Lean & Agile Enterprise Frameworks: For Managing Large U.S. Government Cloud Computing Projects

Lean & Agile
Enterprise Frameworks
For Managing Large U.S. Gov’t
Cloud Computing Projects
Dr. David F. Rico, PMP, CSEP, ACP, CSM, SAFe
Twitter: @dr_david_f_rico
Website: http://www.davidfrico.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidfrico
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/david.f.rico.9
Agile Capabilities: http://davidfrico.com/rico-capability-agile.pdf
Agile Resources: http://www.davidfrico.com/daves-agile-resources.htm
Agile Cheat Sheet: http://davidfrico.com/key-agile-theories-ideas-and-principles.pdf

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
2
 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, 100+ talks to 11,000 people
 Adjunct at GWU, UMBC, UMUC, Argosy, & NDMU
 Specializes in metrics, models, & cost engineering
 Cloud Computing, SOA, Web Services, FOSS, etc.


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 organization, program, and 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


How do Lean & Agile INTERSECT?
4
 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
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).
  
Economic View
Decentralization
Fast Feedback
Control Cadence
& Small Batches
Manage Queues/
Exploit Variability
WIP Constraints
& Kanban
Flow PrinciplesAgile Values
Customer
Collaboration
Empowered
Teams
Iterative
Delivery
Responding
to Change
Lean Pillars
Respect
for People
Continuous
Improvement
Customer Value
Relationships
Customer Pull
Continuous Flow
Perfection
Value Stream
Lean Principles
 Customer relationships, satisfaction, trust, and loyalty
 Team authority, empowerment, and resources
 Team identification, cohesion, and communication
Lean & Agile Practices
 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
 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

Basic SCRUM Framework
Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2001). Agile software development with scrum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
 Created by Jeff Sutherland at Easel in 1993
 Product backlog comprised of needed features
 Sprint-to-sprint, iterative, adaptive emergent model
5

Basic SCRUM-XP Hybrid
Augustine, S. (2008). Certified scrum master training: Not just how, buy why. Herndon, VA: LitheSpeed.
 Created by Sanjiv Augustine of Lithespeed in 2008
 Release planning used to create product backlog
 Extends Scrum beyond Sprint-to-sprint planning
Initial Planning Sprint Cycle
Discovery Session
 Agile Training
 Project Discovery
 Process Discovery
 Team Discovery
 Initial Backlog
Release Planning
 Business Case
 Desired Backlog
 Hi-Level Estimates
 Prioritize Backlog
 Finalize Backlog
Product Backlog
 Prioritized Requirements
Sprint Planning
 Set Sprint Capacity
 Identify Tasks
 Estimate Tasks
Sprint Review
 Present Backlog Items
 Record Feedback
 Adjust Backlog
Daily Scrum
 Completed Backlog Items
 Planned Backlog Items
 Impediments to Progress
Sprint Backlog
 List of Technical Tasks Assigned to a Sprint
Potentially Shippable Product
Working Operational Software
Sprint
 Select Tasks and Create Tests
 Create Simple Designs
 Code and Test Software Units
 Perform Integration Testing
 Maintain Daily Burndown Chart
 Update Sprint Backlog
Sprint Retrospective

6

Layton, M. C., & Maurer, R. (2011). Agile project management for dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing.
 Created by Mark Layton at PlatinumEdge in 2012
 Mix of new product development, XP, and Scrum
 Simple codification of common XP-Scrum hybrid
7
Simplified AGILE PROJECT MGT F/W

Agile ENTERPRISE FRAMEWORKS
8
 Dozens of Agile project management models emerged
 Many stem from principles of Extreme Programming
 All include product, project, & team management
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 http://www.cprime.com/tag/agile-governance
eScrum
- 2007 -
SAFe
- 2007 -
LeSS
- 2007 -
DaD
- 2012 -
RAGE
- 2013 -
 Product Mgt
 Program Mgt
 Project Mgt
 Process Mgt
 Business Mgt
 Market Mgt
 Strategic Mgt
 Portfolio Mgt
 Program Mgt
 Team Mgt
 Quality Mgt
 Delivery Mgt
 Business Mgt
 Portfolio Mgt
 Product Mgt
 Area Mgt
 Sprint Mgt
 Release Mgt
 Business Mgt
 Portfolio Mgt
 Inception
 Construction
 Iterations
 Transition
 Business
 Governance
 Portfolio
 Program
 Project
 Delivery


Enterprise Scrum (ESCRUM)
Schwaber, K. (2007). The enterprise and scrum. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.
 Created by Ken Schwaber of Scrum Alliance in 2007
 Application of Scrum at any place in the enterprise
 Basic Scrum with extensive backlog grooming
9


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
10Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.


