Enterprise Frameworks

Transcription

1 Lean & Agile Enterprise Frameworks For Managing Large U.S. Gov t Cloud Computing Projects Dr. David F. Rico, PMP, CSEP, ACP, CSM, SAFe Website: LinkedIn: Agile Capabilities: Agile Resources: Agile Cheat Sheet:

2 Author BACKGROUND Gov t contractor with 32+ years of IT experience B.S. Comp. Sci., M.S. Soft. Eng., & D.M. Info. Sys. Large gov t projects in U.S., Far/Mid-East, & Europe Career systems & software engineering methodologist Lean-Agile, Six Sigma, CMMI, ISO 9001, DoD 5000 NASA, USAF, Navy, Army, DISA, & DARPA projects Published seven books & numerous journal articles Intn l keynote speaker, 125+ talks to 12,000 people Specializes in metrics, models, & cost engineering Cloud Computing, SOA, Web Services, FOSS, etc. Adjunct at five Washington, DC-area universities 2

3 Lean & Agile FRAMEWORK? Frame-work (frām'wûrk') A support structure, skeletal enclosure, or scaffolding platform; Hypothetical model A multi-tiered framework for using lean & agile methods at the enterprise, portfolio, program, & project levels An approach embracing values and principles of lean thinking, product development flow, & agile methods Adaptable framework for collaboration, prioritizing work, iterative development, & responding to change Tools for agile scaling, rigorous and disciplined planning & architecture, and a sharp focus on product quality Maximizes BUSINESS VALUE of organizations, programs, & projects with lean-agile values, principles, & practices Leffingwell, D. (2011). Agile software requirements: Lean requirements practices for teams, programs, and the enterprise. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. 3

4 How do Lean & Agile INTERSECT? Agile is naturally lean and based on small batches Agile directly supports six principles of lean thinking Agile may be converted to a continuous flow system Agile Values Lean Pillars Lean Principles Lean & Agile Practices Flow Principles Empowered Teams Customer Collaboration Respect for People Relationships Customer Value Value Stream Customer relationships, satisfaction, trust, and loyalty Team authority, empowerment, and resources Team identification, cohesion, and communication Product vision, mission, needs, and capabilities Product scope, constraints, and business value Product objectives, specifications, and performance As is policies, processes, procedures, and instructions To be business processes, flowcharts, and swim lanes Initial workflow analysis, metrication, and optimization Decentralization Economic View WIP Constraints & Kanban Iterative Delivery Responding to Change Continuous Improvement Continuous Flow Customer Pull Perfection Batch size, work in process, and artifact size constraints Cadence, queue size, buffers, slack, and bottlenecks Workflow, test, integration, and deployment automation Roadmaps, releases, iterations, and product priorities Epics, themes, feature sets, features, and user stories Product demonstrations, feedback, and new backlogs Refactor, test driven design, and continuous integration Standups, retrospectives, and process improvements Organization, project, and process adaptability/flexibility Control Cadence & Small Batches Fast Feedback Manage Queues/ Exploit Variability Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean thinking: Banish waste and create wealth in your corporation. New York, NY: Free Press. Reinertsen, D. G. (2009). The principles of product development flow: Second generation lean product development. New York, NY: Celeritas. Reagan, R. B., & Rico, D. F. (2010). Lean and agile acquisition and systems engineering: A paradigm whose time has come. DoD AT&L Magazine, 39(6). 4

5 Models of AGILE DEVELOPMENT Agile methods spunoff flexible manufacturing 1990s Extreme Programming (XP) swept the globe by 2002 Today, over 90% of IT projects use Scrum/XP hybrid CRYSTAL METHODS SCRUM DSDM FDD XP Use Cases Planning Poker Feasibility Domain Model Release Plans Domain Model Product Backlog Business Study Feature List User Stories Object Oriented Sprint Backlog Func. Iteration Object Oriented Pair Programmer Iterative Dev. 2-4 Week Spring Design Iteration Iterative Dev. Iterative Dev. Risk Planning Daily Standup Implementation Code Inspection Test First Dev. Info. Radiators Sprint Demo Testing Testing Onsite Customer Reflection W/S Retrospective Quality Control Quality Control Continuous Del. Cockburn, A. (2002). Agile software development. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2001). Agile software development with scrum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Stapleton, J. (1997). DSDM: A framework for business centered development. Harlow, England: Addison-Wesley. Palmer, S. R., & Felsing, J. M. (2002). A practical guide to feature driven development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Beck, K. (2000). Extreme programming explained: Embrace change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 5

