Agile Software Development
Content
acceptance
change
user stories
servant leader
collaboration sprint self-organizing
team planning high value
Agile Software Development product owner story points working software
adapt done
iterative daily stand-up interactions commitment
velocity release
review
retrospective estimating backlog
incremental
impediments
quality
shippable
time-box responding scrummaster
burn-down
roles inspect adoption
prioritize
manifesto scrum design testing
xp
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
monster.com
Name: Rusty’s Project Date: 2/7/2008 COD: Methodology
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
and
individuals interactions processes and tools
working
software
comprehensive
documentation
customer
collaboration
contract
negotiation
to
responding change following a
plan
quality
Ag
incremental
iterative commitment
iterative
development
Check the Fit
Project Incep1on
Itera1on 0
Establish Business Rela/onship
Discovery Assessment
Set up Project Infrastructure
Itera1on 1
Itera1on 2
Itera1on 3
Itera1on n
Incremental delivery in /me‐boxed 2 week itera/ons
Target System
incremental delivery
Itera1on 2 Weeks
Product Backlog
Itera1on Backlog
Product Increment
spective timating backlog
elease eview man des test
product
backlog
current iteration current release future releases
scrumm
prioritize user stories servant leader
aboration
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!
ration ng
acceptance
chang
prioritize ser stories servant leader
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 f reinpt f t y ! l t n t s s O a l a l prequ p a 1. k a m o reAbso a f retbioonofkro ve! 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 m pta 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
der
on
team planning high value
Product A
Product B
Product C
Release 1.0
Release 2.0
Release 3.0
Iteration 1
Task 1 4 hours
Iteration 2
Iteration 3
Task 2 6 hours
Iteration 4
Task 3 2 hours
Iteration 5
Task 4 8 hours
Iteration 6
Task 5 2 hours
Dev
tand-up actions release elocity review
SIZE
CALCULATION
DURATION
200 UNITS
VELOCITY = 10
20 ITERATIONS
Effort
Complexity
Complexity
Effort
Doubt
Story 1 Doubt
Effort Complexity
Story 3 Doubt
Story 2
M Effort
Complexity
XL Complexity
Doubt
Story 1
M
Doubt
Effort
Complexi ty
Dou bt
Story 2
Effort
Story 3
5
Effort
Complexity
10 Complexity
Doubt
Story 1
5
Doubt
Effort
Complexi ty
Dou bt
Story 2
Effort
Story 3
Impediments`
ve nt
daily standinteractio velocity
40 35
Mean (Last 8) = 33
30 Mean (Worst 3) = 28
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
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
Ag
quality ncremental iterative commitment
teamcapacity team member
capacity this itera1on
Rachel
46
Ronica
60
Ken
54
Mark
62
Total
222
storyone Task Code the UI
Es1mate 6
Owner Ronica
Code the middle /er
8
Rachel
Create and automate tests
4
Mark
“can we commit to this?” 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Rachel
Ken
Ronica
Mark
storytwo task Code the UI
es1mate 12
owner Ronica
Code the middle /er
5
Rachel
Create and automate tests
6
Mark
“can we commit to this?” 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Rachel
Ken
Ronica
Mark
…storynine Task Code the UI
Es1mate 8
Owner Ronica
Code the middle /er
6
Rachel
Create and automate tests
3
Mark
“can we commit to this?” 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Rachel
Ken
Ronica
Mark
storyten Task Code the UI
Es1mate 8
Owner Ronica
Code the middle /er
6
Rachel
Create and automate tests
3
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
analysis
design code test document
ents
gileadaptSoft 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
c
gile So
potentially
shippable
potentially shippable
=
shippable
high quality
tested
complete
done
retrospective estimating backlog
lease eview
manifesto design testing
and
inspect adapt
timeresp
roles nspect tion
colla
