1 / 32

Agile Methods and the CeBASE Method 

Agile Methods and the CeBASE Method . Dan Port, USC Vic Basili, UMD. Outline. Overview of the CeBASE Method The Challenge of Application to CS577 Our track record Critical Agility Strategies Risk driven specifications and modeling Rapidly achieving shared vision, tacit knowledge

gerry
Download Presentation

Agile Methods and the CeBASE Method 

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Agile Methods and the CeBASE Method  Dan Port, USC Vic Basili, UMD

  2. Outline • Overview of the CeBASE Method • The Challenge of Application to CS577 • Our track record • Critical Agility Strategies • Risk driven specifications and modeling • Rapidly achieving shared vision, tacit knowledge • Experience Factory and knowledge reuse

  3. CeBASE Method Overview • We needed to create a unified framework for empirical SE • Reconciled our processes as well as our data definitions • We found that EF/GQM and MBASE/Spiral were compatible and complementary • GQM Goals map to Spiral Objectives • GQM Questions & Metrics map to Spiral evaluation of Alternatives • MBASE focuses on projects; EF covers organizations as well • Integrated CeBASE Method presented at STC 2000 by Boehm and Vaughn • Led to adoption by several DoD organizations, including Army/DARPA’s biggest software project

  4. Experience Factory Framework - I • Org. Improvement Goals • Goal-related questions, metrics • Org. Improvement Strategies • Goal achievement models Org. Shared Vision & Improvement Strategy

  5. Experience Factory Framework - II Progress/Plan/ Goal Mismatches Org. Improvement Initiative Planning & Control Org. Shared Vision & Improvement Strategy • Initiative Plans • Initiative-related questions, metrics • Initiative Monitoring and Control • Experience-Base Analysis Planning context • Org. Improvement Goals • Goal-related questions, metrics • Org. Improvement Strategies • Goal achievement models Initiatives Achievables, Opportunities Analyzed experience, Updated models Experience Base

  6. Experience Factory Framework - III Progress/Plan/ Goal Mismatches Org. Improvement Initiative Planning & Control Org. Shared Vision & Improvement Strategy • Initiative Plans • Initiative-related questions, metrics • Initiative Monitoring and Control • Experience-Base Analysis Planning context • Org. Improvement Goals • Goal-related questions, metrics • Org. Improvement Strategies • Goal achievement models Initiatives Analyzed experience, Updated models Achievables, Opportunities Experience Base Org. Goals Project experience Models and data Models and data Planning Context Project Planning and Control Project Shared Vision and Strategy Progress/Plan/ Goal Mismatches

  7. The CeBASE Method -Applies to organization’s and projects’ people, processes, and products • OFB: Progress/Plan/Goal mismatches • -shortfalls, opportunities, • risks Plan/Goal mismatches Planning context • 1. Monitor environment • -Update models • 2. Implement plans • 3. Evaluate progress • -w.r.t. goals, models • 4. Determine, apply • corrective actions • 5. Update experience base Org. Monitoring & Control • 1. Org. Value Propositions (VP’s) • a-Stakeholder values • 2. Current situation w.r.t. VP’s • 3. Improvement Goals, • Priorities • 4. Global Scope, Results Chain • 5. Value/business case models Org-Portfolio Shared Vision • 1. Strategy elements • 2. Evaluation criteria/questions • 3. Improvement plans • a. Progress metrics • b. Experience base Org. Strategic Plans Organization/ Portfolio: Experience Factory, GMQM Monitoring & Control Context Initiatives Shortfalls, opportunities, risks: P-OP Project vision, goals O-PSV Planning Context (O-PP) Project experience, progress w.r.t. plans, goals Shortfalls, opportunities, risks; P-OSV Monitoring & Control context Scoping context • Project Plans (PP) • 1. LCO/LCA Package • -Ops concept, prototypes, • rqts, architecture, • LCplan, rationale • 2. IOC/Transition/Support Package • -Design, increment plans, • quality plans, T/S plans • 3. Evaluation criteria/questions • 4. Progress metrics Project Plans 1. Project Value Propositions a-Stakeholder values 2. Current situation w.r.t. VP’s 3. Improvement Goals, Priorities 4. Project Scope, Results Chain 5. Value/business case models Project Shared Vision • 1. Monitor environment • a-Update models • 2. Implement plans • 3. Evaluate progress • -w.r.t. goals, models, • plans • 4. Determine, apply • corrective actions • 5. Update experience base Proj. Monitoring & Control Monitoring & Control context Project: MBASE Planning Context LCO: Life Cycle Objectives LCA: Life Cycle Architecture IOC: Initial Operational Capability GMQM: Goal-Model-Question-Metric Paradigm MBASE: Model-Based (System) Architecting and Software Engineering Plan/goal mismatches • PFB: Progress/Plan/goal • mismatches • -Shortfalls, opportunities, risks

  8. Outline • Overview of the CeBASE Method • The Challenge of Application to CS577 • Our track record • Critical Agility Strategies • Risk driven specifications and modeling • Rapidly achieving shared vision, tacit knowledge • Experience Factory and knowledge reuse

