Systems Development Methodologies - set i forhold til projektledelse

1. Systems Development Methodologies- set i forhold til projektledelse Agile Project Management: Jeff Sutherland http://jeffsutherland.com/papers/OTUG2003/Scrum_Theory_files/frame.htm Projektledelse: Erik Staunstrup

2. Agile Project Management With SCRUM: Theory and Practice Jeff Sutherland, Ph.D.Chief Technology Officer jeff.sutherland@computer.org http://jeffsutherland.com

3. Chaos Fragmentation Web services? 1998 Agents 1995 Components 1993 Business Objects cas Self Organization Frozen 1980 Classes 1970 Procedures Complex Adaptive Systems (cas) • Interacting agents respond to stimuli. • Stimulus-response behavior is defined in terms of rules. • Agents adapt by changing rules as experience accumulates. • Agents aggregate into meta-agents whose behavior is emergent. • How can a collection of dumb things emerge smart system behavior? Maamar, Zakaria and Sutherland, Jeff (2000) Toward Intelligent Business Objects: Focusing on Techniques to Enhance Business Objects that Exhibit Goal-Oriented Behaviors. Communications of the ACM 40:10:99-101.

4. Enterprise Systems are cas • Business entities are examples of complex adaptive systems. • Modification time is on the order of months or years, roughly time required to change software. • Automating business processes renders parts of the business in software. • Business systems have severely constrained rule sets, making ideal test bed for cas concepts. 

5. Change is Imperative:Wasserman's 7 Factors Driving Change • Criticality of time to market • Shift in computing economics • Powerful desktop computers • Extensive networks and the Web • Growing availability of object technology • WIMP (windows, icons, menus, pointers) • Unpredictability of the waterfall model of software development

6. "The Waterfall Methodology!" • "Why Are Systems Late, Over Budget, Wrong?"(Paul Bassett) • Analysis Paralysis • static modeling overused • specs are stale baked • Design-from-Scratch • no generic models • no standard architectures • Large Project Teams • User Intermediaries • No Early Warning Signals

7. History of Iterative and Incremental Development (IID)(1) • 1956 – Benington’s stagewise model • USAF SAGE System • 1957 – IBM Service Bureau Corp, Project Mercury, IBM Federal Systems Devision • Gerry Weinberg • 1960 – Weinberg teaching IID at IBM Systems Research Institute • 1969 - Earliest published reference to IID: • Robert Glass. Elementary Level Discussion of Compiler/Interpreter Writing. ACM Computing Surveys, Mar 1969 Larman, Craig and Basili, Vic. A History of Iterative and Incremental Development. IEEE Computer, June 2003 (in press)

8. History of Iterative and Incremental Development (IID)(2) • 1971 – IBM Federal Systems Division • Mills, Harlan. Top-down programming in Large Systems. In Debugging Techniques in Large Systems. Prentice Hall, 1971 • 1972 – TRW uses IID on $100M Army Site Defense software • 1975 – First original paper devoted to IID • Gasili, Vic and Turner, Albert. Iterative Enhancement: A Practical Technique for Software Development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. Dec 1975. • 1977-1980 – IBM FSD builds NASA Space Shuttle software in 17 iterations over 31 months, averaging 8 weeks per iteration • Madden and Rone. Design, Development, Integration: Space Shuttle Flight Software. Communications of the ACM, Sept 1984. Larman, Craig and Basili, Vic. A History of Iterative and Incremental Development. IEEE Computer, June 2003 (in press)

9. History of Iterative and Incremental Development (IID)(3) • 1985 – Barry Boehm’s Spiral Model • Boehm, Barry. A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement. Proceedings of an International Workshop on Software Process and Software Environments. March, 1985 • 1986 – Brooks, Fred. No Silver Bullet. IEEE Computer, April 1987 • Nothing … has so radically changed my own practice, or its effectiveness [as incremental development]. • 1994 – First SCRUM at Easel Corporation • 1994 – DOD must manage programs using iterative development • Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Acquiring Defense Software Commercially. June 1994. • 1995 – Microsoft IID published • McCarthy, Jim. Dynamics of Software Development. Microsoft Press, 1995. • 1996 – Kruchten. A Rational Development Process. Crosstalk. July. • Origins of RUP Larman, Craig and Basili, Vic. A History of Iterative and Incremental Development. IEEE Computer, June 2003 (in press)

