Agile Software Development
Content
time-box responding scrummaster
burn-down
roles inspect adoption
shippable
user stories
quality
velocity release
review
retrospective estimating backlog
iterative daily stand-up interactions commitment
impediments
incremental
Agile Software Development
product owner story points
working software
collaboration sprint
self-organizing
servant leader
acceptance
prioritize
change
team planning
high value
adapt done
xp
manifesto scrum design testing
rusty
rusty
rusty
rusty
stressed
WTF?
stressed
WTF?
stressed
WTF?
stressed
Name: Rusty’s Project Date: 2/7/2008 COD: Methodology
Name: Rusty’s Project Date: 2/7/2008 COD: Methodology
Name: Rusty’s Project Date: 2/7/2008 COD: Methodology
Name: Rusty’s Project Date: 2/7/2008 COD: Methodology
monster.com
35%
projects completed on-time, within
budget, or delivered on specification
The Standish Group, 2006 Chaos Report
31%
projects cancelled
The Standish Group, 2006 Chaos Report
59¢
software value on the dollar
The Standish Group, 2006 Chaos Report
64%
features rarely or ever used
The Standish Group, 2006 Chaos Report
acklog
lopme manifesto
design testing
individuals interactions
and
processes and tools
working
software
comprehensive
documentation
customer
contract
collaboration
negotiation
responding change
to
following
a
plan
quality
iterative commitment
incremental
Ag
iterative
development
Project Incep1on
Discovery Assessment
Check the Fit
Establish Business Rela/onship
Itera1on 0
Set up Project Infrastructure
Itera1on 1
Itera1on 2
Itera1on 3
Itera1on n
Target System
Incremental delivery in /me‐boxed 2 week itera/ons
incremental
delivery
Itera1on 2 Weeks
Product Backlog
Itera1on Backlog
Product Increment
spective timating backlog man des test
elease eview
product
backlog
current iteration current release future releases
scrumm
aboration
prioritize user stories servant leader
card
conversation confirmation
card
conversation confirmation
card
As a freq I w uent ant t flyer o re trip b ! ook so t a pa hat time st! I book save ! ing t rips. !
card
As a freq I w uent ant t flyer o re trip b ! ook so t a pa hat time st! I book save ! ing t rips. !
card
conversation confirmation
I WANT THE TOAST TO POP UP WHEN IT’S DONE
THAT’S REALLY EXPENSIVE. THE POPPING PART IS EASY —THAT’S JUST A SPRING. BUT KNOWING WHEN THE
TOAST IS DONE REQUIRES AN OPTICAL SENSOR—NEW TECHNOLOGY.
BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE OTHER TOASTERS OUT THERE?
OH, THEY USE A TIMER. THEY DON’T
REALLY KNOW WHEN THE TOAST IS DONE.
IT’S A KLUDGE.
OUR CUSTOMERS DON’T WANT A SUPER-TOASTER. THEY JUST WANT A REGULAR TOASTER, WITH A TIMER, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.
OH, WELL THAT WON’T BE EXPENSIVE AT ALL. COOL.
YEAH, COOL!
