AGILE FACTORY MODEL - bcs.org · • Vital productivity gains: 2.6 to 3.5 fold increase • Cost reductions: 55% The Agile Factory Model vs. Waterfall at SITA • Quality improvements:

AAGILEGILE FFACTORYACTORYMMODELODEL

... an effective solution for large,... an effective solution for large,distributed software developmentdistributed software development

London, UKLondon, UK 27 June, 201327 June, 2013

John John FlenleyFlenley, FBCS Vice President , FBCS Vice President Software DevelopmentSoftware DevelopmentOlivier Poulard Olivier Poulard DirectorDirector Software DevelopmentSoftware DevelopmentSITASITA www.sita.aero www.sita.aero

Vital productivity gains: 2.6 to 3.5 fold increase

Cost reductions: 55%

The Agile Factory Model vs.

Waterfall at SITA

Quality improvements: 60% less defects

Scalability: 52 scrum teams (650+ staff) at peak time

Consistent fortnightly deliveries

2 SITA INC UK Limited 2013. All rights reserved.

Context & Drivers for Change

We dont deliver garbage

Who are SITA?

Who are SITA


Horizon Portfolio OverviewA

cces

s

E-Commerce Mobile KioskAgent / corporate direct

Airline agent desktop

Partner & GDS distribution

Pri

cin

g

Analyse Manage Distribute

Total Fares Management

Price Shop

Direct Sales and Service

Fast and accurate control of fares


Ser

vice

s

Profile & Loyalty Payments Ancillary Sales Intelligence

PS

S C

ore

Inventory & RMReservations DCS TicketingW&B

Flexible, efficient Passenger Service Systems core moved off legacy

Shared services for all channels and customers

Scope of the Next Generation PSS Program

Functions redeveloped in the current NG PSS programme

Existing open modules Integrated into NG design

PSS related touchpoints

To

uch

po

ints

Pri

mar

y R

etai

ling

GDS & Onlineagent

GDS & Onlineagent

Partner&

Alliance

Partner&

Alliance

Call centre

Call centre

3rd partyApps

3rd partyApps

DesktopeCommerceDesktop

eCommerceMobileportalMobileportal

SocialmediaSocialmedia

KioskKioskAgent &

Corporatedirect

Agent & Corporate

direct

MobileagentsMobileagents

Cabinin-flightCabin

in-flightCheck-inBoardingCheck-inBoarding

NG

PS

S

adm

inistratio

nN

G P

SS

ad

min

istration

Pricing control

Price,re-price, refund

Flightshopping

MerchandisingMerchandising Payment servicesPayment servicesMarketplace Service

catalogue & feesMerchandising

engine

Integration platform and enterprise service busIntegration platform and enterprise service bus

Pri

mar

y se

rvic

esR

elat

ed fu

nct

ion

s

NG

PS

S

adm

inistratio

nN

G P

SS

ad

min

istration

Revenue management

Revenue integrity

Revenue accounting

Loyalty

Business intelligence

FulfillmenteTicket, EMD

FulfillmenteTicket, EMD

Inventory & schedulesInventory & schedules

ReservationsReservations Departurecheck-in & boarding

Departurecheck-in & boarding

Weight & BalanceWeight & Balance

Dat

a

Customerjourneys

Customerprofiles Seat data

Pricing/ Pricing/ fee dataInventory data Schedule data

Reference data


Horizon Next Gen Program Size

Program estimation and sizing through formal analytics methodologies

5 year program with $155m development budget 102,000 Function Points (FP) in total for scope

Other Development Programs Function Point Counts *


Other Development Programs Function Point Counts *

US Air Traffic ControlMicrosoft XPMicrosoft Office ProfessionalAirline Reservation SystemNASA Space ShuttleGoogle Search EngineTravelocityFEDEX Shipping ControlsDenver Airport Luggage

306,000127,000

93,00038,00023,00019,00019,00017,00017,000

* Approx values for comparison purposes only

Next Gen. PSS Program: distributed organization

ARN CopenhagenATL AtlantaBLR BangaloreDEL DelhiKBP KievKUL Kuala LumpurLED St PetersburgLON LondonOMS Omsk