10. History of Iterative and Incremental Development (IID)(4) • 1996 – Kent Beck Chrysler Project • Origin of XP • 1996 – Larman meets with principal author of DD-STD-2167 • David Maibor expressed regret for the creation of the waterfall-based standard. He had not learned of incremental development at the time and based his advice on textbooks and consultants advocating the waterfall method. With the hindsight of iterative experience, he would recommend IID. • 1997 – Coad and DeLuca rescue Singapore project • Origin of Feature-Driven Development • 1998 – Standish Group CHAOS Project • Top reason for massive project failures was waterfall methods. “Research also indicates that smaller time frames, with delivery of software components early and often, will increase success rate. • 1999 – Publication of extensive DOD failures • Out of a total cost of $37B for the sample set, 75% of projects failed or were never used, and only 2% were used without extensive modification. Jarzombek. The 5th Annual JAWS S3 Proceedings, 1999. Larman, Craig and Basili, Vic. A History of Iterative and Incremental Development. IEEE Computer, June 2003 (in press)

11. History of Iterative and Incremental Development (IID)(5) • 2001 – 17 process expert “anarchists” meet at Snow Bird • Agile Manifesto initiated 100s of books and papers on agile development • 2001 – MacCormack’s study of key success factors • MacCormack, Alan. Product-Develoment Practices that Work. MIT Sloan Management Review 42:2, 2001. Larman, Craig and Basili, Vic. A History of Iterative and Incremental Development. IEEE Computer, June 2003 (in press)

12. Manifesto for Agile Software Development • We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. • Through this work we have come to value: • Individuals and interactions over processes and tools Working software over comprehensive documentation Customer collaboration over contract negotiation Responding to change over following a plan • That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more.

13. MacCormack Process Evolution • Waterfall mode – sequential process maintains a document trail • Rapid-Prototyping Model – disposable prototype helps establish customer preference • Spiral Model – series of prototypes identifies major risks • Incremental or Staged Delivery Model – system is delivered to customer in chunks • Evolutionary Delivery Model – iterative approach in which customers test an actual version of the software MacCormack, Alan. Product-Development Practices That Work: How Internet Companies Build Software. MIT Sloan Management Review 42:2:75-84, Winter 2001.

14. MacCormack Success Factors • Early release of evolving product design to customers. • Daily incorporation of new software code and rapid feedback on design changes A team with broad-based experience in shipping multiple projects Major investment in design of product architecture MacCormack, Alan. Product-Development Practices That Work: How Internet Companies Build Software. MIT Sloan Management Review 42:2:75-84, Winter 2001

15. SCRUM Origins: Takeuchi and NonakaLessons from Fuji-Xerox, Canon, Honda, NEC, Epson, Brother, 3M, Xerox, HP • Old model – Relay Race (type A) • Speed and flexibility not adequate in today’s market • New model – Rugby (type C) Takeuchi, Hirotaka and Nonaka, Ikujiro. 1986. The new new product development game. Harvard Business Review 64:1:137-146 (Jan/Feb), reprint no. 86116.

16. Takeuchi and Nonaka 6 Success Factors • Built-in instability • Self-organizing project teams • Overlapping development phases • “Multilearning” • Subtle control • Organizational transfer of learning “These characteristics are like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Each element, by itself, does not bring about speed and flexibility. But taken as a whole, the characteristics can product a powerful new set of dynamics that will make a difference.”

17. Factor 1: Built-in instability • Top management kicks off development process by signaling broad goal. • Project team is offered extremely challenging goals with wide measure of freedom. • Example: Fuji-Xerox gave FX-3500 project team two years to come up with a copier that cut costs in half • Top management creates an element of tension in the project team through challenging requirements with wide freedom to achieve strategic objective. • Honda Executive: “It’s like putting the team members on the second floor, removing the ladder, and telling them to jump or else. I believe creativity is born by pushing people against the wall and pressuring them almost to the extreme.”

18. Factor 2: Self-organizing project teams • A project team takes on a self-organizing character as it is driven to a state of “zero information” – where prior knowledge does not apply. • Left to stew, the process begins to create its own dynamic order. • The project team begins to operate like a start-up company. A group possesses a self-organizing capability when it exhibits three conditions: • Autonomy Conditions will be • Self-transcendence uncovered in • Cross-fertilization the next slides • At some point, the team begins to create its own concept.