acceptance
prioritize ser stories servant leader
chang
ration ng
team plannin high va
card
conversation confirmation
confirmation
an c s r e y l f t n e ! u r q e e ! y r l pt f in f r t y ! l t n t e s s O a l a l prequ p a 1. k a m o o oa f k r bs o f re o n b ! o e i e A t r v c a e o s l t e s I t n t w a a ! o . l w h l s t ! st A p s I i a o p r p i 2. t s r t h g p c t i n t i r s a k a m pt o t o s b ! s u e e m t m a d tiw trip r o f e t p N e c 3. x e , trip
cha acceptanc
on
der
team planning high value
Product A
Product B
Product C
Release 1.0
Release 2.0
Release 3.0
Iteration 1
Iteration 2
Iteration 3
Iteration 4
Iteration 5
Iteration 6
Task 1 4 hours
Task 2 6 hours
Task 3 2 hours
Task 4 8 hours
Task 5 2 hours
tand-up actions release elocity review
Dev
SIZE
CALCULATION
DURATION
200 UNITS
VELOCITY = 10
20 ITERATIONS
Complexity
Effort
Complexity Doubt
Effort
Story 1
Doubt
Effort Complexity Doubt
Story 3
Story 2
M
Complexity Effort Doubt
Story 1
Complexi ty
M
Effort Dou bt
XL
Complexity Effort Doubt
Story 3
Story 2
Complexity
5
Doubt
Effort
Story 1
Complexi ty
5
Effort Dou bt
10
Complexity Doubt
Effort
Story 3
Story 2
Impediments`
ve nt
daily standinteractio velocity
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Itera/on Itera/on Itera/on Itera/on Itera/on Itera/on Itera/on Itera/on Itera/on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Mean (Worst 3) = 28 Mean (Last 8) = 33
At our slowest velocity we’ll finish here (3X28)
At our average velocity we’ll finish here (3X33)
Will Have
The line of hope (3X28)
Might Have
The line of despair (3X33)
Won’t Have
quality ncremental iterative commitment
Ag
teamcapacity
team member Rachel Ronica Ken Mark Total capacity this itera1on 46 60 54 62 222
storyone
Task Code the UI Code the middle /er Create and automate tests Es1mate 6 8 4 Owner Ronica Rachel Mark
“can we commit to this?”
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Rachel Ken Ronica Mark
storytwo
task Code the UI Code the middle /er Create and automate tests es1mate 12 5 6 owner Ronica Rachel Mark
“can we commit to this?”
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Rachel Ken Ronica Mark
…storynine
Task Code the UI Code the middle /er Create and automate tests Es1mate 8 6 3 Owner Ronica Rachel Mark
“can we commit to this?”
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Rachel Ken Ronica Mark
storyten
Task Code the UI Code the middle /er Create and automate tests Es1mate 8 6 3 Owner Ronica Rachel Mark
“can we commit to this?”
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Rachel Ken Ronica Mark
go!
analysis
analysis design
analysis
design code
analysis
design code test
design code test document
analysis
ents
gile Soft adapt done
daily stand-up interactions
What did you work on yesterday?
What are you working on today? Do you have any impediments?
e Softw dapt done
y stand-up
D
done… done.
analysis design coding testing document user acceptance pilot live
analysis design coding testing document user acceptance pilot live
analysis design coding testing document user acceptance pilot live
analysis design coding testing document user acceptance pilot live
adoption
shippable
gile So
c
potentially
shippable
potentially shippable
shippable
=
high quality
tested
done
complete
lease eview
retrospective estimating backlog
manifesto design testing
inspect adapt
and
roles nspect tion
colla
timeresp
scrum master
product owner
team
the
Role Developer QA/Tester
Monday Planning/ Coding Planning/ Wri/ng UAT
Tuesday Coding Wri/ng UAT Impediment resolu/on
Wednesday Coding/ Defect Fixes QA/Tes/ng Impediment resolu/on Stakeholder feedback
Thursday Coding/ Defect Fixes QA/Tes/ng Impediment resolu/on Stakeholder feedback
Friday Coding/ Defect Fixes QA/Tes/ng Impediment resolu/on Stakeholder feedback
ScrumMaster Facilitate Planning Product Owner
Par/cipate in Stakeholder Planning feedback
Role Developer
Monday Coding/ Defect Fixes QA/Tes/ng
Tuesday Coding/ Defect Fixes QA/Tes/ng
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Defect Fixes/ Defect Fixes/ Defect Fixes/ Design/Story Design/Story Review/ Development Development Retrospec/ve QA/Tes/ng QA/Tes/ng/ Accpetance Criteria Final UAT/ Review/ Retrospec/ve Facilitate Review/ Retrospec/ve Final UAT/ Par/cipate in Review/ Retrospec/ve
QA/Tester
ScrumMaster Impediment resolu/on/ Look ahead Product Owner Look ahead/ Acceptance tes/ng
Impediment Impediment Impediment resolu/on/ resolu/on/ resolu/on/ Refine stories Refine stories Acceptance criteria Refine stories/ Acceptance tes/ng Refine stories/ Acceptance tes/ng Acceptance criteria/ Acceptance tes/ng
product owner
building the right code
versus
building the code right
the team
time-box responding scrummast
roles pect
collaboration
self-organizing
prioritize user stories servant leader
change
burn-
inspe adoption
shippable
Agile Soft
88%
increased productivity
Agile Methodologies: Survey Results, by Shine Technologies, 2003
93%
increased quality
Agile Methodologies: Survey Results, by Shine Technologies, 2003
increased stakeholder satisfaction
Agile Methodologies: Survey Results, by Shine Technologies, 2003
83%
49%
reduction in costs
Agile Methodologies: Survey Results, by Shine Technologies, 2003
100 80 60 40 20 0 CMMI 1 WORK CMMI 5 REWORK SCRUM PROCESS
Sutherland, J., C. Jacobson, et al. (2007). Scrum and CMMI Level 5: A Magic Po/on for Code Warriors! Agile 2007, Washington, D.C., IEEE.