6 Basic SCRUM Framework Created by Jeff Sutherland at Easel in 1993 Product backlog comprised of prioritized features Iterative sprint-to-sprint, adaptive & emergent model Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2001). Agile software development with scrum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 6

7 Models of AGILE PROJECT MGT. Dozens of Agile project management models emerged Many stem from principles of Extreme Programming Vision, releases, & iterative development common RADICAL EXTREME ADAPTIVE AGILE SIMPLIFIED APM Prioritization Visionate Scoping Envision Vision Feasibility Speculate Planning Speculate Roadmap Planning Innovate Feasibility Explore Release Plan Tracking Re-Evaluate Cyclical Dev. Iterate Sprint Plan Reporting Disseminate Checkpoint Launch Daily Scrum Review Terminate Review Close Retrospective Thomsett, R. (2002). Radical project management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. DeCarlo, D. (2004). Extreme project management: Using leadership, principles, and tools to deliver value in the face of volatility. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Wysocki, R.F. (2010). Adaptive project framework: Managing complexity in the face of uncertainty. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Highsmith, J. A. (2010). Agile project management: Creating innovative products. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Layton, M. C., & Maurer, R. (2011). Agile project management for dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing. 7

8 Simplified AGILE PROJECT MGT F/W Created by Mark Layton at PlatinumEdge in 2012 Mix of new product development, XP, and Scrum Simplified codification of XP and Scrum hybrid Layton, M. C., & Maurer, R. (2011). Agile project management for dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing. 8

9 Models of AGILE ENTERPRISE MGT. Numerous models of agile portfolio mgt. emerging Based on lean-kanban, release planning, and Scrum Include organization, program, & project management ESCRUM SAFE LESS DAD RAGE Product Mgt Strategic Mgt Business Mgt Business Mgt Business Program Mgt Portfolio Mgt Portfolio Mgt Portfolio Mgt Governance Project Mgt Program Mgt Product Mgt Inception Portfolio Process Mgt Team Mgt Area Mgt Construction Program Business Mgt Quality Mgt Sprint Mgt Iterations Project Market Mgt Delivery Mgt Release Mgt Transition Delivery Schwaber, K. (2007). The enterprise and scrum. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press. Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Larman, C., & Vodde, B. (2008). Scaling lean and agile development: Thinking and organizational tools for large-scale scrum. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. Ambler, S. W., & Lines, M. (2012). Disciplined agile delivery: A practitioner's guide to agile software delivery in the enterprise. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Thompson, K. (2013). cprime s R.A.G.E. is unleashed: Agile leaders rejoice! Retrieved March 28, 2014, from 9

10 Enterprise Scrum (ESCRUM) Created by Ken Schwaber of Scrum Alliance in 2007 Application of Scrum at any place in the enterprise Basic Scrum with extensive backlog grooming Schwaber, K. (2007). The enterprise and scrum. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press. 10

11 Scaled Agile Framework (SAFE) Created by Dean Leffingwell of Rally in 2007 Knowledge to scale agile practices to enterprise Hybrid of Kanban, XP release planning, and Scrum Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. 11

12 Large Scale Scrum (LESS) Created by Craig Larman of Valtech in 2008 Scrum for larger projects of 500 to 1,500 people Model to nest product owners, backlogs, and teams Product Owner Area Product Owner Sprint Planning II 2-4 hours Feature Team + Scrum Master Sprint Backlog Daily Scrum 15 minutes 1 Day 2-4 Week Sprint Product Backlog Refinement 5-10% of Sprint Sprint Retrospective Sprint Planning I 2-4 hours Potentially Shippable Product Increment Sprint Review Joint Sprint Review Product Backlog Area Product Backlog Larman, C., & Vodde, B. (2008). Scaling lean and agile development: Thinking and organizational tools for large-scale scrum. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. 12

