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 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

 Career systems & 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, 125+ talks to 12,000 people  Specializes in metrics, models, & cost engineering  Cloud Computing, SOA, Web Services, FOSS, etc.

 Adjunct at five Washington, DC-area universities 2 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 enterprise, portfolio, program, & 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?  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

Agile Values Lean Pillars Lean Principles Lean & Agile Practices Flow Principles  Customer relationships, satisfaction, trust, and loyalty Empowered Relationships  Team authority, empowerment, and resources Decentralization  Teams Team identification, cohesion, and communication Respect  Product vision, mission, needs, and capabilities Customer Value  Product scope, constraints, and business value Economic View for People  Product objectives, specifications, and performance Customer  As is policies, processes, procedures, and instructions WIP Constraints Collaboration Value Stream  To be business processes, flowcharts, and swim lanes  Initial workflow analysis, metrication, and optimization & Kanban  Batch size, work in process, and artifact size constraints Control Cadence Iterative Continuous Flow  Cadence, queue size, buffers, slack, and bottlenecks  & Small Batches Delivery Workflow, test, integration, and deployment automation Continuous  Roadmaps, releases, iterations, and product priorities Customer Pull  Epics, themes, feature sets, features, and user stories Fast Feedback Improvement  Product demonstrations, feedback, and new backlogs Responding  Refactor, test driven design, and continuous integration Manage Queues/ to Change Perfection  Standups, retrospectives, and process improvements  Organization, project, and process adaptability/flexibility Exploit Variability    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 : A paradigm whose time has come. DoD AT&L Magazine, 39(6). 4 Models of AGILE DEVELOPMENT

 Agile methods spunoff flexible manufacturing 1990s  (XP) swept the globe by 2002  Today, over 90% of IT projects use Scrum/XP hybrid

CRYSTAL METHODS SCRUM DSDM FDD XP - 1991 - - 1993 - - 1993 - - 1997 - - 1998 -

 Use Cases  Planning Poker  Feasibility  Domain Model  Release Plans

 Domain Model  Product Backlog  Business Study  Feature List  User Stories  Object Oriented  Sprint Backlog  Func. Iteration  Object Oriented  Pair Programmer  Iterative Dev.  2-4 Week Spring  Design Iteration  Iterative Dev.  Iterative Dev.  Risk Planning  Daily Standup  Implementation  Code Inspection  Test First Dev.

 Info. Radiators  Sprint Demo  Testing  Testing  Onsite Customer

 Reflection W/S  Retrospective  Quality Control  Quality Control  Continuous Del.

Cockburn, A. (2002). Agile software development. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2001). Agile software development with scrum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Stapleton, J. (1997). DSDM: A framework for business centered development. Harlow, England: Addison-Wesley. Palmer, S. R., & Felsing, J. M. (2002). A practical guide to feature driven development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Beck, K. (2000). Extreme programming explained: Embrace change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 5 Basic SCRUM Framework

 Created by Jeff Sutherland at Easel in 1993  Product backlog comprised of prioritized features  Iterative sprint-to-sprint, adaptive & emergent model

Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2001). Agile software development with scrum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 6 Models of AGILE PROJECT MGT.

 Dozens of Agile models emerged  Many stem from principles of Extreme Programming  Vision, releases, & iterative development common

RADICAL EXTREME ADAPTIVE AGILE SIMPLIFIED APM - 2002 - - 2004 - - 2010 - - 2010- - 2011 -

Prioritization  Visionate  Scoping  Envision Vision

Feasibility  Speculate  Planning  Speculate Roadmap Planning  Innovate  Feasibility  Explore Release Plan Tracking  Re-Evaluate  Cyclical Dev.  Iterate Sprint Plan Reporting  Disseminate  Checkpoint  Launch Daily Scrum

Review  Terminate  Review  Close Retrospective

Thomsett, R. (2002). Radical project management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. DeCarlo, D. (2004). Extreme project management: Using leadership, principles, and tools to deliver value in the face of volatility. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Wysocki, R.F. (2010). Adaptive project framework: Managing complexity in the face of uncertainty. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Highsmith, J. A. (2010). Agile project management: Creating innovative products. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Layton, M. C., & Maurer, R. (2011). Agile project management for dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing. 7 Simplified AGILE PROJECT MGT F/W

 Created by Mark Layton at PlatinumEdge in 2012  Mix of new product development, XP, and Scrum  Simplified codification of XP and Scrum hybrid

Layton, M. C., & Maurer, R. (2011). Agile project management for dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing. 8 Models of AGILE ENTERPRISE MGT.

