This report is the second in a series funded by SAF/AQX. At the end of our first report, we provided a list of topics that we thought needed further research. Many of those have been presented here. However, we also acknowledge that our treatment of these subjects is by no means complete as the body of knowledge on these topics continues to evolve. Since the publication of the first report and while we have been pursuing the contents for this report, there has been considerable movement within the government and DoD to identify and implement a new acquisition process that can take advantage of Agile methods. This movement extends from recognition by the former Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, that conventional modernization programs may not meet the existing demand in today’s environment, to Congress’ inclusion of Section 804 in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. Pursuant to Section 804, OSD published a report providing updates on DoD’s progress toward developing a new acquisition process for information technology capabilities [OSD 2010]. This recognition shows an understanding that the acquisition tempo must respond to the operational tempo. In addition, there is still a need for process discipline that ensures effective use of resources in providing needed capabilities. While some may say that Agile does not have the appropriate discipline for use within the DoD, Agile does require adherence to processes and there is evidence that using Agile methods in conjunction with other methods like CMMI is a powerful approach to achieving the needed effectiveness. In addition to effectiveness, a focus on value must be maintained. Agile practitioners have evolved the classic iron triangle to include value. Even though value is included, those within DoD that have adopted Agile methods have learned that a change in mindset and culture for the PMOs and other acquisition entities is required. In order to change culture, you need to understand your current culture, the assumptions, shared values, and artifacts that make up your current culture, and what the differences are with a new Agile culture. Table 2 shows a comparison of the Agile and traditional DoD cultural elements. This table should help those who want to adopt Agile methods understand some of the differences and changes they will need to make. Table 3 provides some potential PMO actions and enablers that can support the use of Agile methods. The end goal of many of these cultural shifts is to enable partnership and shared understanding of what value means from a customer perspective. When the acquirer, developer, and end user all share the same understanding of value, it is much easier to agree upon priorities. In order to make the transition to Agile, one must understand the terminology and the differences between those of Agile practitioners and DoD acquisition personnel. This is only the beginning of “being Agile.” “Being Agile” is more than adopting just another methodology. The key to “being Agile” is embracing change. Another part of becoming Agile is learning the common traits of Agile managers. Agile managers are leaders, coaches, expeditors, and champions. Agile managers must be good team builders as the team within the Agile culture is the cornerstone of the thought process and method. Managers also need to master the time box, understand what contract types work best, learn which metrics apply to Agile programs, and deal with distributed teams in an Agile manner. CMU/SEI-2011-TN-002 | 78 One of the main sticking points with using Agile methods in DoD acquisition is how to accommodate large capstone events such as CDR. There are other challenges that must be addressed such as incentives to collaborate, definitions, and regulatory language. While there are many issues in this arena, the main thing to remember is the purpose and intent of holding these reviews in the first place. The purpose is to evaluate progress on and/or review specific aspects of the proposed technical solution. Thus, expectations and criteria should be created that reflect the level and type of documentation that would be acceptable for the milestone. This is not any different from business as usual. However, the key here is for the government PMO and the contractor to define the level and type of documentation needed, while they work within an Agile environment that is unique to each program. Estimating for Agile acquisition is another area that required considerable exploration. Estimation in Agile is different from traditional estimation. In Agile, the estimates tend to be just-in-time with a high-level estimate refined to create detailed estimates as more is learned about the requirements. Traditional methods are more detailed up front with the details being refined as more is learned. There are several parametric tools and even an AgileEVM tool that can be used in the Agile environment. Both the estimator and the reviewer need to be aware that estimation within Agile is different from traditional estimation and should act accordingly. How specific issues can be dealt with is highly contract-specific but general guidance is provided within Section 5. We addressed the road to Agile adoption in DoD software acquisition. Our interviews revealed two main reasons to adopt Agile—moving from a burning platform and an operational need that cannot wait for traditional delivery times. Change is hard. Understanding the scope of the change is essential. Table 4 addresses different adoption factors and expectations for the developer and the customer/acquirer. Lastly, Table 5 provides some candidate transition mechanisms for DoD