Systems Development Methodologies - set i forhold til projektledelse

Præsentationer af emnet: "Systems Development Methodologies - set i forhold til projektledelse"— Præsentationens transcript:

1 Systems Development Methodologies - set i forhold til projektledelse
Agile Project Management: Jeff Sutherland Projektledelse: Erik Staunstrup

2 Agile Project Management With SCRUM: Theory and Practice
Jeff Sutherland, Ph.D. Chief Technology Officer

3 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: Frozen Chaos Fragmentation cas Self Organization Web services? 1998 Agents 1995 Components 1993 Business Objects 1980 Classes 1970 Procedures

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 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. – 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, 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 Nonaka Lessons 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 The new new product development game. Harvard Business Review 64:1: (Jan/Feb), reprint no

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 Boehm, Barry. A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement.  IEEE Computer, vol.21, #5, May 1988, pp

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

36 Fordeling af arbejdsopgaver
Projektgruppens opgaver Styregruppens opgaver gennemføre analyser udarbejde løsningsforslag opstille planer for aktiviteterne afprøve de foreslåede løsninger implementer og evaluere den/de valgte løsninger dokumenter resultaterne udarbejde rapporter til styregruppen formulere baggrunden for projektet formulere opgavebeskrivelse, tidsramme og ressourceramme opstille mål og strategier for projektet sørge for de nødvendige ressourcer overvåge og evaluere projektforløbet deltage i valget af løsning

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

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

39 Systemudviklings Metodologier ifht risiko og ressourcebevidsthed
Risikomoment Høj Lav Lavt Højt Vandfaldsmodel Spiralmodel Agile Project Management SCRUM Iterativ model Rapid Prototyping 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 Systemudviklings Metodologier ifht resultat og værdiorientering
Resultatorientering Værdiorientering Høj Lav Lavt Højt Vandfaldsmodel Spiralmodel Agile Project Management SCRUM Iterativ model Rapid Prototyping Eksperimentel

41 Resultat- og værdiorientering
Resultatorientering Vandfald Resultat Spiral/Iterativ Resultat og Værdi Agile Project Management SCRUM Værdi og Eksperimentel

42 Sammenligning af metodologierne
Systemudviklings Metodologier Højeste prioritet i projektet Opgaven (målet) Risiko- moment Ressource- bevidsthed Orientering Vandfald (slide 28) Resultatet Klar og afgrænset Lavt Lav Resultat Rapid Prototyping Spiral (slide 29) Iterativ (slide 30) og processen Konceptet er kendt (i grove træk) Middel (og værdi) Agile Project Management SCRUM (slide 31) Resultat, proces og Strategisk vigtig Retningen er kendt Højt Høj Værdi (og resultat) Eksperimentel vigtighed

43 Situationsbestemt ledelse
Værdiorientering Medarbejdernes indflydelse Resultatorientering Lederens styring Autoritær Demokratisk Laissez Faire Lederen træffer beslutninger og meddeler dem Lederen præsenterer forslag og opfordre til spørgsmål Lederen fastsætter rammer og lader gruppen selv bestemme Lederen lader gruppen råde frit inden for rammer, han selv er blevet pålagt Medarbejdernes viden Generalister Specialister Opgaven Struktureret Ustruktureret Èn metode Mange metoder Tid Knap Tilstrækkelig Ressourcer Få Rigelige

44 Systemudviklings Metodologier og Situationsbestemt ledelse
Vandfald Spiral / Iterativ Agile Project Management SCRUM Eksperimentel Autoritær Demokratisk Laissez Faire Lederen træffer beslutninger og meddeler dem Lederen præsenterer forslag og opfordre til spørgsmål Lederen fastsætter rammer og lader gruppen selv bestemme Lederen lader gruppen råde frit inden for rammer, han selv er blevet pålagt Medarbejdernes viden Generalister Specialister Opgaven Struktureret Ustruktureret Èn metode Mange metoder Tid Knap Tilstrækkelig Ressourcer Få Rigelige

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

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