13 Disciplined Agile Delivery (DAD) Created by Scott Ambler of IBM in 2012 People, learning-centric hybrid agile IT delivery Scrum mapping to a model-driven RUP framework Ambler, S. W., & Lines, M. (2012). Disciplined agile delivery: A practitioner's guide to agile software delivery in the enterprise. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. 13

14 Recipes for Agile Governance (RAGE) Created by Kevin Thompson of cprime in 2013 Agile governance model for large Scrum projects Traditional-agile hybrid of portfolio-project planning Thompson, K. (2013). cprime s R.A.G.E. is unleashed: Agile leaders rejoice! Retrieved March 28, 2014, from 14

15 Agile Enterprise F/W COMPARISON Numerous lean-agile enterprise frameworks emerging escrum & LeSS were 1st (but SAFe & DaD dominate) SAFe is the most widely-used (with ample resources) Factor escrum SAFe LeSS DaD RAGE Simple Well-Defined Web Portal Books Measurable Results Consultants Tools Popularity International Fortune 500 Government Lean-Kanban Training & Cert Rico, D. F. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe) comparison. Retrieved June 4, 2014 from 15

16 Agile Enterprise F/W ADOPTION Lean-agile enterprise framework adopt stats emerging Numerous lean-agile frameworks now coming to light SAFe is most widely-adopted formalized framework Holler, R. (2015). Ninth annual state of agile survey: State of agile development. Atlanta, GA: VersionOne. 16

17 SAFe REVISITED Quality, execution, alignment, & transparency focus Proven, public well-defined F/W for scaling Lean-Agile Synchronizes alignment, collaboration, and deliveries Portfolio Program Team Leffingwell, D. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe). Retrieved June 2, 2014 from 17

18 SAFe Scaling at PORTFOLIO Level Vision, central strategy, and decentralized control Investment themes, Kanban, and objective metrics Value delivery via epics, streams, and release trains AGILE PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT Decentralized decision making Demand-based continuous flow Lightweight epic business cases Decentralized rolling wave planning Objective measures & milestones Agile estimating and planning Strategy Governance Investment Funding Program Management Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. 18

19 SAFe Scaling at PROGRAM Level Product and release management team-of-team Common mission, backlog, estimates, and sprints Value delivery via program-level epics and features AGILE RELEASE TRAINS Driven by vision and roadmap Lean, economic prioritization Frequent, quality deliveries Fast customer feedback Fixed, reliable cadence Regular inspect & adapt CI Alignment Synchronization Collaboration Value Delivery Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. 19

20 SAFe Scaling at TEAM Level Empowered, self-organizing cross-functional teams Hybrid of Scrum PM & XP technical best practices Value delivery via empowerment, quality, and CI AGILE CODE QUALITY Pair development Emergent design Test-first Refactoring Continuous integration Collective ownership Product Quality Predictability Customer Satisfaction Speed Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. 20

21 SAFe METRICS Leffingwell, D. (2015). Scaled agile framework (SAFe). Retrieved June 12, 2015 from 21

22 SAFe CASE STUDIES Most U.S. Fortune 500 companies adopting SAFe Goal to integrate enterprise, portfolios, and systems Capital One going through end-to-end SAFe adoption John Deere Spotify Comcast Agricultural automation 800 developers on 80 teams Rolled out SAFe in one year Transitioned to open spaces Field issue resolution up 42% Quality improvement up 50% Warranty expense down 50% Time to production down 20% Time to market down 20% Job engagement up 10% Television cable/dvr boxes Embedded & server-side 150 developers on 15 teams Cycle time - 12 to 4 months Support 11 million+ DVRs Design features vs. layers Releases delivered on-time 100% capabilities delivered 95% requirements delivered Fully automated sprint tests GUI-based point of sale sys Switched from CMMI to SAFe 120 developers on 12 teams QA to new feature focus Used Rally adoption model 10% productivity improvement 10% cost of quality reduction 200% improved defect density Production defects down 50% Value vs. compliance focus Leffingwell, D. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe) case studies. Denver, CO: Leffingwell, LLC. Rico, D. F. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe) benefits. Retrieved June 2, 2014, from 22

