use the new technology and to prove the overall architecture with working code early in the project lifecycle (this is a DAD milestone).   
2. Multiple technology platforms.  IT solutions often run on multiple platforms.  For example, a system’s user interface (UI) could run in a browser, access business logic implemented using J2EE on Websphere which in turn invokes web services implemented in COBOL running on a Z-series mainframe, and stores data in an Oracle database, a DB2 database, and in several XML files.  Implementing new business functionality, or updating existing functionality, could require changes made on several of these platforms in parallel.  The implication is that you’ll need to adopt tools and strategies which enable your team to develop, test, and deploy functionality on all of these platforms.  Testing and debugging in particular will become more difficult as the number of technology platforms increases, potentially requiring you to adopt the practice of parallel independent testing.  The Agility at Scale survey found that 34% of respondents indicated that their agile teams were working with multiple technology platforms.
   
3. Legacy data.  IT solutions should leverage existing, legacy data wherever possible to reduce the number of data sources and thereby increase data quality within your organization.  Also, using existing data sources can potentially speed up development, assuming your team has a good relationship with the owners of the legacy data sources (sadly, this often isn’t the case as the Data Management Survey found).  Working with legacy data sources may require improved database regression testing, practices, database refactoring practices, and agile approaches to data administration. The Agility at Scale survey found that 42% of respondents indicated that their agile teams were working with legacy data sources (personally, I’m shocked that this figure is so low, and fear that many agile teams are contributing to data quality problems within their organization as a result).
   
4. Legacy systems.  There are several potential challenges with legacy systems.  First, the code quality may not be the best either because it was never really that good to begin with or because it’s degraded over the years as multiple people worked with it.  You know you’ve got a quality problem if you’re either afraid to update the code or if when you do so you have to spend a lot of time debugging and then fixing problems revealed when doing the update.  If the legacy system is a true asset for your organization you will want to pay off some of this technical debt by refactoring the code to make it of higher quality.  Second, you may not have a full regression test suite in place, making it difficult to find problems when you do update the code let alone when you refactor it.  Third, your development tools for your legacy code may be a bit behind the times.  For example, I often run across mainframe COBOL developers still working with basic code editors instead of modern IDEs such as Rational Developer for System Z.   Some of the strategies to deal effectively with legacy systems are to adopt a modern development toolset if you haven’t already done so (better yet, if possible adopt a common IDE across platforms and thereby reduce overall licensing and support costs) and to adopt agile practices such as static code analysis, dynamic software analysis, and continuous integration (CI).  The Agile Project Initiation Survey found that 57% of respondents were integrating their new code with legacy systems and 51% were evolving legacy systems.
5. Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) solutions.  COTS solutions, also called package applications, can add in a few complexities for agile teams.  The packages rarely come with regression test suites, they often have rules about what you can modify and what you shouldn’t (rules that are ignored at your peril), and they’re often architected with the assumption that they’re the center of the architectural universe (which is a valid assumption if they’re the only major system within your organization).  As I describe in my article Agile Package Implementations it is possible to take an agile approach to COTS implementations, although it may require a significant paradigm shift for the people involved. The Agility at Scale survey found that 15% of respondents indicated that their agile teams were working with COTS solutions.  
6. System/embedded solutions.  For the sake of simplicity, if your team is developing a solution with both hardware and software aspects to it then you’re a systems project.  Embedded systems are a specialization where the system has a few dedicated functions often with real-time constraints.  Bottom line is that systems/embedded projects are typically more challenging than software-only projects – it gets really interesting when laws of physics starts to kick in, such as when you’re building satellites or space probes.  I highly suggest Bruce Douglass’s book Real-Time Agility if you are interested in taking an agile approach to systems/embedded solution delivery.
   

The technical complexity faced by a project team is contextual – Working with four technology platforms is straightforward for someone used to dealing with seven, but difficult for someone used to dealing with just one.

Recommended Reading:

• Agile Legacy System Analysis and Integration Modeling 
• Scaling Agile: An Executive Guide

One of the scaling factors called out in the Agile Scaling Model (ASM) is “regulatory compliance”.   This name is a bit of a misnomer because this scaling factor really addresses two issues: complying to regulations imposed upon you from external sources and choosing to adhere to internal regulations willingly adopted by your organization.   It is relatively common for agile teams to find themselves in such situations.  For example, in the 2009 Agile Practices Survey one third of respondents said that they were applying agile on projects where one or more industry regulations applied.