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
11Larman, C., & Vodde, B. (2008). Scaling lean and agile development: Thinking and organizational tools for large-scale scrum. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Product OwnerProduct Backlog Area
Product Owner
Area
Product Backlog
Sprint
Backlog
Daily Scrum
15 minutes
Product Backlog Refinement
5 - 10% of Sprint
2 - 4 Week Sprint
1 Day
Feature Team +
Scrum Master
Sprint Planning II
2 - 4 hours
Sprint
Planning I
2 - 4 hours
Potentially Shippable
Product Increment
Sprint
Review
Joint
Sprint
Review
Sprint Retrospective


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
12Ambler, S. W., & Lines, M. (2012). Disciplined agile delivery: A practitioner's guide to agile software delivery in the enterprise. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.


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
13Thompson, K. (2013). cPrime’s R.A.G.E. is unleashed: Agile leaders rejoice! Retrieved March 28, 2014, from http://www.cprime.com/tag/agile-governance


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)
14Rico, D. F. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe) comparison. Retrieved June 4, 2014 from http://davidfrico.com/safe-comparison.xls
Factor eScrum SAFe LeSS DaD RAGE
Simple    
Well-Defined 
Web Portal 
Books    
Measurable   
Results  
Training & Cert 
Consultants  
Tools 
Popularity  
International   
Fortune 500  
Government 
Lean-Kanban  






SAFe REVISITED
 Proven, public well-defined F/W for scaling Lean-Agile
 Synchronizes alignment, collaboration, and deliveries
 Quality, execution, alignment, & transparency focus
15Leffingwell, D. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe). Retrieved June 2, 2014 from http://www.scaledagileframework.com




Portfolio
Team
Program

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
Investment
Funding
Governance
Program
Management





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 Collaboration
Synchronization
Value
Delivery






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
Customer
Satisfaction
Predictability Speed

  
 


SAFe BENEFITS
19Leffingwell, 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 http://davidfrico.com/safe-benefits.txt
 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 95.3 2 52 52 52 52 51
People 520 400 75 300 100 90 300 800 150 120 286
Teams 66 30 9 10 10 9 60 80 15 12 30
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%




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
20
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
• 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
• 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 http://davidfrico.com/safe-benefits.txt


SAFe SUMMARY
 Lean-agile frameworks & tools emerging in droves
 Focus on scaling agility to enterprises & portfolios
 SAFe emerging as the clear international leader
21
Rico, D. F. (2014). Dave's Notes: For Scaling with SAFe, DaD, LeSS, RAGE, ScrumPLoP, Enterprise Scrum, etc. Retrieved March 28, 2014 from http://davidfrico.com
 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


Dave’s PROFESSIONAL CAPABILITIES
22
Software
Quality
Mgt.
Technical
Project
Mgt.
Software
Development
Methods
Organization
Change
Systems
Engineering
Cost
Estimating
Government
Contracting
Government
Acquisitions
Lean
Kanban
Big Data,
Cloud, NoSQL
Workflow
Automation
Metrics,
Models, & SPC
Six
Sigma
BPR, IDEF0,
& DoDAF
DoD 5000,
TRA, & SRA
PSP, TSP, &
Code Reviews
CMMI &
ISO 9001
Innovation
Management
Statistics, CFA,
EFA, & SEM
Research
Methods
Evolutionary
Design
Valuation — Cost-Benefit Analysis, B/CR, ROI, NPV, BEP, Real Options, etc.
Lean-Agile — Scrum, SAFe, Continuous Integration & Delivery, DevOps, etc.
STRENGTHS – Data Mining  Gathering & Reporting Performance Data  Strategic Planning  Executive & Manage-
ment Briefs  Brownbags & Webinars  White Papers  Tiger-Teams  Short-Fuse Tasking  Audits & Reviews  Etc.
● 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
32 YEARS
IN IT
INDUSTRY

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
 http://davidfrico.com/agile-book.htm (Description)
 http://davidfrico.com/roi-book.htm (Description)
23


Agile for EMBEDDED SYSTEMS
 1st-generation systems used hardwired logic
 2nd-generation systems used PROMS & FPGAs
 3rd-generation systems use APP. SW & COTS HW
25
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.

● Short Lead
● Least Cost
● Lowest Risk
● 90% Software
● COTS Hardware
● Early, Iterative Dev.
● Continuous V&V
● Moderate Lead
● Moderate Cost
● Moderate Risk
● 50% Hardware
● COTS Components
● Midpoint Testing
● “Some” Early V&V
● Long Lead
● Highest Cost
● Highest Risk
● 90% Hardware
● Custom Hardware
● Linear, Staged Dev.
● Late Big-Bang I&T
AGILE
“Software Model”
- MOST FLEXIBLE -
NEO-TRADITIONAL
“FPGA Model”
- MALLEABLE -
TRADITIONAL
“Hardwired Model”
- LEAST FLEXIBLE -
GOAL – SHIFT FROM LATE HARDWARE TO EARLIER SOFTWARE SOLUTION
RISK
Embedded
Systems
More HW
Than SW
STOP
Competing
With HW
START
Competing
With SW






Iterations,Integrations,&Validations

 SAFe rapidly evolving & adapting to market needs
 A “draft” version was made for “systems engineering”
 SoS, Lean, Kanban, and continuous flow system focus
26Leffingwell, D. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe). Retrieved April 8, 2015 from http://www.scaledagileframework.com




Agile for SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
SoS
System
Sub-Sys

27
Kovacs, K. (2015). Comparison of nosql databases. Retrieved on January 9, 2015, from http://kkovacs.eu
Sahai, S. (2013). Nosql database comparison chart. Retrieved on January 9, 2015, from http://www.infoivy.com
DB-Engines (2014). System properties comparison of nosql databases. Retrieved on January 9, 2015, from http://db-engines.com



Rank Database Year Creator Firm Goal Model Lang I/F Focus Example User Rate KPro
2007
Steve
Francia
10gen
Gener-
ality
Document C++ BSON
Large-scale
Web Apps
CRM Expedia 45% 48
2008
Avinash
Lakshman
Facebook
Relia-
bility
Wide
Column
Java CQL
Fault-tolerant
Data Stores
Mission
Critical Data
iTunes 20% 15
2009
Salvatore
Sanfilippo
Pivotal Speed Key Value C Binary
Real-time
Messaging
Instant
Messaging
Twitter 20% 14
2007
Mike
Carafella
Powerset Scale
Wide
Column
Java REST
Petabyte-size
Data Stores
Image
Repository
Ebay 10% 8
2004
Shay
Banon
Compass Search Document Java REST
Full-text
Search
Information
Portals
Wiki-
media
5% 7
Real-time, Distributed, Multi-tenant, Document-based, Schema-free, Persistence, Availability, etc.
8
Redis10
HBase14
Rapid-prototyping, Queries, Indexes, Replication, Availability, Load-balancing, Auto-Sharding, etc.
Distributed, Scalable, Performance, Durable, Caching, Operations, Transactions, Consistency
Real-time, Memory-cached, Performance, Persistence, Replication, Data structures, Age-off, etc.
Scalable, Performance, Data-replication, Flexible, Consistency, Auto-sharding, Metrics, etc.
16
Elastic
Search
MongoDB5
Cassandra
3 - $10M
•Gen App
•Reliable
•Low Cplx
2 - $100M
•Schema
•Dist P2P
•Med Cplx
1 - $1B
•Limited
•Sin PoF
•High Cplx

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

 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.
28
Barr, J. (2014). AWS achieves DoD provisional authorization. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from http://aws.amazon.com
Dignan, L. (2014). Amazon web services lands DoD security authorization. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from http://www.zdnet.com
Amazon.com (2015). AWS govcloud earns DoD CSM Levsl 3-5 provisional authorization. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from http://aws.amazon.com
Analytics Database
SSAE
Cross
Service
Compute &
Networking
SOC
Application
Services
Deployment &
Management
Storage &
Content Del.
DoD CSM DIACAP FedRAMP FIPSCOBIT CSAAICPA
FISMAGLBAHITECH
SAS
ITAR ISO/IEC ISAE HIPAANIST MPAAPCI


NoSQL Sols
• MongoDB
• Cassandra
• HBase

Agile Scaling w/AMAZON WEB SVCS

 Created by Jez Humble of ThoughtWorks in 2011
 Includes CM, build, testing, integration, release, etc.
 Goal is one-touch automation of deployment pipeline
29
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.


CoQ
• 80% MS Tst
• 8/10 No Val
• $24B in 90s
• Rep by CD
• Not Add MLK
Agile Scaling w/CONTINUOUS DELIVERY

 Goal of continuous delivery is releases vs. build/tests
 Market-driven releases creates rapid business value
 Assembla went from 2 to 45 monthly releases w/CD
30Singleton, A. (2014). Unblock: A guide to the new continuous agile. Needham, MA: Assembla, Inc.

62x Faster
U.S. DoD
IT Project
3,645x Faster
U.S. DoD
IT Project

Agile Scaling at ASSEMBLA

 Google early adopter of agile methods and Scrum
 Google also uses agile testing at enterprise scale
 15,000 developers run 120 million tests per day
31
Micco, J. (2013). Continuous integration at google scale. Eclipse Con, Boston, MA.
Whittaker, J., Arbon, J., & Carollo, J. (2012). How google tests software. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
 440 billion unique users run 37 trillion searches each year
 Single monolithic code tree with mixed language code
 Submissions at head – One branch – All from source
 20+ code changes/minute – 50% code change/month
 5,500+ submissions/day – 120 million tests per day
 80,000 builds per day – 20 million builds per year
 Auto code inspections – For low defect density
 10X programming productivity improvement
 $150 million in annual labor savings (ROI as a result)



Agile Scaling at GOOGLE

 Amazon adopted agile in 1999 and Scrum in 2004
 Using enterprise-scale continuous delivery by 2010
 30,000+ developers deploy over 8,600 releases a day
32
Atlas, A. (2009). Accidental adoption: The story of scrum at amazon.com. Proceedings of the Agile 2009 Conference, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 135-140.
Jenkins, J. (2011). Velocity culture at amazon.com. Proceedings of the Velocity 2011 Conference, Santa Clara, California, USA.
Elisha, S. (2013). Continuous deployment with amazon web services. Proceedings of the AWS Summit 2013, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
 Software deployment every 11.6 seconds (as of 2011)
 24,828 to 86,320 releases per Iteration
 161,379 to 561,080 releases per Quarter
 645,517 to 2,244,320 releases per Year
 Automatic, split-second roll-forward & backward
 75-90% reduction in release-caused outages (0.001%)
 Millions of times faster (than traditional methods)
 4,357,241 to 15,149,160 per traditional release
 Thousands of times faster (than manual agility)
 161,379 to 561,080 per Scrum/SAFe release
 Used agile methods long before U.S. government (1999)