19. Condition 1: Autonomy • Headquarters involvement is limited to providing guidance, money, and moral support at the outset. • On a day to day basis, management seldom intervenes and the team is free to set its own direction. • In a way, top management acts as a venture capitalist • “We open our purse and keep our mouth closed.” • Example: IBM development of personal computer • Example: Honda City project team, average age 27, “Develop the kind of car that the youth segment would like to drive.”

20. Condition 2: Self-transcendence • The project teams appear to be absorbed in the never-ending quest for “the limit.” They elevate their goals through the development process. By pursuing what appear to be contradictory goals, they devise ways to override the status quo and make the big discovery. • Example: Canon AE-1 team

21. Condition 3: Cross-fertilization • Team with wide variety of specializations, thought processes, and behavior patterns carries out new product development. • Working in one large room is best (Fuji-Xerox). • “When all team members are in one room, others information becomes yours without even trying.” Radcliffe Rugby Football Club

22. Factor 3: Overlapping Development Phases • Self-organizing character of the team produces unique dynamic or rhythm • Sashimi system – Fuji Xerox Rugby system – Honda • Hard merits (demerits) • Speed and flexibility (watch out for muck and mall) • Soft merits • Share responsibility and cooperation • Stimulates involvement and commitment • Sharpens a problem-solving focus • Develops initiative and diversified skills • Heightens sensitivity to market conditions

23. Factor 4: Multilearning • Learning by doing in two dimensions • Across organization • Across specialty • Enhanced learning opportunities • 15% of time devoted to “dreams” – 3M • Peer pressure to study • Send team to Europe to look around – Honda • Bring in top academics and consultants – HP • Everyone learns multiple skills

24. Factor 5: Subtle Control • Management establishes checkpoints • Prevents instability, ambiguity, and tension from turning into chaos • Emphasis on self-control, control by peer pressure, control by love = “subtle control” • Management responsible for: • Selecting team members for balanced team • Creating an open working environment • Encouraging engineers to go out in the field • Establishing rewards based on group performance • Tolerating and anticipating mistakes • Encouraging suppliers to become self-organizing

25. Factor 6: Organizational Transfer of Learning • Transfer knowledge outside group • Scatter successful team to new projects • Institutionalize practice (monthly demos at IDX) • Consciously pursue unlearning • Next generation must be 40% better • Cut product cycle by 80% • Scrap old parts, processes, tools

26. Challenges and Opportunities • Winding the Rubber Band Principle: Broad mandate and demanding goals create tension. • Anti-Waterfall Principle: Operational decisions are made incrementally. Strategic decisions delayed to last moment. • Push/Pull Principle: Differentiation in concept phase, integration dominates in implementation phase • Spread the Wealth Principle: Non-experts take on new tasks. • Cuckoo Principle: Successful SCRUMs become company models (or they can get crushed because they are different). • Control Anti-Pattern: Seniority based companies have difficult time. • But in times of desperation, SCRUMs are easily created.

27. Team Size: Development Effort in Months • The smaller the better. • 491 medium sized projects with 35,000-95,000 SLOC (source lines of code) Putnam, Lawrence H. and Myers, Ware. Familiar Metrics Management: Small is Beautiful--Once Again. IT Metrics Strategis IV:8:12-16, Cutter Information Corp., August 1998.

28. "The Waterfall Methodology!" "Why Are Systems Late, Over Budget, Wrong?" • Analysis Paralysis • static modeling overused • specs are stale baked • Design-from-Scratch • no generic models • no standard architectures • Large Project Teams • User Intermediaries • No Early Warning Signals Bassett, Paul G. Framing Software Reuse: Lessons from the Real World. Yourdon Press Computing Series, 1997.

29. Spiral Methodology • Barry Boehm introduced the Spiral Methodology to "fix" problems with the Waterfall Methodology. This is the most commonly used variant of the Waterfall today. • The Spiral methodology "peels the onion", progressing through "layers" of the development process. A prototype lets users determine if the project is on track, should be sent back to prior phases, or should be ended. However, the phases and phase processes are still linear. Boehm, B.W. A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement. Proceedings of an International Workshop on Software Process and Software Environments, Coto de Caza, Trabuco Canyon, California, March 27-29, 1985. Boehm, Barry. A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement.  ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, August 1986. Boehm, Barry. A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement.  IEEE Computer, vol.21, #5, May 1988, pp 61-72.