50
9 10 50
4 6
50
25
jects o r P l ona CNET Tradi/
Accuro Healthcare 1
10
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .
Home Away BMC Moody’s 100
1000
10
1
User Stories, Code (KSLOC)
QSMA Slim Database Study, 2008
Time to Market (Months)
time market
to
100
welcome to mainstream
the
the world is here
innovators
pragmatists
conservatives
laggards
agile adoption
31% GIS 73% the world
Dr. Dobb’s Journal, Scott Ambler Agile Adoption Survey, 2008 GeoScrum Agile Adoption in GIS Survey, 2008
help
gis cross
the world is here GIS is here
the
chasm
innovators
pragmatists
conservatives
laggards
time-box responding scrummaster
burn-down
roles inspect adoption
shippable
user stories
quality
retrospective estimating backlog
iterative daily stand-up interactions commitment velocity
impediments
incremental
chris spagnuolo rally software release
adapt done
working software
high value self-organizing sprint product owner story points
collaboration
servant leader
acceptance
prioritize
change
team planning
xp
review
www.rallydev.com
testing
manifesto scrum
burn-down
roles inspect adoption
shippable
user stories
quality
velocity release
review
retrospective estimating backlog
iterative daily stand-up interactions commitment
impediments
incremental
Agile Software Development
product owner story points
working software
collaboration sprint
self-organizing
servant leader
acceptance
prioritize
change
team planning
high value
adapt done
xp
manifesto scrum design testing
rusty
rusty
rusty
rusty
stressed
WTF?
stressed
WTF?
stressed
WTF?
stressed
Name: Rusty’s Project Date: 2/7/2008 COD: Methodology
Name: Rusty’s Project Date: 2/7/2008 COD: Methodology
Name: Rusty’s Project Date: 2/7/2008 COD: Methodology
Name: Rusty’s Project Date: 2/7/2008 COD: Methodology
monster.com
35%
projects completed on-time, within
budget, or delivered on specification
The Standish Group, 2006 Chaos Report
31%
projects cancelled
The Standish Group, 2006 Chaos Report
59¢
software value on the dollar
The Standish Group, 2006 Chaos Report
64%
features rarely or ever used
The Standish Group, 2006 Chaos Report
acklog
lopme manifesto
design testing
individuals interactions
and
processes and tools
working
software
comprehensive
documentation
customer
contract
collaboration
negotiation
responding change
to
following
a
plan
quality
iterative commitment
incremental
Ag
iterative
development
Project Incep1on
Discovery Assessment
Check the Fit
Establish Business Rela/onship
Itera1on 0
Set up Project Infrastructure
Itera1on 1
Itera1on 2
Itera1on 3
Itera1on n
Target System
Incremental delivery in /me‐boxed 2 week itera/ons
incremental
delivery
Itera1on 2 Weeks
Product Backlog
Itera1on Backlog
Product Increment
spective timating backlog man des test
elease eview
product
backlog
current iteration current release future releases
scrumm
aboration
prioritize user stories servant leader
card
conversation confirmation
card
conversation confirmation
card
As a freq I w uent ant t flyer o re trip b ! ook so t a pa hat time st! I book save ! ing t rips. !
card
As a freq I w uent ant t flyer o re trip b ! ook so t a pa hat time st! I book save ! ing t rips. !
card
conversation confirmation
I WANT THE TOAST TO POP UP WHEN IT’S DONE
THAT’S REALLY EXPENSIVE. THE POPPING PART IS EASY —THAT’S JUST A SPRING. BUT KNOWING WHEN THE
TOAST IS DONE REQUIRES AN OPTICAL SENSOR—NEW TECHNOLOGY.
BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE OTHER TOASTERS OUT THERE?
OH, THEY USE A TIMER. THEY DON’T
REALLY KNOW WHEN THE TOAST IS DONE.
IT’S A KLUDGE.
OUR CUSTOMERS DON’T WANT A SUPER-TOASTER. THEY JUST WANT A REGULAR TOASTER, WITH A TIMER, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.
OH, WELL THAT WON’T BE EXPENSIVE AT ALL. COOL.
YEAH, COOL!
acceptance
prioritize ser stories servant leader
chang
ration ng
team plannin high va
card
conversation confirmation
confirmation
an c s r e y l f t n e ! u r q e e ! y r l pt f in f r t y ! l t n t e s s O a l a l prequ p a 1. k a m o o oa f k r bs o f re o n b ! o e i e A t r v c a e o s l t e s I t n t w a a ! o . l w h l s t ! st A p s I i a o p r p i 2. t s r t h g p c t i n t i r s a k a m pt o t o s b ! s u e e m t m a d tiw trip r o f e t p N e c 3. x e , trip
cha acceptanc
on
der
team planning high value
Product A
Product B
Product C
Release 1.0
Release 2.0
Release 3.0
Iteration 1
Iteration 2
Iteration 3
Iteration 4
Iteration 5
Iteration 6
Task 1 4 hours
Task 2 6 hours
Task 3 2 hours
Task 4 8 hours
Task 5 2 hours
tand-up actions release elocity review
Dev
SIZE
CALCULATION
DURATION
200 UNITS
VELOCITY = 10
20 ITERATIONS
Complexity
Effort
Complexity Doubt
Effort
Story 1
Doubt
Effort Complexity Doubt
Story 3
Story 2
M
Complexity Effort Doubt
Story 1
Complexi ty
M
Effort Dou bt
XL
Complexity Effort Doubt
Story 3
Story 2
Complexity
5
Doubt
Effort
Story 1
Complexi ty
5
Effort Dou bt
10
Complexity Doubt
Effort
Story 3
Story 2
Impediments`
ve nt
daily standinteractio velocity
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Itera/on Itera/on Itera/on Itera/on Itera/on Itera/on Itera/on Itera/on Itera/on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Mean (Worst 3) = 28 Mean (Last 8) = 33
At our slowest velocity we’ll finish here (3X28)
At our average velocity we’ll finish here (3X33)
Will Have
The line of hope (3X28)
Might Have
The line of despair (3X33)
Won’t Have
quality ncremental iterative commitment
Ag
teamcapacity
team member Rachel Ronica Ken Mark Total capacity this itera1on 46 60 54 62 222
storyone
Task Code the UI Code the middle /er Create and automate tests Es1mate 6 8 4 Owner Ronica Rachel Mark
“can we commit to this?”
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Rachel Ken Ronica Mark
storytwo
task Code the UI Code the middle /er Create and automate tests es1mate 12 5 6 owner Ronica Rachel Mark
“can we commit to this?”
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Rachel Ken Ronica Mark
…storynine
Task Code the UI Code the middle /er Create and automate tests Es1mate 8 6 3 Owner Ronica Rachel Mark
“can we commit to this?”
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Rachel Ken Ronica Mark
storyten
Task Code the UI Code the middle /er Create and automate tests Es1mate 8 6 3 Owner Ronica Rachel Mark
“can we commit to this?”
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Rachel Ken Ronica Mark
go!
analysis
analysis design
analysis
design code
analysis
design code test
design code test document
analysis
ents
gile Soft adapt done
daily stand-up interactions
What did you work on yesterday?