 Numerous models of agile portfolio mgt. emerging  Based on lean-kanban, release planning, and Scrum  Include organization, program, & project management

ESCRUM SAFE LESS DAD RAGE - 2007 - - 2007 - - 2007 - - 2012 - - 2013 -  Product Mgt  Strategic Mgt  Business Mgt  Business Mgt  Business

 Program Mgt  Portfolio Mgt  Portfolio Mgt  Portfolio Mgt  Governance

 Project Mgt  Program Mgt  Product Mgt  Inception  Portfolio

 Process Mgt  Team Mgt  Area Mgt  Construction  Program

 Business Mgt  Quality Mgt  Sprint Mgt  Iterations  Project

 Market Mgt  Delivery Mgt  Release Mgt  Transition  Delivery

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 9 Enterprise Scrum (ESCRUM)

 Created by Ken Schwaber of Scrum Alliance in 2007  Application of Scrum at any place in the enterprise  Basic Scrum with extensive backlog grooming

Schwaber, K. (2007). The enterprise and scrum. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press. 10 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

Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. 11 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

Daily Scrum 15 minutes Feature Team + Scrum Master 1 Day Sprint Planning II 2 - 4 Week Sprint 2 - 4 hours Area Sprint Retrospective Product Product Sprint Product Backlog Refinement Owner Owner Backlog 5 - 10% of Sprint

Sprint Sprint Joint Potentially Shippable Sprint Planning I Product Increment Review 2 - 4 hours Review

Product Backlog Area Product Backlog

Larman, C., & Vodde, B. (2008). Scaling lean and agile development: Thinking and organizational tools for large-scale scrum. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. 12 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

Ambler, S. W., & Lines, M. (2012). Disciplined agile delivery: A practitioner's guide to agile software delivery in the enterprise. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. 13 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

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 14 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) 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  

Rico, D. F. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe) comparison. Retrieved June 4, 2014 from http://davidfrico.com/safe-comparison.xls 15 Agile Enterprise F/W ADOPTION

 Lean-agile enterprise framework adopt stats emerging  Numerous lean-agile frameworks now coming to light  SAFe is most widely-adopted “formalized” framework

Holler, R. (2015). Ninth annual state of agile survey: State of agile development. Atlanta, GA: VersionOne. 16 SAFe REVISITED  Proven, public well-defined F/W for scaling Lean-Agile  Synchronizes alignment, collaboration, and deliveries  Quality, execution, alignment, & transparency focus

Portfolio

 Program

Team

Leffingwell, D. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe). Retrieved June 2, 2014 from http://www.scaledagileframework.com 17 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 Investment Strategy ● Decentralized decision making Funding ● Demand-based continuous flow ● Lightweight epic business cases ● Decentralized rolling wave planning Program Governance ● Objective measures & milestones Management ● Agile estimating and planning

Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. 18 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 Alignment Collaboration ● Lean, economic prioritization ● Frequent, quality deliveries ● Fast customer feedback Value Synchronization ● Fixed, reliable cadence Delivery ● Regular inspect & adapt CI

Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. 19 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 Product Customer ● Pair development Quality Satisfaction ● Emergent design ● Test-first ● Refactoring ● Continuous integration Predictability Speed ● Collective ownership

Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. 20 SAFe METRICS

Leffingwell, D. (2015). Scaled agile framework (SAFe). Retrieved June 12, 2015 from http://www.scaledagileframework.com 21 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

John Deere Spotify Comcast • Agricultural automation • Television cable/DVR boxes • GUI-based point of sale sys • 800 developers on 80 teams • Embedded & server-side • Switched from CMMI to SAFe • Rolled out SAFe in one year • 150 developers on 15 teams • 120 developers on 12 teams • Transitioned to open spaces • Cycle time - 12 to 4 months • QA to new feature focus • Field issue resolution up 42% • Support 11 million+ DVRs • Used Rally adoption model • Quality improvement up 50% • Design features vs. layers • 10% productivity improvement • Warranty expense down 50% • Releases delivered on-time • 10% cost of quality reduction • Time to production down 20% • 100% capabilities delivered • 200% improved defect density • Time to market down 20% • 95% requirements delivered • Production defects down 50% • Job engagement up 10% • Fully automated sprint tests • Value vs. compliance focus