30. Iterative Methology • The Iterative methodology improves on the Spiral methodology.Each iteration consists of all of the standard Waterfall phases, but each iteration only addresses one subsystem. Further iterations can add resources to the project while ramping up the speed of delivery.Improves cost control, reduces risk, ensures delivery of (sub)systems, and improves overall flexibility.Still assumes that the underlying development processes are defined and linear.

31. SCRUM Methodology • The first and last phases (Planning and Closure) consist of defined processes. The Sprint phase is an empirical process. It is treated as a black box that requires external controls. Sprints are nonlinear and flexible. Sprints are used to evolve the final product. The project is open to the environment until the Closure phase. The deliverable can be changed at any time. The deliverable is determined during the project based on the environment.

32. Methodology Comparison

33. Risk with Current Methodologies • Any methodology is better than nothing. • Current approaches rests on the fallacy that the development processes are defined, predictable processes. • They lack flexibility needed to cope with the unpredictable results and respond to a complex environment. Schwaber, Ken. SCRUM Development Process. Business Object Design and Implementation (Eds. Jeff Sutherland et al.). London: Springer-Verlag, 1997.

34. SCRUM Lowers Risk Development teams need to operate adaptively within a complex environment using imprecise processes. SCRUM can accelerate closure by inducing the phenomenon known as "punctuated equilibrium" seen in the evolution of biological species. Levy, Steven. Artificial Life: A Report from the Frontier Where Computers Meet Biology. Vintage Books, 1993. Lewin, Roger.Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos. Collier Books, 1994.

35. Projektorganisation Basisorganisation Direktør Styregruppe Udlvikl.chef Salgschef Prod.chef Projekt-gruppe Medarb. Medarb. Medarb. Medarb. Skillelinie mellem basis- og projektorganisation Projektorganisation

36. Fordeling af arbejdsopgaver

37. Projektorganisation Basisorganisation Værdiorientering Projektkultur Kultur Projektledelse Ledelse Styring Projektstyring Resultatorientering Skillelinie mellem basis- og projektorganisation Projektet som et system

38. Projektorganisation Værdi orientering Projektkultur Projektledelse - ledelsesform - involvering - samarbejde Projekt-styring Resultat orientering Projektets subsystemer

39. Ressourcebevidsthed Agile Project Management SCRUM Høj Iterativ model Spiralmodel Rapid Prototyping Vandfaldsmodel Lav Lavt Højt Risikomoment Systemudviklings Metodologierifht risiko og ressourcebevidsthed Eksperimentel Figur 2.2: Sammenhængen mellem ressourcebevidsthed og risikomoment Kilde: Delvis baseret på Karvø, Michael og Pedersen, Lars Bo: Projektledelse i tværfaglige teams, Schultz, 1993

40. Resultatorientering Agile Project Management SCRUM Høj Iterativ model Spiralmodel Rapid Prototyping Eksperimentel Vandfaldsmodel Lav Lavt Højt Værdiorientering Systemudviklings Metodologierifht resultat og værdiorientering

41. Værdiorientering Resultat- og værdiorientering Resultatorientering

42. Sammenligning af metodologierne

43. Værdiorientering Medarbejdernes indflydelse Resultatorientering Lederens styring Situationsbestemt ledelse

44. Systemudviklings Metodologier ogSituationsbestemt ledelse

45. Sam-arbejde Samarbejds- og ledelsesformer Nye samarbejds- og ledelsesformer Selvstændigheds- barriere Selvorganisering Almindelige samarbejds- og ledelsesformer Alm. Teamarbejde Individuelt arbejde Usikkerhed i Arbejds-opgaverne Simple og sikre Komplekse og Nye og usikre arbejdsopgaver udfordrende arbejdsopgaver arbejdsopgaver Projektlederens styring Projektdeltagernes indflydelse Selvstændighedsbarrieren!

46. Sam-arbejde Samarbejds- og ledelsesformer Nye samarbejds- og ledelsesformer Selvstændigheds- barriere SCRUM Sprints Almindelige samarbejds- og ledelsesformer Spiral Iterativ Scrum Plan/Clos Vandfald Usikkerhed i Arbejds-opgaverne Simple og sikre Komplekse og Nye og usikre arbejdsopgaver udfordrende arbejdsopgaver arbejdsopgaver Projektlederens styring Projektdeltagernes indflydelse Systemudviklings Metodologierne ogselvstændighed / kreativitet