scrum master
product owner
the
team
Role
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Developer
Planning/ Coding
Coding
Coding/ Defect Fixes
Coding/ Defect Fixes
Coding/ Defect Fixes
QA/Tester
Planning/ Wri/ng UAT
Wri/ng UAT
QA/Tes/ng
QA/Tes/ng
QA/Tes/ng
Impediment resolu/on
Impediment resolu/on
Impediment resolu/on
Impediment resolu/on
Par/cipate in Stakeholder Planning feedback
Stakeholder feedback
Stakeholder feedback
Stakeholder feedback
ScrumMaster Facilitate Planning Product Owner
Role
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Developer
Coding/ Defect Fixes
Coding/ Defect Fixes
Defect Fixes/ Defect Fixes/ Defect Fixes/ Design/Story Design/Story Review/ Development Development Retrospec/ve
QA/Tester
QA/Tes/ng
QA/Tes/ng
QA/Tes/ng
QA/Tes/ng/ Accpetance Criteria
Final UAT/ Review/ Retrospec/ve
ScrumMaster Impediment resolu/on/ Look ahead
Impediment Impediment Impediment resolu/on/ resolu/on/ resolu/on/ Refine stories Refine stories Acceptance criteria
Facilitate Review/ Retrospec/ve
Product Owner
Refine stories/ Acceptance tes/ng
Final UAT/ Par/cipate in Review/ Retrospec/ve
Look ahead/ 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
change
time-box responding scrummast
roles pect
prioritize user stories servant leader
collaboration self-organizing
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
83%
increased stakeholder satisfaction Agile Methodologies: Survey Results, by Shine Technologies, 2003
49% reduction in costs
Agile Methodologies: Survey Results, by Shine Technologies, 2003
100 80
50
9 10
60 40 20
50
50
4 6
25
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.
100
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .
10
Home Away
jects o r P l ona CNET Tradi/
BMC
Moody’s
Accuro Healthcare
Time to Market (Months)
to
time market
1 1
10
100
1000
User Stories, Code (KSLOC) QSMA Slim Database Study, 2008
the
welcome to mainstream 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
chasm
the world is here GIS is here
innovators
pragmatists
conservatives
laggards
acceptance
change
user stories
servant leader
collaboration
team planning
high value self-organizing sprint product owner story points
chris spagnuolo rally software release working software
adapt done
iterative daily stand-up interactions commitment velocity
review
retrospective estimating backlog
incremental
impediments
quality
shippable
time-box responding scrummaster
burn-down
roles inspect adoption
prioritize
manifesto scrum
xp
www.rallydev.com testing
change
user stories
servant leader
collaboration sprint self-organizing
team planning high value
Agile Software Development product owner story points working software
adapt done
iterative daily stand-up interactions commitment
velocity release
review
retrospective estimating backlog
incremental
impediments
quality
shippable
time-box responding scrummaster
burn-down
roles inspect adoption
prioritize
manifesto scrum design testing
xp
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
monster.com
Name: Rusty’s Project Date: 2/7/2008 COD: Methodology
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
and
individuals interactions processes and tools
working
software
comprehensive
documentation
customer
collaboration
contract
negotiation
to
responding change following a
plan
quality
Ag
incremental
iterative commitment
iterative
development
Check the Fit
Project Incep1on
Itera1on 0
Establish Business Rela/onship
Discovery Assessment
Set up Project Infrastructure
Itera1on 1
Itera1on 2
Itera1on 3
Itera1on n
Incremental delivery in /me‐boxed 2 week itera/ons
Target System
incremental delivery
Itera1on 2 Weeks
Product Backlog
Itera1on Backlog
Product Increment
spective timating backlog
elease eview man des test
product
backlog
current iteration current release future releases
scrumm
prioritize user stories servant leader
aboration
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!