Leffingwell, D. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe) case studies. Denver, CO: Leffingwell, LLC. 22 Rico, D. F. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe) benefits. Retrieved June 2, 2014, from http://davidfrico.com/safe-benefits.txt SAFe BENEFITS

 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

Trade Discount John Benefit Nokia SEI Telstra BMC Valpak Mitchell Spotify Comcast Average Station Tire Deere

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%

Leffingwell, D. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe) case studies. Denver, CO: Leffingwell, LLC. 23 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

 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

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 24 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

 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.  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 25 Dave’s PROFESSIONAL CAPABILITIES

Organization Government Government Cost Systems Change Acquisitions Contracting Estimating Engineering

BPR, IDEF0, Innovation & DoDAF Management Valuation — Cost-Benefit Analysis, B/CR, ROI, NPV, BEP, Real Options, etc.

CMMI & Evolutionary ISO 9001 Technical Software Project Development Quality PSP, TSP, & Research Code Reviews Mgt. Methods Mgt. Methods

Lean-Agile — Scrum, SAFe, Continuous Integration & Delivery, DevOps, etc. DoD 5000, Statistics, CFA, TRA, & SRA EFA, & SEM

Lean Six Metrics, Workflow Big Data, Kanban Sigma Models, & SPC Automation Cloud, NoSQL

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). 32 YEARS ● Data-mining/analysis. Collect facts (then report findings). PMP, CSEP, IN IT ● Simplification. Communicating complex ideas (in simple terms). ACP, CSM, INDUSTRY ● Git-r-done. Prefer short, high-priority tasks (vs. long bureaucratic projects). & SAFE ● Team player. Consensus-oriented collaboration (vs. top-down autocratic control). 26 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) 27 Backup Slides Agile for PUBLIC SECTOR

 U.S. gov’t agile jobs grew by 13,000% from 2006-2013  Adoption is higher in U.S. DoD than Civilian Agencies  GDP of countries with high adoption rates is greater GOVERNMENT AGILE JOB GROWTH GOVERNMENT COMPETITIVENESS 13,000% High ERCENTAGE P OMPETITIVENESS C

0 Low 2006YEARS 2013 LowAGILITY High

Suhy, S. (2014). Has the U.S. government moved to agile without telling anyone? Retrieved April 24, 2015, from http://agileingov.com Porter, M. E., & Schwab, K. (2008). The global competitiveness report: 2008 to 2009. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum. 29 Agile for SECURITY ENGINEERING

 Microsoft created software security life cycle in 2002  Waterfall approach tailored for Scrum sprints in 2009   Uses security req, threat modeling & security testing

SEE DETAILED - SECURITY LIFE CYCLE STEPS http://davidfrico.com/agile-security-lifecycle.txt

Microsoft. (2011). Security development lifecycle: SDL Process Guidance (Version 5.1). Redmond, WA: Author. Microsoft. (2010). Security development lifecycle: Simplified implementation of the microsoft SDL. Redmond, WA: Author. Microsoft. (2009). Security development lifecycle: Security development lifecycle for agile development (Version 1.0). Redmond, WA: Author. 30 Bidstrup, E., & Kowalczyk, E. C. (2005). Security development lifecycle. Changing the software development process to build in security from the start. Security Summit West. Agile for EMBEDDED SYSTEMS

 1st-generation systems used hardwired logic  2nd-generation systems used PROMS & FPGAs   3rd-generation systems use APP. SW & COTS HW

GILE EO RADITIONAL RADITIONAL RISK A N -T T Embedded “Software Model” “FPGA Model” “Hardwired Model” Systems More HW -MOST FLEXIBLE - -MALLEABLE - -LEAST FLEXIBLE - Than SW ● Short Lead ● Moderate Lead ● Long Lead ● Least Cost ● Moderate Cost ● Highest Cost  ● Lowest Risk ● Moderate Risk ● Highest Risk ● 90% Software ● 50% Hardware ● 90% Hardware ● COTS Hardware ● COTS Components ● Custom Hardware  ● Early, Iterative Dev. ● Midpoint Testing ● Linear, Staged Dev. ● Continuous V&V ● “Some” Early V&V ● Late Big-Bang I&T  Iterations, Integrations, & Validations Iterations,