What are you working on today? Do you have any impediments?
e Softw dapt done
y stand-up
D
done… done.
analysis design coding testing document user acceptance pilot live
analysis design coding testing document user acceptance pilot live
analysis design coding testing document user acceptance pilot live
analysis design coding testing document user acceptance pilot live
adoption
shippable
gile So
c
potentially
shippable
potentially shippable
shippable
=
high quality
tested
done
complete
lease eview
retrospective estimating backlog
manifesto design testing
inspect adapt
and
roles nspect tion
colla
timeresp
scrum master
product owner
team
the
Role Developer QA/Tester
Monday Planning/ Coding Planning/ Wri/ng UAT
Tuesday Coding Wri/ng UAT Impediment resolu/on
Wednesday Coding/ Defect Fixes QA/Tes/ng Impediment resolu/on Stakeholder feedback
Thursday Coding/ Defect Fixes QA/Tes/ng Impediment resolu/on Stakeholder feedback
Friday Coding/ Defect Fixes QA/Tes/ng Impediment resolu/on Stakeholder feedback
ScrumMaster Facilitate Planning Product Owner
Par/cipate in Stakeholder Planning feedback
Role Developer
Monday Coding/ Defect Fixes QA/Tes/ng
Tuesday Coding/ Defect Fixes QA/Tes/ng
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Defect Fixes/ Defect Fixes/ Defect Fixes/ Design/Story Design/Story Review/ Development Development Retrospec/ve QA/Tes/ng QA/Tes/ng/ Accpetance Criteria Final UAT/ Review/ Retrospec/ve Facilitate Review/ Retrospec/ve Final UAT/ Par/cipate in Review/ Retrospec/ve
QA/Tester
ScrumMaster Impediment resolu/on/ Look ahead Product Owner Look ahead/ Acceptance tes/ng
Impediment Impediment Impediment resolu/on/ resolu/on/ resolu/on/ Refine stories Refine stories Acceptance criteria Refine stories/ Acceptance tes/ng Refine stories/ Acceptance tes/ng Acceptance criteria/ Acceptance tes/ng
product owner
building the right code
versus
building the code right
the team
time-box responding scrummast
roles pect
collaboration
self-organizing
prioritize user stories servant leader
change
burn-
inspe adoption
shippable
Agile Soft
88%
increased productivity
Agile Methodologies: Survey Results, by Shine Technologies, 2003
93%
increased quality
Agile Methodologies: Survey Results, by Shine Technologies, 2003
increased stakeholder satisfaction
Agile Methodologies: Survey Results, by Shine Technologies, 2003
83%
49%
reduction in costs
Agile Methodologies: Survey Results, by Shine Technologies, 2003
100 80 60 40 20 0 CMMI 1 WORK CMMI 5 REWORK SCRUM PROCESS
Sutherland, J., C. Jacobson, et al. (2007). Scrum and CMMI Level 5: A Magic Po/on for Code Warriors! Agile 2007, Washington, D.C., IEEE.
50
9 10 50
4 6
50
25
jects o r P l ona CNET Tradi/
Accuro Healthcare 1
10
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .
Home Away BMC Moody’s 100
1000
10
1
User Stories, Code (KSLOC)
QSMA Slim Database Study, 2008
Time to Market (Months)
time market
to
100
welcome to mainstream
the
the world is here
innovators
pragmatists
conservatives
laggards
agile adoption
31% GIS 73% the world
Dr. Dobb’s Journal, Scott Ambler Agile Adoption Survey, 2008 GeoScrum Agile Adoption in GIS Survey, 2008
help
gis cross
the world is here GIS is here
the
chasm
innovators
pragmatists
conservatives
laggards
time-box responding scrummaster
burn-down
roles inspect adoption
shippable
user stories
quality
retrospective estimating backlog
iterative daily stand-up interactions commitment velocity
impediments
incremental
chris spagnuolo rally software release
adapt done
working software
high value self-organizing sprint product owner story points
collaboration
servant leader
acceptance
prioritize
change
team planning
xp
review
www.rallydev.com
testing
manifesto scrum