adoption of Agile methods. Remember to find and nurture good sponsors for your adoption, understand the adoption population, conduct a readiness assessment, and determine what adoption mechanisms you will need and have them on hand early in the adoption process. Our journey into finding ways for Agile methods to be adopted within DoD has been challenging and exciting, and has taken unexpected turns. With Congressional direction and subsequent involvement of OSD policy makers, we have come to realize the need for practical guidance for the adoption of Agile. Our next endeavor will be to outline and then create a guidebook that DoD users can employ to help them first understand if their program is a good candidate for using Agile and then understand how to go about adopting Agile. In the meantime, we are working with the PEX program (whom we interviewed) to jointly publish a paper outlining some potential changes to Air Force regulations that would ease the adoption of Agile methods. These additional potential topics for future work were identified during the review of this document: the contract to define how to negotiate changes than to define what will be built [Poppendieck 2003] CMU/SEI-2011-TN-002 | 79 policy, and law. Agile must put people in charge over bureaucratic processes or it will fail. The development teams can be as Agile as they want and they can have a total understanding of the customers’ desires (which helps a lot for requirements analysis and trade off) but if the touch points (listed below) to the rest of the world are not fixed, we will not see much difference. Thus, there is a need to explore how the following elements impact and need to work with Agile methods − funding (colors of money, time limits on expiration of funds) − funding approval (Investment Review Board [IRB], $250,000 limit on sustainment enhancements, standard financial information structure [SFIS], Federal Financial Management Improvement Act [FFMIA]) − architecture requirements approval (Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DODAF), common logistics operating environment [CLOE]) − documentation (capability production document (CPD), test and evaluation master plan (TEMP), information support plan (ISP), economic analysis (EA), capabilities-based assessment (CBA), business case) − data center lead times − contract lead times (justifications and approvals [J&As] for add-on products by a vendor whose proprietary stack you already own) address the naming and content of technical milestones within an Agile context As should be clear from the above list, there are still significant implementation areas for using Agile methods in DoD acquisition that warrant study. Some of these topics will be covered in our planned work. CMU/SEI-2011-TN-002 | 80 CMU/SEI-2011-TN-002 | 81 Appendix A: Acronyms ACAP Analyst Capability AFB Air Force Base AFEI Association for Enterprise Information AFI Air Force Instruction APO Acquisition Program Office APEX Application Experience AsD adaptive software development BCR baseline change request CBA capabilities based assessment CDR Critical Design Review CDRL contract data requirements list CEO chief executive officer CLOE common logistics operating environment COCOMO Constructive Cost Model COTR contracting officer’s technical representative CPD capability production document CPFF cost plus fixed fee CPIF cost plus incentive fee CMMI Capability Maturity Model Integration DAG Defense Acquisition Guidebook DARFAR Defense Acquisition Reform Findings and Recommendations DASA CE Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Cost & Economics DAU Defense Acquisition University DBS defense business systems DFAR Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation DIACAP DoD Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process CMU/SEI-2011-TN-002 | 82 DID data item description DoD Department of Defense DoDAF Department of Defense Architecture Framework DoDD DoD Directive DoDI DoD Instruction DSDM Dynamic Systems Development Method DT&E development test and evaluation EA economic analysis EVM earned value management FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation FCs functional capabilities FFMIA Federal Financial Management Improvement Act FFP firm fixed price FLEX Development Flexibility FP fixed price FRP full rate production FY fiscal year GAO Government Accountability Office IA information assurance IDIQ indefinite delivery indefinite quantity INVEST Innovation for New Value, Efficiency, and Savings IOT&E initial operational test and evaluation IRB Investment Review Board ISP information support plan IT information technology J&As justification and approvals LCA life cycle architecture LCO life cycle objectives CMU/SEI-2011-TN-002 | 83 Lt Col Lieutenant Colonel LRIP limited/low rate initial production MDA Milestone Decision Authority MOA memorandum of agreement MOU memorandum of understanding NDAA National Defense Authorization Act O&M operations and maintenance OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense OT&E operational test and evaluation PCAP Programmer Capability PDR Preliminary Design Review PEX Patriot Excalibur PHP Hypertext PreProcessor PL public law PLCCE program life cycle cost estimate PM program manager PMB performance measurement baseline PMO program management office PWS program work statement QR quality review RESL Architecture / Risk Resolution RICE reports, interfaces, conversions, enhancements, or extensions RFP request for proposal RUP Rational Unified Process SAF Secretary of the Air Force SDR System Design Review SEER Software Evaluation and Estimation of Resources SEER-SEM Software Evaluation and Estimation