START GOAL –SHIFT FROM LATE HARDWARE TO EARLIER SOFTWARE SOLUTION STOP Competing Competing With SW With HW 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. 31 Agile for SYSTEMS ENGINEERING  SAFe rapidly evolving & adapting to market needs  A “draft” version was made for “systems engineering”  SoS, Lean, Kanban, and continuous flow system focus

SoS

 System

Sub-Sys

Leffingwell, D. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe). Retrieved April 8, 2015 from http://www.scaledagileframework.com 32 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 Rank Database Year Creator Firm Goal Model Lang I/F Focus Example User Rate KPro Steve Gener- Large-scale 3 - $10M 2007 10gen Document C++ BSON CRM Expedia 45% 48 MongoDB Francia ality Web Apps •Gen App 5 •Reliable  Rapid-prototyping, Queries, Indexes, Replication, Availability, Load-balancing, Auto-Sharding, etc. •Low Cplx Avinash Relia- Wide Fault-tolerant Mission 2 - $100M 2008 Facebook Java CQL iTunes 20% 15 Lakshman bility Column Data Stores Critical Data •Schema 8 Cassandra •Dist P2P  Distributed, Scalable, Performance, Durable, Caching, Operations, Transactions, Consistency •Med Cplx Salvatore Real-time Instant 2009 Pivotal Speed Key Value C Binary Twitter 20% 14 10 Redis Sanfilippo Messaging Messaging Real-time, Memory-cached, Performance, Persistence, Replication, Data structures, Age-off, etc. Mike Wide Petabyte-size Image 1 - $1B 2007 Powerset Scale Java REST Ebay 10% 8 Carafella Column Data Stores Repository •Limited 14 HBase •Sin PoF  Scalable, Performance, Data-replication, Flexible, Consistency, Auto-sharding, Metrics, etc. •High Cplx Shay Full-text Information Wiki- Elastic 2004 Compass Search Document Java REST 5% 7 16 Banon Search Portals media Search Real-time, Distributed, Multi-tenant, Document-based, Schema-free, Persistence, Availability, etc.

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 33 Agile Scaling w/AMAZON WEB SVCS

 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.

AICPA COBIT CSA DoD CSM DIACAP FedRAMP FIPS

FISMA  Analytics Database SSAE

Cross Compute & GLBA NoSQL Sols • MongoDB SOC Service Networking • Cassandra •HBase HITECH Application Storage & Deployment &

SAS Services Content Del. Management  PCI NIST MPAA ITAR ISO/IEC ISAE HIPAA 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 34 Agile Scaling w/CONTINUOUS DELIVERY

 Created by Jez Humble of ThoughtWorks in 2011  Includes CM, build, testing, integration, release, etc.  Goal is one-touch automation of deployment pipeline

CoQ • 80% MS Tst • 8/10 No Val • $24B in 90s • Rep by CD  • Not Add MLK

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 . San Francisco, CA: GigaOM Pro. 35 Agile Scaling w/DEVOPS

 Assembla went from 2 to 45 releases every month  15K Google developers run 120 million tests per day   30K+ Amazon developers deliver 8,600 releases a day

3,645x Faster  U.S. DoD IT Project

62x Faster U.S. DoD IT Project

Singleton, A. (2014). Unblock: A guide to the new continuous agile. Needham, MA: Assembla, Inc. 36 Models of AGILE LEADERSHIP

 Numerous theories of agile leadership have emerged  Many have to do with delegation and empowerment  Leaders have major roles in visioning and enabling

AGILE EMPLOYEE RADICAL LEAN LEADERSHIP 3.0 - 2005 - - 2009 - - 2010 - - 2010 - - 2011 -

Organic Teams  Autonomy  Self Org. Teams  Talented Teams Empowerment

Guiding Vision  Alignment  Communication  Alignment Alignment Transparency  Transparency  Transparency  Systems View Motivation Light Touch  Purpose  Iterative Value  Reliability Scaling Simple Rules  Mastery  Delight Clients  Excellence Competency