23 SAFe BENEFITS Cycle time and quality are most notable improvement Productivity on par with Scrum at 10X above normal Data shows SAFe scales to teams of 1,000+ people Benefit Nokia SEI Telstra BMC Trade Station Discount Tire Valpak Mitchell John Deere Spotify Comcast Average App Maps Trading DW IT Trading Retail Market Insurance Agricult. Cable PoS Weeks People Teams Satis 25% 29% 15% 23% Costs 50% 10% 30% Product 2000% 25% 10% 678% Quality 95% 44% 50% 50% 60% Cycle 600% 600% 300% 50% 300% 370% ROI 2500% 200% 1350% Morale 43% 63% 10% 39% Leffingwell, D. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe) case studies. Denver, CO: Leffingwell, LLC. Rico, D. F. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe) benefits. Retrieved June 2, 2014, from 23

24 SAFe SUMMARY Lean-agile frameworks & tools emerging in droves Focus on scaling agility to enterprises & portfolios SAFe emerging as the clear international leader SAFe is extremely well-defined in books and Internet SAFe has ample training, certification, consulting, etc. SAFe leads to increased productivity and quality SAFe is scalable to teams of up to 1,000+ developers SAFe is preferred agile approach of Global 500 firms SAFe is agile choice for public sector IT acquisitions SAFe cases and performance data rapidly emerging Rico, D. F. (2014). Dave's Notes: For Scaling with SAFe, DaD, LeSS, RAGE, ScrumPLoP, Enterprise Scrum, etc. Retrieved March 28, 2014 from 24

25 Key Agile SCALING POINTERS One must think and act small to accomplish big things Slow down to speed up, speed up til wheels come off Scaling up lowers productivity, quality, & business value EMPOWER WORKFORCE - Allow workers to help establish enterprise business goals and objectives. ALIGN BUSINESS VALUE - Align and focus agile teams on delivering business value to the enterprise. PERFORM VISIONING - Frequently communicate portfolio, project, and team vision on continuous basis. REDUCE SIZE - Reduce sizes of agile portfolios, acquisitions, products, programs, projects, and teams. ACT SMALL - Get large agile teams to act, behave, collaborate, communicate, and perform like small ones. BE SMALL - Get small projects to act, behave, and collaborate like small ones instead of trying to act larger. ACT COLLOCATED - Get virtual distributed teams to act, behave, communicate and perform like collocated ones. USE SMALL ACQUISITION BATCHES - Organize suppliers to rapidly deliver new capabilities and quickly reprioritize. USE LEAN-AGILE CONTRACTS - Use collaborative contracts to share responsibility instead of adversarial legal ones. USE ENTERPRISE AUTOMATION - Automate everything with Continuous Integration, Continuous Delivery, & DevOps. Rico, D. F. (2014). Dave's Notes: For Scaling with SAFe, DaD, LeSS, RAGE, ScrumPLoP, Enterprise Scrum, etc. Retrieved March 28, 2014 from 25

26 Dave s PROFESSIONAL CAPABILITIES Organization Change Government Acquisitions Government Contracting Cost Estimating Systems Engineering BPR, IDEF0, & DoDAF Valuation Cost-Benefit Analysis, B/CR, ROI, NPV, BEP, Real Options, etc. Innovation Management CMMI & ISO 9001 PSP, TSP, & Code Reviews Technical Project Mgt. Software Development Methods Software Quality Mgt. Evolutionary Design Research Methods DoD 5000, TRA, & SRA Lean-Agile Scrum, SAFe, Continuous Integration & Delivery, DevOps, etc. Statistics, CFA, EFA, & SEM Lean Kanban Six Sigma Metrics, Models, & SPC Workflow Automation Big Data, Cloud, NoSQL STRENGTHS Data Mining Gathering & Reporting Performance Data Strategic Planning Executive & Management Briefs Brownbags & Webinars White Papers Tiger-Teams Short-Fuse Tasking Audits & Reviews Etc. 32 YEARS IN IT INDUSTRY Action-oriented. Do first (talk about it later). Data-mining/analysis. Collect facts (then report findings). Simplification. Communicating complex ideas (in simple terms). Git-r-done. Prefer short, high-priority tasks (vs. long bureaucratic projects). Team player. Consensus-oriented collaboration (vs. top-down autocratic control). PMP, CSEP, ACP, CSM, & SAFE 26