of Resources – Software Estimation Model CMU/SEI-2011-TN-002 | 84 SEI Software Engineering Institute SETA Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance SFIS standard financial information structure SIDRE Software Intensive Innovative Development and Reengineering/Evolution SLIM Software Lifecycle Management-Estimate SLOC source lines of code SOW statement of work SRR System Requirements Review SSR Software Specification Review TEAM Team Cohesion TEMP Test and Evaluation Master Plan TN technical note TSP Team Software Process V&V verification and validation WBS work breakdown structure XP eXtreme Programming CMU/SEI-2011-TN-002 | 85 Appendix B: Glossary Backlog An accumulation, especially of unfinished work or unfilled orders.39 Done definition of done can include software, documentation, testing, and certification being complete or any subset of this list being completed. The developer and product owner must agree on what is included in “done”. With this in mind, another definition: 2. The useful definition of doneness stresses the goal of all Agile iterations: the product must remain shippable. − as advertised − within the expected environment − in any combination − without degradation over time − with graceful handling of errors This definition of doneness emphasizes this result: we want a stable app at all times. When we start the app, we know what is expected to work because we can see it and try it. We can prioritize new features by seeing how they must be reconciled with already-visible features.41 Epic A connected or bundled set of stories that result in a definable (in the case of software, desirable) capability or outcome. An epic is a large user story. It is possible to break up an epic into several user stories.42 Iteration In Agile software development,43 a single development cycle, usually measured as one or two weeks. An iteration may also be defined as the elapsed time between iteration planning sessions Just enough Combining the two dictionary definitions of “just” and “enough” you get “exactly sufficient.” Within the Agile community, this is an appropriate definition. Thus: just enough to be successful, to get started, support the user story queue, accomplish our goal. 39 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/backlog 40 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/done 41 http://billharlan.com/pub/papers/Agile_Essentials.html 42 http://www.targetprocess.com/LearnAgile/AgileGlossary/ThemeEpic.aspx 43 http://searchsoftwarequality.techtarget.com/definition/iteration CMU/SEI-2011-TN-002 | 86 Pattern practice. It articulates a recurring problem, as well as the context of the problem and the conditions that contribute to creating it. Likewise, the solution, the rationale for the solution, and consequences of using it are given.44 2. A way to capture expertise. Patterns document good ideas—strategies that have been shown to work well for a variety of people in a variety of circumstances.45 Product Backlog The master list of all functionality desired in the product.46 Release 5a. The act or an instance of issuing something for publication, use, or distribution. 2. Something thus released: a new release of a software program.47 Sprint A set period of time during which specific work must be completed and made ready for review.48 Often used as a synonym for iteration. Story In Agile software development, a story is a particular business need assigned to the software development team. Stories must be broken down into small enough components that they may be delivered in a single development iteration. 49 Story Point According to Cohn, “Story points are a unit of measure for expressing the overall size of a user story, feature, or other piece of work …The number of story points associated with a story represents the overall size of the story. There is no set formula for defining the size of a story. Rather a story-point estimate is an amalgamation of the amount of effort involved in developing the feature, the complexity of developing it, the risk inherent in it and so on.”50 Technical Debt Technical debt and design debt are synonymous, neologistic metaphors referring to the eventual consequences of slapdash software architecture and hasty software development. Code debt refers to technical debt within a codebase. 44 www.eberly.iup.edu/abit/proceedings%5CPatternsAPromisingApproach.pdf 45 Fearless Change, Patterns for Introducing New Ideas, Mary Lynn Mann, Linda Rising, Addison-Wesley, 2005, Pearson Education, Inc 46 http://www.mountaingoatsoftware.com/scrum/product-backlog 47 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/release 48 http://searchsoftwarequality.techtarget.com/definition/Scrum-sprint 49 http://searchsoftwarequality.techtarget.com/definition/story 50 Cohn, M. , Agile Estimating and Planning, P. 36 CMU/SEI-2011-TN-002 | 87 Ward Cunningham first drew the comparison between technical complexity and debt in a 1992 experience report: Shipping first time code is like going into debt. A little debt speeds development so long as it is paid back promptly with a rewrite… The danger occurs when the debt is not repaid. Every minute spent on not-quite-right code counts as interest on that debt. Entire engineering organizations can be brought to a stand-still under the debt load of an unconsolidated implementation, object-oriented or otherwise [Ozkaya 2011]. Timebox A fixed amount of hours or days in which to accomplish something.51 Timeboxing A planning technique common in planning projects (typically for software development), where the schedule is divided into a number of separate time periods (timeboxes, normally two to six weeks long), with each part having its own deliverables, deadline, and budget.52 User Story Descriptions of discrete functionality known to be needed by a particular user segment that is part of the project’s audience, and other stories that address infrastructure and quality attributes that are pervasive to the product (e.g., security or usability). Velocity Velocity is a measure of a team’s rate of progress. It is calculated by summing the number of story points assigned to each user story that the team completed during the iteration. If the team completes three stories each estimated at five stories, its velocity is fifteen. If the team completes two five-point stories, its velocity is ten.53 Velocity, in the Agile community, refers to the amount of capacity of a particular team to produce working software. It does not have a general analogue in traditional DoD projects. 51 http://www.agileadvice.com/archives/2006/02/timeboxing_a_cr.html 52 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeboxing 53 Cohn, M. Agile Estimating and Planning, p 38. CMU/SEI-2011-TN-002 | 88 CMU/SEI-2011-TN-002 | 89 Appendix C: Culture Details This appendix adds a bit of detail on some of the research basis for the approach to cultural issues seen in Section 2. Dimensions of Culture Formality and formal communication define the absolutes of a group or organization, and breaking these rules creates anger. This is because there is often emotion around what is formal and rule-based. Informality describes the latitude or surroundings that exist around the absolutes and pushing the limits of the informal can generate anxiety. Informal understanding is often tacit; it is what you can gather from mentors, role models, and exemplars in the organization. It includes Operational concerns are made up of formal and informal elements, and changes in this area are often seen as bothersome or irritating [Hall 1980]. The operational or intentional aspects of the culture have been codified and people can talk about them. Operational aspects include: These dimensions of culture are different from actual communication styles, which can also be described as formal or informal. Because of the emphasis on flexibility, people interactions, collaboration and working software (as opposed to processes, tools, plans, and documentation), Agile styles are seen as informal. The DoD context is often described as the reverse—as formal. But it is important to pause here: in looking at dimensions of culture and communication styles, it is essential to consider our own unconscious assumptions. For example, someone who believes that people need controls, authority, and tight structures in order to be productive, is likely to interpret the informality and flexibility of an Agile environment as reflecting laziness, or a lack of focus and discipline. Our own unconscious assumptions can blind us from understanding the values, norms, and rules and practices of another culture. CMU/SEI-2011-TN-002 | 90 CMU/SEI-2011-TN-002 | 91 Appendix D: COCOMO Factors List One popular parametric cost-estimation tool is the COCOMO model. First published by Dr. Barry Boehm in his 1981 book, Software Engineering Economics, COCOMO (Constructive Cost Model) is an algorithmic-based parametric software cost-estimation model for estimating a software project as an “effort equation,” which applies a value to tasks based on the scope of the project (ranging from a small, familiar system to a complex system that is new to the organization). COCOMO II is the successor of COCOMO 81, incorporating more contemporary software development processes, such as code reuse, use of off-the-shelf software components, and updated project databases [Boehm 1981]. At the heart of the COCOMO II model are the cost parameters themselves. These parameters are scale factors (5) and effort multipliers (17). Scale factors represent areas where economies of scale may apply. Effort multipliers represent the established cost drivers for software system development. They are used to adjust the nominal software development effort to reflect the reality of the current product being developed. It would be reasonable to assert that an Agile development process would have an impact on some of these parameters. The following scale factors and effort multipliers, pulled from COCOMO II, might be impacted by the use of an Agile development process: Development Flexibility (FLEX) Scale Factor Definition: The FLEX scale factor is related to the flexibility in conforming to stated requirements. Rationale: The participation of the user in the Agile development process, coupled with an iterative approach to building, should lower cost and schedule variance, because appropriate use of the methods assures continual communication as situations change. This permits appropriate reprioritization when needed. Architecture/Risk Resolution (RESL) Scale Factor Definition: The RESL scale factor is related to early, proactive risk identification and elimination. The goal is to eliminate software risk by Preliminary Design Review (PDR). This factor is also related to the need for software architecture. Rationale: Although there is opportunity to tackle high-risk items early in the product lifecycle with an Agile approach, there is no guarantee that this will actually happen. The lack of clear guidance regarding how to accomplish a milestone review in an Agile development process, and the general lack of consensus in the Agile community on the need for or approach to developing a viable architecture, could increase the cost estimate. Team Cohesion (TEAM) Scale Factor Definition: The TEAM scale factor accounts for sources of project turbulence and entropy because of difficulties in synchronizing the project’s stakeholders (e.g., users, CMU/SEI-2011-TN-002 | 92 customers, developers, maintainers, and interfacers). These difficulties may arise from differences in stakeholder objectives and cultures, difficulties in reconciling objectives, and stakeholders’ lack of experience and familiarity with operating as a team. Rationale: The Agile culture, in addition to the frequent interchanges between the user and the developers, should provide plenty of opportunity to improve team cohesion and should lower the cost estimate. Analyst Capability (ACAP) Effort Multiplier Definition: Analysts are personnel who work on requirements, high-level design, and detailed design. The major attributes that should be considered in this rating are analysis and design ability, efficiency and thoroughness, and the ability to communicate and cooperate. Rationale: The participation of users in the development process should improve the knowledge of the analysts that elaborate the requirements and produce the software design. The impact of the improvement should lower the cost estimate. Programmer Capability (PCAP) Effort Multiplier Definition: Current trends continue to emphasize the importance of highly capable analysts. However, the increasing role of complex COTS packages, and the significant productivity leverage associated with programmers’ ability to deal with these COTS packages, indicates a trend toward higher importance of programmer capability as well. Evaluation should be based on the capability of the programmers as a team rather than as individuals. Major factors that should be considered in the rating are ability, efficiency, and thoroughness, and the ability to communicate and cooperate. Rationale: The participation of users in the development process should improve the knowledge of the programmers who write the software code. This is the factor that most relates to the Agile measure of velocity. The impact of the improvement should lower the cost estimate. Application Experience (APEX) Effort Multiplier Definition: The cost-estimating multiplier based on the domain knowledge and capability of the software development staff is called APEX. The rating for this cost driver is dependent on the level of applications experience of the project team developing the software system or subsystem. The ratings are defined in terms of the project team’s equivalent level of experience with this type of application. Rationale: The participation of users in the development process should improve the domain knowledge of the development team. The impact of the improvement should lower the cost estimate.
Marie New York I have been affected severally with late delivery of assignment but since I hired an EssayBark writer, my assignment reaches me before the expiry of the agreed deadline. Some tasks proved to be difficult since they required me to express my original ideas after carrying out an extensive research. This used to give me sleepless nights and occasionally used to turn down my friends invites to parties. However, EssayBark.com came at a time I needed them most and their services proved to be of high quality. Leon Ireland If it were not for EssayBark.com, I don't think I would be where I am today. 90 percent of my success came from this company and I can say without any fear of contradiction that they are the best essay writing company in the whole world. Sam UK Nothing seemed to work my way until I hired EssayBark.com. I can now confidently say that I enjoy my Environmental Science Course because the ideas provided by the writers have simplified all the technicalities of the subject. It seems that your writer understood the subject well. I believe she has a doctorate in the subject. Thanks to all of them for treating me personally. Brown Johannesburg, South Africa Since I started hiring EssayBark.com I learned that investing in your future is more important than any monetary investment. The knowledge provided in my political science essays by your writers helped me defend my thesis professionally in front of my teachers. I am highly obliged to your writers. Tom Sydney, Australia I sometimes lack words to describe how happy I am since I met you guys. You are a gift to many as the essays provided by your writers are original, accurate, and timely. Samara Madrid, Spain Meeting EssayBark.com, to me is fate. I had never dreamt of getting an A in my English literature course but you made my dream come true. Thank you so much. Andrew London Since I started working with Essaybark.com life has never been the same again. I can comfortably say that my grades have greatly improved and I no longer have to worry about failing. Paul Dublin My experience with Essaybark.com was one of a kind. They completely erased all my worries and as per now, I feel like am a master of all difficult topics which used to give me sleepless nights. Thanks a lot for opening my eyes. Layla United Arab Emirates When I decided to join MBA, I wasn’t sure how I was going to handle those essays which required creative writing skills because I was literary very poor in it. However, my problem was solved by Essaybark.com. Apart from helping me with my assignments, they gave me free advice on how to polish my writing skills. My future is now bright all thanks to Essaybark.com. Martha Singapore My worry with most companies offering writing services had been originality but since I started engaging Essaybark.com, all I get is quality and original work, delivered within the specified time frame. If you are looking for quality and non-plagiarized work, I recommend this site for you.
[wpadm-chat]