Improvement  Improvement  Improvement  Improvement Improvement

Augustine, S. (2005). Managing agile projects. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Denning, S. (2010). The leader’s guide to radical management: Reinventing the workplace for the 21st century. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Poppendieck, M, & Poppendieck, T. (2010). Leading lean software development: Results are not the point. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Appelo, J. (2011). Management 3.0: Leading agile developers and developing agile leaders. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. 37 Models of AGILE ORG. CHANGE

 Change, no matter how small or large, is difficult  Smaller focused changes help to cross the chasm  Simplifying, motivating, and validation key factors SWITCH INFLUENCER DRIVE TO SELL IS HUMAN DECISIVE

DIRECT THE RIDER MAKE IT DESIRABLE PURPOSE ATTUNEMENT COMMON ERRORS  Create new experiences  Purpose-profit equality  Narrow framing  Follow the bright spots  Reduce Your Power  Create new motives  Business& societal benefit  Confirmation bias  Script the critical moves  Share control of profits  Take Their Perspective  Short term emotion  Delegate implementation  Over confidence  Point to the destination SURPASS YOUR LIMITS  Use Strategic Mimicry  Culture & goal alignment  Perfect complex skills  Remake society-globe WIDEN OPTIONS  Build emotional skills  Avoid a narrow frame  Multi-track MOTIVATE ELEPHANT USE PEER PRESSURE AUTONOMY BUOYANCY  Find out who solved it  Recruit public figures  Accountable to someone  Find the feeling  Use Interrogative Self-Talk  Recruit influential leaders  Self-select work tasks TEST ASSUMPTIONS   Shrink the change Self-directed work tasks  Opt. Positivity Ratios  Consider the opposite  Self-selected timelines  STRENGTH IN NUMBERS  Offer Explanatory Style  Zoom out & zoom in Grow your people  Self-selected teams   Ooch Utilize teamwork  Self-selected implement.  Power of social capital ATTAIN DISTANCE SHAPE PATH DESIGN REWARDS MASTERY CLARITY  Overcome emotion  Gather & shift perspective  Use incentives wisely  Tweak the environment  Experiment & innovate  Find the Right Problem  Self-directed work tasks  Use punishment sparingly  Align tasks to abilities   Build habits  Continuously improve Find Your Frames PREPARE TO BE WRONG CHANGE ENVIRONMENT   Rally the herd Learning over profits  Find an Easy Path  Bookend the future  Make it easy  Create challenging tasks  Set a tripwire  Make it unavoidable  Set high expectations  Trust the process

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. Pink, D. H. (2012). To sell is human: The surprising truth about moving others. New York, NY: Riverhead Books. 38 Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2013). Decisive: How to make better choices in life and work. New York, NY: Random House. Models of AGILE CONTRACTING

 Communication, cooperation, and interaction key  Shared responsibility vs. blame and adversarialism  Needs greater focus on collaboration vs. legal terms

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

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 39 Principles of AGILE CONTRACTING

 Manage agile contracts like your personal checkbook  Optimize value of dollars, i.e., get most bang for buck  Don’t burden taxpayers with billion dollar acquisitions

  FEWER - Fewer high-priority acquisition priorities and needs (vs. kitchen-sink way of buying everything).   SMALLER - Smaller low-cost single-mission throwaway acquisitions (vs. century-long, trillion-dollar systems).   MICRO TIMELINES - Hyper fast acquisition lifecycles measured in months and years (vs. decades and centuries).  EMERGENT DESIGN - Micro-thin capability-based designs (vs. wasteful heavyweight century-long architectures).   FLATTER - Flatter gov’t agencies, acquisition, organizations & program offices (vs. top-heavy oversight teams).   COLLABORATIVE - Smaller flatter cross-functional buyer-supplier teams (vs. adversarial legalistic contracting).  CROWDSOURCED - Global bottom-up planning, decisions, funding, risk-sharing & designs (vs. local groupthink).  RESULTS BASED - Blackbox, outcome, and product-oriented acquisitions (vs. whitebox, work-in-process focus).  MAXIMIZE FLOW - Low-cost intensive automated processes (vs. human-intensive decisions and governance).  COMMERCIALIZE - Maximize use of commercial products and services (vs. customized in-sourced solutions).  OUTSOURCED DATA - Use commercial open source data & analytics (vs. internal collection, analysis, & reports).

Rico, D. F. (2014). Dave's Notes: Principles for Transforming U.S. DoD Acquisition & Systems Engineering Practices. Retrieved March, 2015 from http://davidfrico.com 40