  9. The CS577 Challenge • 20 USC eServices Applications • 2 sentence problem statements • USC Information Services clients • 100 Graduate Students • 30% with industry experience • Largely unfamiliar with each other, Library ops. • Develop LCA packages in 12 weeks • Re-form teams from 30-40 continuing students • Develop IOC packages in 12 more weeks • Including 2-week beta test and transition

  10. Application of CeBASE • Within the constraints of the previous slide, student teams must: • Rapidly assimilate the key stakeholders organizational shared vision • Rapidly converge on an organization shared vision with key stakeholders • Understand and align project with the organizations strategic plans • Formulate and execute feasible project plans • Adapt to frequent client changes • Transition a system in alignment with organization monitoring and control process Impossible?

  11. Critical Success Factors for Adoption - I

  12. Critical Success Factors for Adoption - II

  13. Summary of Results 1996-2000

  14. Outline • Overview of the CeBASE Method • The Challenge of Application to CS577 • Our track record • Critical Agility Strategies • Risk driven specifications and modeling • Rapidly achieving shared vision, tacit knowledge • Experience Factory and knowledge reuse

  15. Risk-Driven Specifications and Activities • Basic driving principle for CeBASE activities and specifications (i.e. modeling, model content, degree of detail, etc.) If it’s risky to do something, Don’t e.g. specify firm GUI requirements early If it’s risky not to do something, Do e.g. document shared protocols • Seems obvious, but often not explicitly done or managed! • People must be educated to perform effective risk identification, assessment, mitigation, prioritization, tolerance • Varies considerably over the project and people

  16. Tactical and Strategic Risk Management • CeBASE makes use of both tactical and strategic risk management • Tactical Risk Management • Rmall-scale actions serving to contain or respond to risks made or carried out with only a limited or immediate end in view • Risk identification and assessment • Top-10 risk monitoring (EF) • Risk contingency plans • Strategic • Risk management as an integrated whole or to a planned effect (e.g. Expected Return on Investment) • Risk driven “how much is enough?” approach • Risk/value based feasibility assessments (GQM) • Risk based development processes (e.g. SAIV)

  17. Rapidly achieving shared vision and tacit knowledge • Critical challenge is to converge on a shared vision for the project within 12 weeks • Involves many factors such as teambuilding, stakeholder identification, requirements solicitation and negotiation, domain modeling, etc. • CeBASE uses many agile approaches to building shared vision and experience factory techniques to utilize tacit knowledge • Win-win requirements negotiation, early prototyping, group planning exercises, stakeholder lists, results chains

  18. Assumption Major donor funding Digitize HDA Archive HDA PR, training for USC, community Outcome Digital HDA assets World-class Hispanic research, education, outreach support Contribution Viable HDA Archive Sustainable HDA Archive Develop HDA Software Initiative Viable HDA System Viable IBM DL package Staff, train HDA Ops/Maint personnel Results Chain: Hispanic Digital Archive (HDA)

  19. CS577 Experience Factory • Teams are supplied with and educated in the use of an experience base with: • Domain model descriptions • Pre-architectures • Specialized WinWin taxonomies • Specialized top-n risks • Previous project examples • Each year the experience base is updated • E.g. in 1998 we added “simplifier and complecators” to reduce LCO failure rate

  20. Example S&C’s Type of Simple Block Diagram Examples Simplifiers Complicators Application · · Use standard Natural language 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 39 query languages processing · · Use standard or Automated COTS search cataloging or query engine indexing MM asset Catalog · · Uniform media Digitizing large info formats archives Multimedia update query · Digitizing Archive notification complex or fragile update artifacts MM MM asset · Archive Rapid access to large Archives · Access to heterogeneous media collections · Automated annotation/descrip tion/ or meanings to digital assets · Integration of legacy systems

  21. The Results • Projects That Failed LCO Criteria • 1996: 4 out of 16 (25%) • 1997: 4 out of 15 (27%) • 1998: 1 out of 20 (5%) • 1999: 1 out of 22 (4%) • 40% of Student critiques cited S&C’s as helpful (and more since) • In focusing on achievable requirements set within tight schedule • In understanding project risks and tradeoffs

  22. Summary • Overall success rate 92% • compared with 26% Standish • Primarily agile approaches used • Scenarios, prototypes, patterns, metaphors • Primarily plan driven approaches used • Risk driven requirements, life cycle architecture, stakeholder roles and responsibilities, feasibility rationale, risk management plan • CeBASE not one size fit all • Risk tailoring produces appropriate balance of discipline and flexibility

  23. Backup Slides Further CS577 CeBASE Experience Factory examples

  24. Examplewin-wintaxonomy

  25. Multimedia Archive Risks Example top-n Risks

  26. Exampleprevious project data

  27. Domain Models

  28. ExampleDomain Model

  29. ExamplePre-architectures

  30. Specialized S&C’s

More Related