27 Books on ROI of SW METHODS Guides to software methods for business leaders Communicates the business value of IT approaches Rosetta stones to unlocking ROI of software methods (Description) (Description) 27

28 Backup Slides

29 U.S. gov t agile jobs grew by 13,000% from Adoption is higher in U.S. DoD than Civilian Agencies GDP of countries with high adoption rates is greater 13,000% Agile for PUBLIC SECTOR GOVERNMENT AGILE JOB GROWTH High GOVERNMENT COMPETITIVENESS PERCENTAGE COMPETITIVENESS YEARS 2013 Low Low AGILITY High Suhy, S. (2014). Has the U.S. government moved to agile without telling anyone? Retrieved April 24, 2015, from Porter, M. E., & Schwab, K. (2008). The global competitiveness report: 2008 to Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum. 29

30 Agile for SECURITY ENGINEERING Microsoft created software security life cycle in 2002 Waterfall approach tailored for Scrum sprints in 2009 Uses security req, threat modeling & security testing SEEDETAILED - SECURITY LIFECYCLE STEPS Microsoft. (2011). Security development lifecycle: SDL Process Guidance (Version 5.1). Redmond, WA: Author. Microsoft. (2010). Security development lifecycle: Simplified implementation of the microsoft SDL. Redmond, WA: Author. Microsoft. (2009). Security development lifecycle: Security development lifecycle for agile development (Version 1.0). Redmond, WA: Author. Bidstrup, E., & Kowalczyk, E. C. (2005). Security development lifecycle. Changing the software development process to build in security from the start. Security Summit West. 30

31 Agile for EMBEDDED SYSTEMS 1st-generation systems used hardwired logic 2nd-generation systems used PROMS & FPGAs 3rd-generation systems use APP. SW & COTS HW Iterations, Integrations, & Validations AGILE Software Model -MOST FLEXIBLE - Short Lead Least Cost Lowest Risk 90% Software COTS Hardware Early, Iterative Dev. Continuous V&V NEO-TRADITIONAL FPGA Model -MALLEABLE - Moderate Lead Moderate Cost Moderate Risk 50% Hardware COTS Components Midpoint Testing Some Early V&V TRADITIONAL Hardwired Model -LEAST FLEXIBLE - Long Lead Highest Cost Highest Risk 90% Hardware Custom Hardware Linear, Staged Dev. Late Big-Bang I&T RISK Embedded Systems More HW Than SW START Competing With SW GOAL SHIFT FROM LATE HARDWARE TO EARLIER SOFTWARE SOLUTION Pries, K. H., & Quigley, J. M. (2010). Scrum project management. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Pries, K. H., & Quigley, J. M. (2009). Project management of complex and embedded systems. Boca Raton, FL: Auerbach Publications. Thomke, S. (2003). Experimentation matters: Unlocking the potential of new technologies for innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. STOP Competing With HW 31

32 Agile for SYSTEMS ENGINEERING SoS, Lean, Kanban, and continuous flow system focus SAFe rapidly evolving & adapting to market needs A draft version was made for systems engineering SoS System Sub-Sys Leffingwell, D. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe). Retrieved April 8, 2015 from 32

33 Agile Scaling w/cloud COMPUTING 1st-generation systems used HPCs & Hadoop 2nd-generation systems used COTS HW & P2P 3rd-generation systems use APP. SW & COTS HW Rank Database Year Creator Firm Goal Model Lang I/F Focus Example User Rate KPro MongoDB Cassandra Redis HBase Elastic Search Steve Francia 10gen Avinash Lakshman Facebook 2009 Salvatore Sanfilippo Document C++ BSON Large-scale Web Apps Wide Column Pivotal Speed Key Value C Binary Mike Carafella Powerset Scale Wide Column Shay Banon Java CQL Fault-tolerant Data Stores Java Compass Search Document Java REST Real-time Messaging REST Petabyte-size Data Stores Full-text Search CRM Expedia 45% 48 Rapid-prototyping, Queries, Indexes, Replication, Availability, Load-balancing, Auto-Sharding, etc. Mission Critical Data itunes 20% 15 Distributed, Scalable, Performance, Durable, Caching, Operations, Transactions, Consistency Instant Messaging Image Repository Information Portals Twitter 20% 14 Real-time, Memory-cached, Performance, Persistence, Replication, Data structures, Age-off, etc. Ebay 10% 8 Scalable, Performance, Data-replication, Flexible, Consistency, Auto-sharding, Metrics, etc. Generality Reliability Wikimedia 5% 7 Real-time, Distributed, Multi-tenant, Document-based, Schema-free, Persistence, Availability, etc. 3 - $10M Gen App Reliable Low Cplx 2 - $100M Schema Dist P2P Med Cplx 1 - $1B Limited Sin PoF High Cplx Kovacs, K. (2015). Comparison of nosql databases. Retrieved on January 9, 2015, from Sahai, S. (2013). Nosql database comparison chart. Retrieved on January 9, 2015, from DB-Engines (2014). System properties comparison of nosql databases. Retrieved on January 9, 2015, from 33