First let’s consider external regulatory compliance.  In these situations you may face the need to undergo an audit by an external regulatory body with consequences for non-compliance ranging from anywhere to a warning to a fine or even to legal action.  Sometimes even a warning may be a grave thing.  A few years ago I was working with a pharmaceutical company which had discovered that a warning from the FDA for non-compliance with their CFR 21 Part 11 regulation, when reported in major newspapers, resulted on average in a half-billion dollar loss to their market capitalization as the result of a dip in their stock price.   There are financial regulations such as Sarbanes-Oxley and Basel II, informational regulations such as HIPAA which focuses on health information  privacy, technical regulations such as ISO 27002 for security practices, and even life-critical regulations such as some of the FDA regulations.  

External regulations are typically managed by a government organization or industry watchdog will range in complexity and can have a myriad of effects on project teams.  For example, you may need to be able to prove that you had a documented process and that you followed it appropriately; you may need to produce extra artifacts, or more detailed artifacts, than you normally would; you may need to add extra features to your solution, such as tracking financial information, that you wouldn’t have normally implemented; you may need to produce specific reports to be submitted to the regulatory body; or you may even need to submit your team to audits, sometimes scheduled and sometimes not, to ensure regulatory compliance.  Interestingly, even though many of those requirements go against the agile grain, the 2009 Agility at Scale Survey found that organizations were successfully applying agile techniques while still conforming to external regulations.  So yes, it is possible to scale your agile strategy to address regulatory compliance.

Second, let’s consider compliance to internally adopted, or sometimes even developed, “regulations” which you will be potentially evaluated/appraised against.  Perfect examples of these are process improvement frameworks such as CMMI and ISO 900x.  Similar to external regulations, the 2009 Agility at Scale Survey found that some agile teams are succeeding in situations where they have chosen to adopt such frameworks.  It’s important to note that frameworks such as CMMI aren’t primarily about ensuring the compliance of development teams to a standard process, regardless of what CMMI detractors may claim, but instead about process improvement.  Process improvement at the IT department (or beyond) is an enterprise discipline issue from the point of view of ASM, implying that frameworks such as CMMI affect more than one scaling factor.  

When you find yourself in a regulatory situation, whether those regulations are imposed or willingly adopted, the best advice that I can give is to read the regulations and develop a strategy to conform to them in the most agile manner possible.  If you let bureaucrats interpret the regulations you’ll likely end up with a bureaucratic strategy, but if you instead choose to take a pragmatic approach you will very likely end up with a very practical strategy.  Part of that strategy is to treat the regulatory representative(s) within your organization as important stakeholders whom you interact with regularly throughout the project.

Rolf Nelson recently recorded a short (5 min) podcast about IBM Rational Team Concert (RTC).  RTC is a complete agile collaborative development environment providing agile planning, source code management, work item management, build management, and project health, along with integrated reporting and process support.  I've worked with RTC for a couple of years now and have been truly impressed with it.  What should be of interest to many people is the Express-C version which is a free, fully-featured, 10-license version of RTC which can be easily downloaded from www.jazz.net.  

My January 2010 DDJ Agile Update, Tragic Mistakes When Adopting Test Driven Development (TDD) , is now online.  In the article I summarize what I consider to be common, and tragic, mistakes that I'm seeing organizations make when they attempt to adopt TDD.

These mistakes include:

• Not providing sufficient training, education, and mentoring
• Not supporting pair programming
• Not reducing the creation of non-executable detailed speculations early in the project
• Not reducing the confirmatory testing being done by their independent QA/testing team
• Completely reducing initial requirements envisioning and architecture envisioning
• Completely reducing parallel independent testing

The article also goes into potential benefits of TDD as well as potential challenges that you're face when adopting it.

On Tuesday, Dec 1, 2009 Philippe Kruchten, Bruce MacIsaac, and myself participated on two virtual panels about the future of the Unified Process (we did two to support callers from around the globe) for the Global Rational User's Group (GRUG).  During the panel sessions we discussed a bit of the history of the Unified Process, some of the misconceptions people have with it, some of the common mistakes people made implementing it (instantiating it to be documentation heavy and/or serial) due to those misconceptions, how it can be very agile if you choose to instantiate it that way, the OpenUP, the AUP, how UP relates to the IBM Practices, and other topics. 

The links to the recordings are:

• The Future of the Unified Process Virtual Panel 1
• The Future of the Unified Process Virtual Panel 2

Hope you find it interesting.  As I've written in the past, the RUP can be as agile as you want to make it.  Furthermore, there are a lot of really good ideas in the RUP that the agile community can and should choose to mine, although sadly I see far too many teams doing things the hard way and reinventing the process wheel on their own.  I hope they're enjoying themselves, because it clearly isn't a very efficient way for them to go about process improvement.