ration ng
acceptance
chang
prioritize ser stories servant leader
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 f reinpt f t y ! l t n t s s O a l a l prequ p a 1. k a m o reAbso a f retbioonofkro ve! 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 m pta 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
der
on
team planning high value
Product A
Product B
Product C
Release 1.0
Release 2.0
Release 3.0
Iteration 1
Task 1 4 hours
Iteration 2
Iteration 3
Task 2 6 hours
Iteration 4
Task 3 2 hours
Iteration 5
Task 4 8 hours
Iteration 6
Task 5 2 hours
Dev
tand-up actions release elocity review
SIZE
CALCULATION
DURATION
200 UNITS
VELOCITY = 10
20 ITERATIONS
Effort
Complexity
Complexity
Effort
Doubt
Story 1 Doubt
Effort Complexity
Story 3 Doubt
Story 2
M Effort
Complexity
XL Complexity
Doubt
Story 1
M
Doubt
Effort
Complexi ty
Dou bt
Story 2
Effort
Story 3
5
Effort
Complexity
10 Complexity
Doubt
Story 1
5
Doubt
Effort
Complexi ty
Dou bt
Story 2
Effort
Story 3
Impediments`
ve nt
daily standinteractio velocity
40 35
Mean (Last 8) = 33
30 Mean (Worst 3) = 28
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
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
Ag
quality ncremental iterative commitment
teamcapacity team member
capacity this itera1on
Rachel
46
Ronica
60
Ken
54
Mark
62
Total
222
storyone Task Code the UI
Es1mate 6
Owner Ronica
Code the middle /er
8
Rachel
Create and automate tests
4
Mark
“can we commit to this?” 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Rachel
Ken
Ronica
Mark
storytwo task Code the UI
es1mate 12
owner Ronica
Code the middle /er
5
Rachel
Create and automate tests
6
Mark
“can we commit to this?” 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Rachel
Ken
Ronica
Mark
…storynine Task Code the UI
Es1mate 8
Owner Ronica
Code the middle /er
6
Rachel
Create and automate tests
3
Mark
“can we commit to this?” 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Rachel
Ken
Ronica
Mark
storyten Task Code the UI
Es1mate 8
Owner Ronica
Code the middle /er
6
Rachel
Create and automate tests
3
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
analysis
design code test document
ents
gileadaptSoft 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
c
gile So
potentially
shippable
potentially shippable
=
shippable
high quality
tested
complete
done
retrospective estimating backlog
lease eview
manifesto design testing
and
inspect adapt
timeresp
roles nspect tion
colla
scrum master
product owner
the
team
Role
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Developer
Planning/ Coding
Coding
Coding/ Defect Fixes
Coding/ Defect Fixes
Coding/ Defect Fixes
QA/Tester
Planning/ Wri/ng UAT
Wri/ng UAT
QA/Tes/ng
QA/Tes/ng
QA/Tes/ng
Impediment resolu/on
Impediment resolu/on
Impediment resolu/on
Impediment resolu/on
Par/cipate in Stakeholder Planning feedback
Stakeholder feedback
Stakeholder feedback
Stakeholder feedback
ScrumMaster Facilitate Planning Product Owner
Role
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Developer
Coding/ Defect Fixes
Coding/ Defect Fixes
Defect Fixes/ Defect Fixes/ Defect Fixes/ Design/Story Design/Story Review/ Development Development Retrospec/ve
QA/Tester
QA/Tes/ng
QA/Tes/ng
QA/Tes/ng
QA/Tes/ng/ Accpetance Criteria
Final UAT/ Review/ Retrospec/ve
ScrumMaster Impediment resolu/on/ Look ahead
Impediment Impediment Impediment resolu/on/ resolu/on/ resolu/on/ Refine stories Refine stories Acceptance criteria
Facilitate Review/ Retrospec/ve
Product Owner
Refine stories/ Acceptance tes/ng
Final UAT/ Par/cipate in Review/ Retrospec/ve
Look ahead/ 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
change
time-box responding scrummast
roles pect
prioritize user stories servant leader
collaboration self-organizing
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
83%
increased stakeholder satisfaction Agile Methodologies: Survey Results, by Shine Technologies, 2003
49% reduction in costs
Agile Methodologies: Survey Results, by Shine Technologies, 2003
100 80
50
9 10
60 40 20
50
50
4 6
25
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.
100
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .
10
Home Away
jects o r P l ona CNET Tradi/
BMC
Moody’s
Accuro Healthcare
Time to Market (Months)
to
time market
1 1
10
100
1000
User Stories, Code (KSLOC) QSMA Slim Database Study, 2008
the
welcome to mainstream 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
chasm
the world is here GIS is here
innovators
pragmatists
conservatives
laggards
acceptance
change
user stories
servant leader
collaboration
team planning
high value self-organizing sprint product owner story points
chris spagnuolo rally software release working software
adapt done
iterative daily stand-up interactions commitment velocity
review
retrospective estimating backlog
incremental
impediments
quality
shippable
time-box responding scrummaster
burn-down
roles inspect adoption
prioritize
manifesto scrum
xp
www.rallydev.com testing