34 Agile Scaling w/amazon WEB SVCS AWS is most popular cloud computing platform Scalable service with end-to-end security & privacy AWS is compliant & certified to 30+ indiv. S&P stds. AICPA COBIT CSA DoD CSM DIACAP FedRAMP FIPS SSAE SOC SAS Cross Service Analytics Application Services Storage & Content Del. Database Compute & Networking Deployment & Management FISMA GLBA HITECH NoSQL Sols MongoDB Cassandra HBase PCI NIST MPAA ITAR ISO/IEC ISAE HIPAA Barr, J. (2014). AWS achieves DoD provisional authorization. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from Dignan, L. (2014). Amazon web services lands DoD security authorization. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from Amazon.com (2015). AWS govcloud earns DoD CSM Levsl 3-5 provisional authorization. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from 34

35 Agile Scaling w/continuous DELIVERY Created by Jez Humble of ThoughtWorks in 2011 Includes CM, build, testing, integration, release, etc. Goal is one-touch automation of deployment pipeline CoQ 80% MS Tst 8/10 No Val $24B in 90s Rep by CD Not Add MLK Humble, J., & Farley, D. (2011). Continuous delivery. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Duvall, P., Matyas, S., & Glover, A. (2006). Continuous integration. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. Ohara, D. (2012). Continuous delivery and the world of devops. San Francisco, CA: GigaOM Pro. 35

36 Agile Scaling w/devops Assembla went from 2 to 45 releases every month 15K Google developers run 120 million tests per day 30K+ Amazon developers deliver 8,600 releases a day 3,645x Faster U.S. DoD IT Project 62x Faster U.S. DoD IT Project Singleton, A. (2014). Unblock: A guide to the new continuous agile. Needham, MA: Assembla, Inc. 36

37 Models of AGILE LEADERSHIP Numerous theories of agile leadership have emerged Many have to do with delegation and empowerment Leaders have major roles in visioning and enabling AGILE EMPLOYEE RADICAL LEAN LEADERSHIP Organic Teams Autonomy Self Org. Teams Talented Teams Empowerment Guiding Vision Alignment Communication Alignment Alignment Transparency Transparency Transparency Systems View Motivation Light Touch Purpose Iterative Value Reliability Scaling Simple Rules Mastery Delight Clients Excellence Competency Improvement Improvement Improvement Improvement Improvement Augustine, S. (2005). Managing agile projects. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Denning, S. (2010). The leader s guide to radical management: Reinventing the workplace for the 21st century. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Poppendieck, M, & Poppendieck, T. (2010). Leading lean software development: Results are not the point. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Appelo, J. (2011). Management 3.0: Leading agile developers and developing agile leaders. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. 37