When you’re inside, safe in the warmth of your home watching snow fall on your driveway outside, all snowflakes look the same. But, when you look at a snowflake up close, particularly when you do so under a microscope, you quickly discover that all snowflakes are in fact unique.

It’s the same with IT projects.  When you look at them from afar, particularly from a very high level, they all look the same.  However, when you look at them up close, you quickly discover that they too are unique.  The agile scaling factors, which are really just general scaling factors applicable to all types of IT project regardless of paradigm, help to make this very clear.  For example, when it comes to team size some teams are small, less than ten people perhaps, some are medium sized, and some are very large (with hundreds of people).  When it comes to distribution some teams are co-located in the same room, some teams have team members in different cubicles in the same building, some have people working in different buildings, and some even have people working in different countries.  Many agile teams work in regulatory environments, in fact the July 2009 DDJ State of the IT Union survey reports that one third of agile teams must comply to industry regulations, although clearly many agile teams do not have this as a concern.  That’s only three scaling factors.  The point is that a small, co-located team working in a non-regulatory environment will work much differently than a fifty-person team working in three different locations, which in turn works differently than a two hundred person team in the same building working in a regulatory situation.  Different teams, facing different scaling issues will work in different ways – unique snowflakes from a process point of view.

At Agile 2009 in August Sue McKinney, VP of Development Transformation with IBM Software Group, was interviewed by DZone's Nitin Bharti about IBM's experiences adopting agile techniques.  There are over 25,000 developers within IBM Software Group alone.   Follow the link to the interview to view it online (there is also a text transcript posted there.  There's some great insights into the realities of scaling agile in large teams, in distributed agile development, and in particular how to transform a large organization's development staff.

When I talk to people about scaling agile techniques, or about agile software development in general, I often put describe strategies in terms of various risks.  I find that this is an effective way for people to understand the trade-offs that they're making when they choose one strategy over another.  The challenge with this approach is that you need to understand these risks that you're taking on, and the risks that you're mitigating, with the techniques that you adopt.  Therein lies the rub, because the purveyors of the various process religions ( oops I mean methodologies) rarely seem to coherently the discuss the risks which people take on (and there's always risk) when following their dogma (oops, I mean sage advice).

For example, consider the risks associated with the various strategies for initially specifying requirements or design.  At the one extreme we have the traditional strategy of writing initial detailed speculations, more on this term in a minute, and at the other extreme we have the strategy of just banging out code.  In between are Agile Modeling (AM) strategies such as requirements envisioning and architecture envisioning (to name a few AM strategies).  Traditionalists will often lean towards the former approach, particularly when several agile scaling factors apply, whereas disciplined agile developers will lean towards initial envisioning.  There are risks with both approaches.

Let's consider the risks involved with writing detailed speculations (there's that term again):

1. You're speculating, not specifying.  There is clearly some value with doing some up-front requirements or architecture modeling, although the data regarding the value of modeling is fairly slim (there is a lot of dogma about it though), but that value quickly drops off in practice.  However, the more you write the greater the chance that you're speculating what people want (when it comes to requirements) or how you're going to build it (when it comes to architecture/design).  Traditionalists will often underestimate the risks that they're taking on when they write big requirements up front (BRUF)  , or create big models up front (BMUF) in general, but in the case of BRUF the average is that a large percentage of the functionality produced is never used in practice -- this is because the detailed requirements "specifications" contained many speculations as to what people wanted, many of which proved to be poor guesses in practice.
2. You're effectively committing to decisions earlier than you should.  A side effect of writing detailed speculations is that by putting in the work to document, validate, and then update the detailed speculations the decisions contained in the speculations become firmer and firmer.  You're more likely to be willing to change the content of a two-page, high-level overview of your system requirements than you are to change the content of a 200-page requirements speculation that has been laboriously reviewed and accepted by your stakeholders.   In effect the decision of what should be built gets "carved in stone" early in the process.  One of the principles of lean software development is to defer decisions as late as possible, only making them when you need to, thereby maximizing your flexibility.  In this case by making requirements decisions early in the process through writing detailed speculations, you reduce your ability to deliver functionality which meets the actual needs of your stakeholders, thereby increasing project risk.
3. You're increasing communication risk.  We've known for decades that of all the means of communication that we have available to us, that sharing documentation with other people is the riskiest and least effective strategy available to us for communicating information (face-to-face communication around a shared sketching environment is the most effective).  At scale, particularly when the team is large or the team geographically distributed, you will need to invest a little more time producing specifications then when the team is co-located, to reduce the inherent risks associated with those scaling factors, but that doesn't give you license to write huge tomes.  Agile documentation strategies still apply at scale.  Also, if you use more sophisticated tooling you'll find it easier to promote collaboration on agile teams at scale.
4. You're traveling heavy.  Extreme Programming (XP) popularized the concept of traveling light. The basic idea is that any artifact that you create must be maintained throughout the rest of the project (why create a document if you have no intention of keeping it up to date).  The implication is that the more artifacts you create the slower you work due to the increased maintenance burden.