Agile Scaling at AMAZON

Agile LEADERSHIP Models
Rico, D. F. (2013). Agile coaching in high-conflict environments. Retrieved April 11, 2013 from http://davidfrico.com/agile-conflict-mgt.pdf
Rico, D. F. (2013). Agile project management for virtual distributed teams. Retrieved July 29, 2013 from http://www.davidfrico.com/rico13m.pdf
Rico, D. F. (2013). Agile vs. traditional contract manifesto. Retrieved March 28, 2013 from http://www.davidfrico.com/agile-vs-trad-contract-manifesto.pdf 33
Personal Project Enterprise
• Don't Be a Know-it-All
• Be Open & Willing to Learn
• Treat People Respectfully
• Be Gracious, Humble, & Kind
• Listen & Be Slow-to-Speak
• Be Patient & Longsuffering
• Be Objective & Dispassionate
• Don't Micromanage & Direct
• Exhibit Maturity & Composure
• Don't Escalate or Exacerbate
• Don't Gossip or be Negative
• Delegate, Empower, & Trust
• Gently Coach, Guide, & Lead
• Customer Communication
• Product Visioning
• Distribution Strategy
• Team Development
• Standards & Practices
• Telecom Infrastructure
• Development Tools
• High-Context Meetings
• Coordination & Governance
• F2F Communications
• Consensus Based Decisions
• Performance Management
• Personal Development
• Business Value vs. Scope
• Interactions vs. Contracts
• Relationship vs. Regulation
• Conversation vs. Negotiation
• Consensus vs. Dictatorship
• Collaboration vs. Control
• Openness vs. Adversarialism
• Exploration vs. Planning
• Incremental vs. All Inclusive
• Entrepreneurial vs. Managerial
• Creativity vs. Constraints
• Satisfaction vs. Compliance
• Quality vs. Quantity
 Power & authority delegated to the lowest level
 Tap into the creative nuclear power of team’s talent
 Coaching, communication, and relationships key skills

Agile ORG. CHANGE Models
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.
Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2013). Decisive: How to make better choices in life and work. New York, NY: Random House.
 Change, no matter how small or large, is difficult
 Smaller focused changes help to cross the chasm
 Shrinking, simplifying, and motivation key factors
34
SWITCH
 Follow the bright spots
 Script the critical moves
 Point to the destination
 Find the feeling
 Shrink the change
 Grow your people
 Tweak the environment
 Build habits
 Rally the herd
Direct the Rider
Motivate the Elephant
Shape the Path
INFLUENCER
 Create new experiences
 Create new motives
 Perfect complex skills
 Build emotional skills
 Recruit public personalities
 Recruit influential leaders
 Utilize teamwork
 Enlist the power of social capital
 Use incentives wisely
 Use punishment sparingly
 Make it easy
 Make it unavoidable
Make it Desirable
Surpass your Limits
Harness Peer Pressure
Find Strength in Numbers
Design Rewards
Change Environment
DRIVE
Purpose
Autonomy
Mastery
 Purpose and profit equality
 Business and societal benefit
 Share control of profits
 Delegate implementation
 Culture and goal alignment
 Remake society and globe
 Be accountable to someone
 Self-selected work tasks
 Self-directed work tasks
 Self-selected timelines
 Self-selected teams
 Self-selected implementation
 Experimentation and innovation
 Align tasks to abilities
 Continuously improve abilities
 Elevate learning over profits
 Create challenging tasks
 Establish high expectations
DECISIVE
Villains of Good Decisions
 Narrow framing
 Confirmation bias
 Short term emotion
 Over confidence
Widen Your Options
 Avoid a narrow frame
 Multi-track
 Find someone who solved problem
Reality Test Assumptions
 Consider the opposite
 Zoom out & zoom in
 Ooch
Attain Distance
 Overcome short-term emotion
 Gather more info & shift perspective
 Self-directed work tasks
Prepare to be Wrong
 Bookend the future
 Set a tripwire
 Trust the process


Agile ACQUISITION-CONTRACT Model
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 http://www.davidfrico.com
35
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
 Communication, cooperation, and interaction key
 Shared responsibility vs. blame and adversarialism
 Needs greater focus on collaboration vs. legal terms

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
36
Rico, D. F. (2014). Dave's Notes: For Scaling with SAFe, DaD, LeSS, RAGE, ScrumPLoP, Enterprise Scrum, etc. Retrieved March 28, 2014 from http://davidfrico.com
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.





Lean & Agile Enterprise Frameworks: For Managing Large U.S. Government Cloud Computing Projects

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Lean & Agile Enterprise Frameworks: For Managing Large U.S. Government Cloud Computing Projects

Similaire à Lean & Agile Enterprise Frameworks: For Managing Large U.S. Government Cloud Computing Projects (20)

Plus de David Rico

Plus de David Rico (8)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Lean & Agile Enterprise Frameworks: For Managing Large U.S. Government Cloud Computing Projects