38 Models of AGILE ORG. CHANGE Change, no matter how small or large, is difficult Smaller focused changes help to cross the chasm Simplifying, motivating, and validation key factors SWITCH INFLUENCER DRIVE TO SELL IS HUMAN DECISIVE DIRECT THE RIDER Follow the bright spots Script the critical moves Point to the destination MOTIVATE ELEPHANT Find the feeling Shrink the change Grow your people SHAPE PATH Tweak the environment Build habits Rally the herd MAKE IT DESIRABLE Create new experiences Create new motives SURPASS YOUR LIMITS Perfect complex skills Build emotional skills USE PEER PRESSURE Recruit public figures Recruit influential leaders STRENGTH IN NUMBERS Utilize teamwork Power of social capital DESIGN REWARDS Use incentives wisely Use punishment sparingly CHANGE ENVIRONMENT Make it easy Make it unavoidable PURPOSE Purpose-profit equality Business& societal benefit Share control of profits Delegate implementation Culture & goal alignment Remake society-globe AUTONOMY Accountable to someone Self-select work tasks Self-directed work tasks Self-selected timelines Self-selected teams Self-selected implement. MASTERY Experiment & innovate Align tasks to abilities Continuously improve Learning over profits Create challenging tasks Set high expectations ATTUNEMENT Reduce Your Power Take Their Perspective Use Strategic Mimicry BUOYANCY Use Interrogative Self-Talk Opt. Positivity Ratios Offer Explanatory Style CLARITY Find the Right Problem Find Your Frames Find an Easy Path COMMON ERRORS Narrow framing Confirmation bias Short term emotion Over confidence WIDEN OPTIONS Avoid a narrow frame Multi-track Find out who solved it TEST ASSUMPTIONS Consider the opposite Zoom out & zoom in Ooch ATTAIN DISTANCE Overcome emotion Gather & shift perspective Self-directed work tasks PREPARE TO BE WRONG Bookend the future Set a tripwire Trust the process Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2010). Switch: How to change things when change is hard. New York, NY: Random House. Patterson, K., et al. (2008). Influencer: The power to change anything: New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Riverhead Books. Pink, D. H. (2012). To sell is human: The surprising truth about moving others. New York, NY: Riverhead Books. Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2013). Decisive: How to make better choices in life and work. New York, NY: Random House. 38

39 Models of AGILE CONTRACTING Communication, cooperation, and interaction key Shared responsibility vs. blame and adversarialism Needs greater focus on collaboration vs. legal terms Dynamic Value Performance Based Target Cost Optional Scope Collaborative Business & Mission Value OVER Scope, Processes, & Deliverables Personal Interactions OVER Contract, Auditor, & Legal Interactions Conversations and Consensus OVER Contract Negotiations & Control Collaboration & Co-Dependency OVER Methodology & Adversarialism Exploration, Evolution, & Emergence OVER Forecasting & Control Early Continuous Quality Solutions OVER Late, Long-Term Deliveries Entrepreneurialism & Openness OVER Compliance & Self-Interest Customer Satisfaction and Quality OVER Policies & Governance Rico, D. F. (2011). The necessity of new contract models for agile project management. Fairfax, VA: Gantthead.Com. Rico, D. F. (2013). Agile vs. traditional contract manifesto. Retrieved March 28, 2013 from 39

40 Principles of AGILE CONTRACTING Manage agile contracts like your personal checkbook Optimize value of dollars, i.e., get most bang for buck Don t burden taxpayers with billion dollar acquisitions FEWER - Fewer high-priority acquisition priorities and needs (vs. kitchen-sink way of buying everything). SMALLER - Smaller low-cost single-mission throwaway acquisitions (vs. century-long, trillion-dollar systems). MICRO TIMELINES - Hyper fast acquisition lifecycles measured in months and years (vs. decades and centuries). EMERGENT DESIGN - Micro-thin capability-based designs (vs. wasteful heavyweight century-long architectures). FLATTER - Flatter gov t agencies, acquisition, organizations & program offices (vs. top-heavy oversight teams). COLLABORATIVE - Smaller flatter cross-functional buyer-supplier teams (vs. adversarial legalistic contracting). CROWDSOURCED - Global bottom-up planning, decisions, funding, risk-sharing & designs (vs. local groupthink). RESULTS BASED - Blackbox, outcome, and product-oriented acquisitions (vs. whitebox, work-in-process focus). MAXIMIZE FLOW - Low-cost intensive automated processes (vs. human-intensive decisions and governance). COMMERCIALIZE - Maximize use of commercial products and services (vs. customized in-sourced solutions). OUTSOURCED DATA - Use commercial open source data & analytics (vs. internal collection, analysis, & reports). Rico, D. F. (2014). Dave's Notes: Principles for Transforming U.S. DoD Acquisition & Systems Engineering Practices. Retrieved March, 2015 from 40