There are also risks involved with initial envisioning:

1. You still need to get the details.  Just because you're not documenting the details up front doesn't imply that you don't need to understand them at some point.  Agile Modeling includes several strategies for exploring details throughout the agile system development life cycle (SDLC), including iteration modeling performed at the beginning of each iteration as part of your overall iteration planning activities, just in time (JIT) model storming throughout the iteration, and test-driven development (TDD) for detailed JIT executable specification.
2. You need access to stakeholders. One of the fundamental assumptions of agile approaches is that you'll have active stakeholder participation throughout a project.  You need to be able to get information from your stakeholders in a timely manner for the previously listed AM  techniques to work effectively.  My experience is that this is fairly straightforward to achieve if you educate the business as to the importance of doing so and you stand up and fight for it when you need to.  Unfortunately many people don't insist on access to stakeholders and put their projects at risk as a result.
3. You may still need some documented speculations.  As noted previously you may in fact need to invest in some specifications, particularly at scale, although it's important to recognize the associated risks in doing so.  For example, in regulatory compliance situations you will find that you need to invest more in documented speculations simply to ensure that you fulfill your regulatory obligations (my advice, as always, is to read the regulations and then address them in a practical manner).

The ways that you approach exploring requirements, and formulating architecture/design, are important success criteria regardless of your process religion/methodology.  No strategy is risk free, and every strategy makes sense within given criteria.  As an IT professional you need to understand the risks involved with the various techniques so that you can make the trade-offs best suited for your situation.  One process size does not fit all.

My final advice is to take a look at the Disciplined Agile Delivery (DAD) framework as it provides a robust strategy for addressing the realities of agile software development in enterprise settings.

 

For several years now I've written various articles and newsletters on the topics of estimating and funding strategies for software development projects, and in particular for agile software development projects. Whenever I talk to people about agile software development, or coach them in how to succeed at it, some of the very first questions that I'll be asked, particularly by anyone in a management role, is how to fund agile software development projects. Apparently a lot of people think that you can only apply agile strategies on small, straightforward projects where it makes sense to do a time and materials (T&M) approach. In fact you can apply agile strategies in a much greater range of situations, as the various surveys that myself and others are showing time and again. My goal with this blog posting is to summarize the various strategies for, and issues surrounding, the funding of agile software development projects.

There are three basic strategies for funding projects, although several variations clearly exist. These strategies are:

1. "Fixed price". At the beginning of the project develop, and then commit to, an initial estimate based on your up-front requirements and architecture modeling efforts. Hopefully this estimate is given as a range, studies have shown that up-front estimating techniques such as COCOMO II or function points are accurate within +/- 30% most of the time although my July 2009 State of the IT Union survey found that on average organizations are shooting for +/- 11% (their actuals come in at +/- 19% on average, but only after doing things such as dropping scope, changing the estimate, or changing the schedule). Fixed-price funding strategies are very risky in practice because they promote poor behavior on the part of development teams to overcome the risks foisted upon them as the result of this poor business decision. It is possible to do agile on a fixed budget but I really wouldn't recommend it (nor would I recommend it for traditional projects). If you're forced to take a fixed-price approach, and many teams are because the business hopes to reduce their financial risk via this approach not realizing that it actually increases their risk, then adopt strategies that reduce the risk.
2. Stage gate. Estimate and then fund the project for given periods of time. For example, fund the project for a 3-month period then evaluate it's viability, providing funding for another period of time only to the extent that it makes sense. Note that stages don't have to be based on specific time periods, they could instead be based on goals such as to intiate the project, prove the architecture with working code, or to build a portion of the system. Disciplined agile methods such as Open Unified Process have built in stage-gate decision points which enable this sort of strategy. When the estimation technique is pragmatic, the best approaches are to have either the team itself provide an estimate for the next stage or to have an expert provide a good gut feel estimate (or better yet have the expert work with the team to develop the estimate). Complex approaches such as COCOMO II or SLIM are often little more than a process facade covering up the fact that software estimating is more of an art or a science, and prove to be costly and time consuming in practice.
3. Time and materials (T&M). With this approach you pay as you go, requiring your management team to actually govern the project effectively. Many organizations believe a T&M strategy to be very risky, which it is when your IT governance strategy isn't very effective. An interesting variation, particularly in a situation where a service provider is doing the development, is an approach where a low rate is paid for their time which covers their basic costs, the cost of materials is paid out directly, and delivery bonuses are paid for working software. This spreads the risk between the customer/stakeholder and the service provider. The service provider has their costs covered but won't make a profit unless they consistently deliver quality software.