All Software Development

ATL: Supplier

ARN: Supplier

LON/KUL: Supplier

ATL: Supplier

LON: SITA

ATL: SITA

YVR: SITA


SITA QC

SITA Business Line

SITAData Centre

3rd party suppliers

BLR: Off-shore partnerDEL: Off-shore partner

DEL: Off-shore partner

KBP: Off-shore partner

OMS: Off-shore partner

LED: Off-shore partner

LON: SITA

Why we needed to change

Change drivers: by Year 3 we were over spent and under delivered

50% budget spent and approximately 25% scope completed Delivery delays Technical debt build-up Quality issues

Change vision: we needed to be faster, on time, on budget Project acceleration to get back to 5 year plan Finite scope Engaged with 3 off-shore partners under same governance,

responsible for development and testing prior to SITA acceptance testing


Quality issues

Agile Factory Model

Organization (shared responsibilities)

Key principles

Finite scope and accurate sizing

Clearly define and agree on the Definition Of Done

Plan scope of work and resources ahead and iteratively

Empower team to self-manage and take ownership

Identical vendor structure, governance and timings (heart beat)

Improve continuously through measuring and lessons learned

Quality deliverables by discovering and fixing problems early

Continuous integration: build often, integrate often, test often


Agile Factory Framework BoundariesAgile Factory Framework Boundaries

Delivery process

Off-shoreSupplier 2Off-shoreSupplier 2

Off-shoreSupplier 1Off-shoreSupplier 1

QualityQualityBusiness Line

(PSL, GSL)Business Line

(PSL, GSL)ArchitectsArchitects

SMEs BAs/BCsSMEs BAs/BCs

SW Support & Off-shoreSupplier 3Off-shoreSupplier 3


Continuous IntegrationContinuous Integration

SW Support & Maintenance

QualityQuality

1 2 3 4 6 7

Requirements documented

Requirements & High Level

Design completed

Software delivered

passes Factory Acceptance

Test

Software built and deployed

Acceptance, Integration and

Performance Tests

Software Delivered for

Demos / User

Acceptance Test

SoftwareDelivered for Production

5

Supplier 3Supplier 3

Plan the stages and iterations of the development program Provide Subject Matter Expertise (SME) Responsible for requirements and high-level design Interface with Offshore Core Team (OCT) Trust teams to self organize and deliver on commitment Manage teams not people (contracts are for teams)

Cross-Functional Team (XFT)

Senior Delivery ManagersProject Managers, SMEs

Architects, Business AnalystsTesting & Continuous Integration

Manage supply chain (input/output analysis and prioritisation) Manage Scrum Teams (number and work allocation) Shield Scrum Teams from management issues

Off-shore Core Team (OCT)Program & Project Management

Chief Scrum Master

Teams & roles


Shield Scrum Teams from management issues Roles and responsibilities aligned to functional domains Chief Scrum Master has full view of all Scrum Teams NFR Test Team do non-functional testing at module level

Chief Scrum MasterProxy Product Ownership

Technical Mgt & LeadershipQA Mgt, Configuration Mgt

Integration/NFR Testing Mgt

Two (2) Scrum Teams per Scrum Master and per BA Focussed on development and functional testing Daily Scrum Team meetings to feed into Scrum of Scrums Output continuously integrated and tested until ready for final

verification and end-to-end testing

Scrum Teams

50% Scrum Master50% Business Analyst

1 Technical Lead5 Developers

2 Testers

Acceptance, Integration and Performance


Iterative Software Delivery Framework

Elaboration


Acceptance,

Integration,

Performance

Review &

Planning

Agile

Development

& Testing

Stage in detail (assembly piece by piece)

Copyright SITA Information Networking Computing UK Limited 2012. Confidential. All rights reserved.18 SITA INC UK Limited 2013. All rights reserved.Copyright SITA Information Networking Computing UK Limited 2012. Confidential. All rights reserved.

Resource capacity plan

Partnerships with 3 offshore suppliers

Agile methodology and principles Overall geographical distribution SITAs capacity to produce Use

Software delivery strategy and plan defined from:

% T

ota

l sco

pe

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Scenario 1

% T

ota

l sco

pe

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Scenario 1

SITAs capacity to produce Use Cases and Design Artifacts iteratively

Offshore suppliers resourcing capacity and ability to produce software iteratively

3 theoretical scenarios based on risk management (scope vs. delivery process)


