Reflections on Software Agility and Agile Methods: Challenges, Dilemmas, & the Way Ahead

52 Pages·2014·2.33 MB·English

Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890
Reflections on Software Agility and
Agile Methods: Challenges, Dilemmas,
& the Way Ahead
Linda Levine
Software Engineering Institute
May 11, 2005
Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense
© 2005 Carnegie Mellon University
1
Report Documentation Page Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it

does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED
11 MAY 2005 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-2005 to 00-00-2005
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Reflections on Software Agility and Agile Methods: Challenges,
5b. GRANT NUMBER
Dilemmas, & the Way Ahead
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
Carnegie Mellon University,Software Engineering REPORT NUMBER
Institute,Pittsburgh,PA,15213
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF
ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 51
unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR)
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
Agenda
Defining agile
Research study: context and questions
What we have learned so far: The current state
• Case studies of Internet Software Development
• Discovery Colloquium
Where we’re going: The future state
• propagating agile approaches, scaling, self-organizing
systems (i.e., nonlinear, adaptive)
Challenges, dilemmas, and conundrums
• process, discipline, and governance
© 2005 Carnegie Mellon University
2
Defining Agile
Merriam Webster (2004) defines agile from the Middle
French and from the Latin agilis, from agere to drive, act
as “1: marked by ready ability to move with quick easy
grace [and ] 2: having a quick resourceful and adaptable
character <an agile mind>.” Agility is defined as “the
quality or state of being agile: NIMBLENESS, DEXTERITY
<played with increasing agility>.”
Four key attributes
• speed: quick, fast
• nimble: able to improvise, use patterns creatively to construct new
solutions on the fly, flexible
• adaptable: responsive (sense and respond), dynamic and
interactive in response to a customer or to changing circumstances.
• resourceful: thoughtful or exhibiting some discipline (Note: not the
same as traditional “command and control” approach with defined,
formal procedures)
© 2005 Carnegie Mellon University
3
The Agile Manifesto says….
• Top level:
“We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it
and helping others do it.”
• 2nd level:
“Through this work, we have come to value…
Individuals and actions 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.” www.AgileAlliance.org
© 2005 Carnegie Mellon University
4
d
e simple
t
n
e
m
u
c
o
d
trackable
collaborative
practiced
e
b l
a
FAST s u r
a
e
m
Well-defined gates
© 2005 Carnegie Mellon University
5
The Current Climate
Formula for gaining and controlling market share is changing
• In the past, a company positioned itself along a single dimension.
• Now, competitive edge goes to companies that deliver better
products, faster and cheaper.
Accelerated by time to
quality
Internet software
market
development
better faster
In the digital economy,
separation between
cheaper
business & the software
engineering system has closed
cost
© 2005 Carnegie Mellon University
6
What does “Internet speed” mean
anyway?
“The pressure to release new software products faster
and faster has grown over the years ... ten years ago,
development cycles of 24-36 months were typical,
today, a year to 18 months development cycle is normal
for software products ...
Within “emerging fields such as electronic commerce
and Web portal sites competing on Internet time demand
significant product and feature changes every three to
six months”
Cusumano, 1998
© 2005 Carnegie Mellon University
7
Whack a Mole?!
Source: Michel Baudin, 3/16/99. Lean production: the end of management whack-a-mole.
http://www.mmt-inst.com/End_of_management_whack_a_mole.html
© 2005 Carnegie Mellon University
8
Key Research Questions
How do firms develop fast cycle time software?
Is “Internet speed” software development really different from
traditional software development?
How can both quality and agility be achieved in fast-paced
software development?
What development practices are effective in this rapid pace
environment?
© 2005 Carnegie Mellon University
9