The point is that there are several strategies for funding agile software development projects, just like there are several strategies for funding traditional software development projects. My experience is that fixed-price funding strategies are incredibly poor practice which increases the risk of your software development projects dramatically. I recognize how hard it can be to change this desire on the part of our business stakeholders, but have also had success changing their minds. If you choose to perservere, which is a difficult decision to make, you can help your organization's decision makers to adopt more effective strategies. Like you they want to improve the effectiveness of your IT efforts.


Further reading: (In recommended order)

1. Something's Gotta Give: Argues for a flexibly approach to funding, schedule, and/or scope.
2. Agile on a Fixed Budget: Describes in detail how to take a fixed-price approach on agile projects.
3. The Dire Consequences of Fixed-Price IT Projects: Describes in detail the questionable behavior exhibited by IT teams when forced to take a fixed-price approach.
4. Is Fixed-Price Software Development Unethical?: Questions the entire concept of fixed-price IT projects, overviewing some of the overwhelming evidence against this really poor practice.
5. Reducing the Risk of Fixed-Price Projects: Describes viable strategies for addressing some of the problems resulting from the decision of fixed-price projects.
6. Strategies for Funding Software Development Projects: Describes several variations on the strategies described above.
7. Lies, Great Lies, and Software Development Project Plans: Summarizes some results from the July 2009 State of the IT Union survey which explored issues related to project funding (among many).

[Read More]

I recently wrote an "e-book" for Internet Evolution overviewing agile software development at scale. The goal of the Agility at Scale: Become as Agile as You Can Be ebook is to get people thinking outside of the box a bit when it comes to agile development strategies and see that they really are ready for primetime.





[Read More]

Recently I visited a customer who had adopted Scrum. They were a few sprints, what Scrum calls iterations, into the project and were running into some difficulties. Although I was primarily brought in to educate senior management on disciplined agile software development, I was also asked to sit in on the team’s daily stand-up meeting so that I could hopefully provide some suggestions as to how to address the problems they were running into.

Their work area was fairly typical. They had some whiteboards which they were using for project planning and tracking, with sticky notes to indicate what work had been taken on by each team member. The current status of the task (not yet started, in progress, and completed) was indicated by putting each sticky note in a corresponding column for the status and corresponding column for the team member. This allowed everyone on the team to easily share their status and to see the status of everyone else. On the sides were sketches of the architecture as well as some business oriented models. In addition to Scrum the team had adopted several practices from Agile Modeling, in this case they had done some initial requirements envisioning and architecture envisioning, as well as practices from Extreme Programming (XP) for construction. In short, they had followed a fairly common strategy of combining practices from various agile methods.

This would have worked perfectly fine if they had tailored the practices to reflect the situation that they were in, but instead they adopted them "straight out of the book". First, the team was distributed, with most of the team in the location that I was visiting but some people located in two other distant cities. Therein was the source of most of their problems. The people at the other two locations weren’t getting much value out of the daily stand-up meetings, even though they would dial in, because they couldn’t see the project status information. Although people at this location were trying their best to represent these distant people in the daily stand-ups it wasn’t working well – their status information wasn’t being kept up to date and for some people it was a bit of mystery as to what they were actually working on at all.

This team also had 30 people in it, which isn’t a big deal although it can stretch the limits of the simple modeling and planning tools (in this case paper and whiteboards) that they were using. Because the team was larger they were investing a fair bit of time creating burn down charts at both the iteration/sprint and project levels. One of the unfortunate implications of using manual tools for project management is that any associated metric/status reporting in turn becomes manual as well. Considering how the agile community is so concerned with working efficiently, I find it comical that we have a tendency to overlook our own potentially unnecessary bureaucracy such as this.

The problem was that the team was applying strategies, in this case using sticky notes and whiteboards to capture the detailed iteration plan, applying similar strategies to capture key models, and were verbally relaying of status information between sub-teams. There are perfectly fine strategies for smaller co-located teams, but not so good for large or distributed teams. The solution was to recognize that they were in an Agility@Scale situation and needed to tailor their approach to reflect this fact. In this case they needed to forgo some of the manual tools and instead use electronic tooling such as Rational Team Concert (RTC) to share information across disparate locations, in particular the work assignment and corresponding status information. RTC also creates common agile reports such as burn-down charts based on the activities of the developers, providing accurate (nearly) real-time information while removing the burden of status reporting. The RTC project dashboard does more than just this, to see an actual example of one visit www.jazz.net to see the dashboard for the RTC development team itself. You can also see their actual work item list too, a more advanced version of Scrum’s product and sprint backlogs.[Read More]

I've been getting a lot of questions lately about applying the acceleration metric in practice. So, here's some answers to frequently asked questions:
1. How do I monetize acceleration? This is fairly straightforward to do. For example, assume your acceleration is 0.007 (0.7%), there are five people on the team, your annual burdened cost per person is $150,000, and you have two week iterations. All these numbers are made up, but you know how to calculate acceleration now and IT management had darn well better know the average burdened cost (salary plus overhead) of their staff. So, per iteration the average burdened cost per person must be $150,000/26 = $5,770. Productivity improvement per iteration for this team must be $5,770 * 5 * .007 = $202. If the acceleration stayed constant at 0.7% the overall productivity improvement for the year would be (1.007)^26 (assuming the team works all 52 weeks of the year) which would be 1.198 or 19.8%. This would be a savings of $148,500 (pretty much the equivalent of one new person). Of course a 20% productivity increase over an entire year is a really aggressive improvement, regardless of some of the claims made by the agile snake oil salesman out there, although at 10-15% increase is a reasonable expectation. What I'd really want to do is calculate the acceleration for the year by comparing the velocity from the beginning of the year to the end of the year (in Western cultures I'd want to avoid comparing iterations near to the holidays). So, if the team velocity the first week of February 2008 was 20 points, now the same team's velocity the first week of February 2009 was 23 points, that's an acceleration of (23-20)/20 = 15% over a one year period, for a savings of $112,500.
2. Is acceleration really unitless? For the sake of comparison it is. The "units" are % change in points per iteration, or % change in points per time period depending on the way that you want to look at it. Because it's a percentage I can easily monetize it, as you see above, and use it as a basis of comparison.
3. How do I convince teams to share their data? This can be difficult. Because acceleration is easy to calculate for agile teams, and because it's easy to use to compare teams (my team has .7% acceleration whereas other teams down the hall from mine have accelerations of .3% and -.2% of teams), people are concerned that this metric will be used against them. OK, to be fair, my team might be OK with this. ;-) Seriously though, this is a valid fear that will only be addressed by an effective governance program based on enablement, collaboration, and trust instead of the traditional command-and-control approach. Management's track record regarding how they've used measurements in the past, and how they've governed in general, have a great effect on people's willingness to trust them with new metrics such as acceleration. The implication is that you need to build up trust, something that could take years if it's possible at all.
4. Why does this work for agile teams? Agile teams are self organizing, and an implication of that is that they will be held accountable for their estimates. Because of this accountability, and because velocity is a vital input into their planning and estimation efforts, agile teams are motivated to calculate their velocity accurately and to track it over time. Because they're eager to get their velocity right, and because acceleration is based on velocity, there's an exceptionally good chance that it's accurate.
5. What about function points or similar productivity measures? Function points can be calculated for projects being developed via an agile approach, or other approaches for that matter, but it's a very expensive endeavor compared to calculating acceleration (which is essentially free) and likely will be seen as a bureaucratic overhead by the development team. My rule of thumb is that if you're not being explicitly paid to count function points (for example the US DoD will often pay contracting companies to create estimates based on function point counts) then I wouldn't bother with them.
6. What about calculating acceleration for iterative project teams? Iterative project teams, perhaps following Rational Unified Process (RUP), can choose to calculate and track their velocity and thereby their acceleration. The key is to allow the team to be self organizing and accountable for their estimates, which in turn motivates them to get their velocity right just like agile teams (RUP can be as agile as you want to make it, don't let anyone tell you differently).
7. What about calculating acceleration for traditional project teams? In theory this should work, in practice it is incredibly unlikely. Traditional teams don't work in iterations where working software is produced on a regular basis, they're typically not self organizing, and therefore there really isn't any motivate to calculate velocity (even if they do, there is little motivation to get it right). Without knowing the velocity you can't calculate acceleration. If you can't trust the velocity estimate, and I certainly wouldn't trust a traditional team's velocity estimate, then you can't trust your acceleration calculation. So, my fall back position to calculate productivity improvement would be to do something like function point counting (which is expensive and difficult to compare between teams due to different fudge factors used by different FP counters) and then looking at change in FPs delivered over time.
8. How can I apply this across a department? It is fairly straightforward to roll up the acceleration of project teams into an overall acceleration measure for a portfolio of teams simply by taking a weighted average based on team size. However, this is only applicable to teams that are in a position to report an accurate acceleration (the agile and iterative teams) and of course are willing to do so.
9. What does a negative acceleration tell me? If the acceleration is negative then productivity on the team is going down, likely an indicator of quality and/or team work problems. However, you don't want to manage by the numbers so you should talk to the team to see what's actually going on.
10. What does a zero acceleration tell me? This is an indication that the team's productivity is not increasing, and that perhaps they should consider doing retrospectives at the end of each iteration and then acting on the results from those retrospectives. Better yet they can "dial up" their process improvement efforts by adopting something along the lines of IBM Rational Self Check.
Further reading:

• Acceleration: An Agile Productivity Measure
• Lean Development Governance
• Agile and Rational Unified Process (RUP)
• Introducing IBM Rational Self Check for Software Teams
  
  

[Read More]

I'm happy to announce Rational's Agility at Scale poster which is currently available free of charge from the Rational poster order page.

Although I'm obviously biased as I was involved with its creation, the poster includes some really good information about how to scale agile software development practices effectively. It summarizes the scaling factors, such as large teams, distribution, regulatory compliance, application complexity, and so on that you should be concerned with. It also presents a full agile software development lifecycle that goes beyond the construction focused lifecycles of common "agile in the small" processes. It also summarizes the practices of lean development governance, giving you some insight into how to govern your IT environment more effectively.

I think it's a pretty good poster that's worth checking out. It's free, so it's hard to argue with the price. Most importantly, it would look pretty good hanging on your office wall.

[Read More]

The explicit phases of the Unified Process -- Inception, Elaboration, Construction, and Transition -- and their milestones are important strategies for scaling agile software development to meet the real-world needs of modern organizations. Yes, I realize that this is heresy for hard-core agilists who can expound upon the evils of serial development, yet these very same people also take a phased approach to development although are loathe to admit it. The issue is that the UP phases are like seasons of a project: although you'll do the same types of activities all throughout a project, the extent to which you do them and the way in which you do them change depending on your goals. For example, at the beginning of a development project if you want to be effective you need to do basic things like identify the scope of the project, identify a viable architecture strategy, start putting together your team, and obtain support for the project. Towards the end of a project your focus is on the activities surrounding the deployment of your system into production, including end-of-lifecycle testing efforts, training, cleaning up of documentation, piloting the system with a subset of users, and so on. In between you focus on building the system, including analysis, design, testing, and coding of it. Your project clearly progresses through different phases, or call them seasons if the term phase doesn't suit you, whether your team is agile or not.

The UP defines four phases, each of which address a different kind of risk:1. Inception. This phase focuses on addressing business risk by having you drive to scope concurrence amongst your stakeholders. Most projects have a wide range of stakeholdres, and if they don't agree to the scope of the project and recognize that others have conflicting or higher priority needs you project risks getting mired in political infighting. In the Eclipse Way this is called the "Warm Up" iteration and in other agile processes "Iteration 0".2. Elaboration. The goal of this phase is to address technical risk by proving the architecture through code. You do this by building and end-to-end skeleton of your system which implements the highest-risk requirements. Some people will say that this approach isn't agile, that your stakeholders should by the only ones to prioritize requirements. Yes, I agree with that, but I also recognize that there are a wide range of stakeholders, including operations people and enterprise architects who are interested in the technical viability of your approach. I've also noticed that the high-risk requirements are often the high-business-value ones anyway, so you usually need to do very little reorganization of your requirements stack.3. Construction. This phase focuses on implementation risk, addressing it through the creation of working software each iteration. This phase is where you put the flesh onto the skeleton.4. Transition. The goal of this phase is to address deployment risk. There is usually a lot more to deploying software than simply copying a few files onto a server, as I indicated above. Deployment is often a complex and difficult task, one which you often need good guidance to succeed at.

Each phase ends with a milestone review, which could be as simple as a short meeting, where you meet with prime stakeholders who will make a "go/no-go" decision regarding your project. They should consider whether the project still makes sense, perhaps the situation has changed, and that you're addressing the project risks appropriately. This is important for "agile in the small" but also for "agile in the large" because at scale your risks are often much greater. Your prime stakeholders should also verify that you have in fact met the criteria for exiting the phase. For example, if you don't have an end-to-end working skeleton of your system then you're not ready to enter the Construction phase. Holding these sorts of milestone reviews improves your IT governance efforts by giving senior management valuable visibility at the level that they actually need: when you have dozens or hundreds of projects underway, you can't attend all of the daily stand up meetings of each team, nor do you even want to read summary status reports.

These milestone reviews enable you to lower project risk. Last Autumn I ran a survey via Dr. Dobb's Journal (www.ddj.com) which explore how people actually define success for IT projects and how successful we really were. We found that when people define success in their own terms that Agile has a 71% success rate compared with 63% for traditional approaches. Although it's nice to that Agile appears to be lower risk than traditional approaches, a 71% success rate still implies a 29% failure rate. The point is that it behooves us to actively monitor development projects to determine if they're on track, and if not either help them to get back on track or cancel them as soon as we possibly can. Hence the importance of occasional milestone reviews where you make go/no-go decisions. If you're interested in the details behind the project, they can be found at http://www.ambysoft.com/surveys/success2007.html .

Done right, phases are critical to your project success, particularly at scale. Yes, the traditional community seems to have gone overboard with phase-based approaches, but that doesn't mean that we need to make the same mistakes. Let's keep the benefit without the cost of needless bureaucracy.[Read More]

It's customary to start a blog by describing the vision for it. Although this vision will undoubtedly evolve over time, it's always good to put a stake in the ground to get things started. Agile software development is clearly taking off and in my opinion is becoming the dominant development paradigm. Furthermore it appears that Agile approaches enjoy a higher success rate, providing better value for your IT investment, than do traditional approaches. Although organizations are succeeding at simpler projects with agile, many are struggling when applying Agile in more complex situations. They're finding that the "Agile rhetoric" doesn't always live up to its promises once you move into these complex situations. My goal with this blog is to share strategies for applying Agile techniques at scale.

When applying Agile strategies at scale you are likely to run into one or more of the following complexity factors:1. Geographical distribution. Is your team, including stakeholders, in different locations? Even being in different cubicles within the same building can erect barriers to communication, let alone being in different cities or even on different continents.2. Regulatory compliance. Regulations, including the Sarbanes-Oxley act, BASEL-II, and FDA statutes, to name a few, can increase the documentation and process burden on your projects. Complying to these regulations while still remaining as agile as possible can be a challenge.3. Entrenched policies, people, and processes. Most agile teams need to work within the scope of a larger organization, and that larger organization isn't always perfectly agile. Hopefully that will change in time, but we still need to get the job done right now. Your existing culture and organization can really hinder your ability to scale agile approaches, then a few "simple" changes can really help your efforts.4. Legacy systems. Although the politically correct term would be "proven assets" the reality is that it can be very difficult to leverage existing code and data sources due to quality problems. The code may not be well written, documented, or even have tests in place, yet that doesn't mean that your agile team should rewrite everything from scratch. Some legacy data sources are questionable at best, or the owners of those data sources difficult to work with, yet that doesn't given an agile team license to create yet another database.5. Organizational distribution. When your teams are made up of people working for different divisions, or if you have people from different companies (such as contractors, partners, or consultants), then your management complexity rises.6. Degree of governance. If you have one or more IT projects then you have an IT governance process in place. How formal it is, how explicit it is, and how effective it is will be up to you. IBM has been doing a lot of work in this topic over the past few years, and just recently Per Kroll and I have done some work around Lean Governance strategies. 7. Team size. Large teams will be organized differently than small teams, and they'll work differently too.8. System complexity. The more complex the system the greater the need for a viable architectural strategy. An interesting feature of the Rational Unified Process (RUP) is that it's Elaboration phase's primary goal is to prove the architecture via the creation of an end-to-end, working skeleton of the system. This risk-reduction technique is clearly a concept which Extreme Programming (XP) and Scrum teams can clearly benefit from.

It is definitely possible to scale Agile software development to meet the real-world complexities faced by modern organizations. Based on my experiences, I believe that over the next few years we'll discover that Agile scales better than traditional approaches. Many people have already discovered this, but as an industry I believe that there isn't yet sufficient evidence to state this as more than opinion. My goal with this blog is to provide advice for scaling Agile so as to increase your chances of success.

So, it looks like I have my work cut out for me. My strategy will be to address common questions which I get when working with customers and with internal IBM development teams. I have the privilege to work with a variety of software development teams worldwide, helping them to become more agile. They're all struggling with the same basic issues although don't recognize it because they're too focused on their own situation. So hopefully I'll be able to spread the word about what's actually working in practice.

I hope that you stay tuned.

- Scott[Read More]