% T

ota

l sco

pe

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

1 2 3 4 5 6

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Stages

% T

ota

l sco

pe

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

1 2 3 4 5 6

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Stages

1. Program Scope (Use Cases) / Analytics Criteria*Program Sizing(Function Points*)

2. Program Sizing (FP*) / Productivity (hrs/FP*) Total Effort (hours)

3. Total Effort (hrs) / Forecast Completion DateOverall Resource Capacity Plan

Estimation process


3. Total Effort (hrs) / Forecast Completion DateCapacity Plan

4. Resource Capacity Plan / Prioritized Use Cases Stage Scope (Use Cases)

5. Stage Scope (Use Cases) / Prioritized Use Cases Sprint Scope (Use Cases)

* Definition of Function Point per UKSMA 1.3.1 - Mk II FP A

Controls through metrics

Daily Metrics

Use case burn-down

Automated Coding standards checking

Automated Unit

Sprint Metrics (trends)

Automated unit test coverage

Frequency of builds and runs of automated test suites

Checklist of Dev. documentation

Produced by OCT. Monitored and approved by SITA QA including test plan, design and test exit reports

Product Release

Defects found in Acceptance Integration or Performance: Categorized into Severity1-5s


Automated Unit Test results

Test case execution, passed against planned

Defects

suites

Use cases planned for Sprint compared to number done

Manual functional test coverage (GUI)

Automated functional and non-functional test coverage

Total defects per function point and KLOC

Requirements coverage by test cases executed

Weekly webinars between XFT and OCT

Webinars and video-conferences for planning, reviews and retrospectives

SITA Delivery Management Team completed 6-8 site visits per module per year to each vendor

OCT feedback the output of daily

Communication


planning, reviews and retrospectives

Webinars and video-conferences for demonstrations of working software

Agile-Friendly offshore environment

All documentation, source code and scripts shared in one central repository

OCT feedback the output of daily stand-ups, scrums and scrum of scrums to XFT via reporting of standard metrics and processes

Multi-vendor OCT integration meetings twice per week

Key OCT resources based onshore alongside XFT

Concerns &Lessons Learned

What were the problems (1/2)?

Difficulty for XFT to consistently feed offshore factories with required volume of quality requirements and design artefacts

Excessive rework due to data schema and functional design changes (up to 40+% at peak time for 1 module, stabilized at ~25%, 27+% on average over 2 years)

One offshore partner terminated half way

Integration problems Delayed and unavailable external components and services Non-functional / buggy components and services Changed service interfaces


30

40

50

60

What were the problems (2/2)?

Stage 5

NewStage

7

Stage 2

0

10

20

Offshore Scrum Teams

(Actuals)

Theoretical/Ideal Trend

Agile Factory Model: vendor view

Initial Concerns

Fixed price contract for Agile projects

Sizing based on function points

Expected high productivity (80% of all business logic)

Continuous parallel functional, integration and performance testing as per Agile vs. after development as per Waterfall

Continuous integration for modules developed by off-shore partners


High-level of automated testing coverage (100% of all functionality, >80% of all business logic)

Development and functional testing performed in parallel resulted in 60% less defects and defects found by SITA Quality post development, reduced from 70% to 15%

Continuous integration, essential due to high number of scrum teams working in parallel, ensured consistent processes and practices

Recommendations& Thoughts

A few recommendations

Select carefully the Offshore Core Team (interview, frequent visits and reviews,

changes early on as needed)

Structure contracts based on framework

and what (really) matters and needs to be

achieved

Define and implement a continuous build,

Set and communicate clear business and technical vision &

goals, incl. minimum viable & marketable

systems

Define a clear common governance,

incl. Definition of Define and implement

SITA INC UK Limited 2013. All rights reserved.28

Seed scrum teams while ramping up; keep the best resources while

ramping down

continuous build, integration & testing environment offshore

Actively manage functional and technical

dependencies

Track and manage productivity and quality metrics but... foremost

the completion of business functionality

incl. Definition of Done (DoD) at all

levels

an improvement program

More thoughts

At first consider small to medium size/complexity projects (

Delegation works

Self-managing teams works

Common governance works

Continuous improvement works

[email protected]

[email protected]

Bottom-up management works

Continuous integration works

Distributed structure works

Agile Factory Works...!

Documents

AGILE FACTORY MODEL - bcs.org · • Vital productivity gains: 2.6 to 3.5 fold increase • Cost reductions: 55% The Agile Factory Model vs. Waterfall at SITA • Quality improvements: