• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Agile project case study by a satisfied customer   jora gill
 

Agile project case study by a satisfied customer jora gill

on

  • 1,289 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,289
Views on SlideShare
1,289
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Agile project case study by a satisfied customer   jora gill Agile project case study by a satisfied customer jora gill Presentation Transcript

    • Standard & Poor’s Jora Gill, CTO Standard and Poor’s International Systems June, 2010 Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s. Copyright (c) 2008 Standard & Poor’s, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
    • Standard & Poor’s: $2.6b Revenue (2008) Standard & Poor's, a subsidiary of The McGraw-Hill Companies (NYSE:MHP), is the world's foremost provider of financial market intelligence, including: Independent Credit Ratings • Has rated more than 3 trillion in new debt – more than 1 million new and revised ratings. Fixed Income Risk Management Services • Credit portal; pricing of 3 million fixed income securities representing $12 trillion in assets; integrated tools and data library for linked global data assets; credit risk, market rating and cash flow models; analytics and research services. Equity Research • S&P Equity Research Services was the leading independent provider in The Wall Street Journal’s 2009 “Best on the Street”. S&P Indices • Over $3.5 trillion was benchmarked to the S&P 500, with indexed assets making up ~$915 billion of this total. $247 billion in assets in over 217 listed ETFs linked to S&P indices. Capital IQ • Comprehensive global coverage on 79,000 public companies, 1,000,000 private companies, 11,000 private equity firms and profiles on over 1.7 million investment professionals. Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s. 2.
    • S&P’s Strong Local Presence in Global Locations S&P has 11,000 employees in 26 countries North America  Atlanta, GA  Baltimore, MD  Bethesda, MD Asia  Boston, MA  Beijing, China  Centennial, CO  Hong Kong, China  Charlottesville, VA  Jakarta, Indonesia  Chicago, IL  Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia  Dallas, TX  Seoul, Korea  Greenwich, CT  Singapore  Hightstown, NJ  Taipei, Taiwan  Houston, TX  Tokyo, Japan  El Segundo, CA  Los Angeles, CA India  New York, NY  Mumbai, Hyderabad,  San Francisco, CA Gurgaon and multiple  Toronto, Canada other locations  Washington, D.C. Australia Europe & Middle East  Melbourne  Dubai, UAE  Sydney  Frankfurt, Germany  London, U.K. Latin America  Madrid, Spain  Buenos Aires, Argentina  Milan, Italy  Santiago, Chile  Moscow, Russia  São Paulo, Brazil  Paris, France  Mexico City, Mexico  Stockholm, Sweden  Tel Aviv, Israel  Offices  Affiliates Africa  Johannesburg, South Africa Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s. 3.
    • Standard & Poor’s Organization Standard & Poor’s Ratings Investment Services Corporate & Government Fixed Income Ratings; Equity Research S&P Risk Management Services Indices Capital IQ Structured Services Finance Firewall • Criteria • Credit Portal • MarketScope • ETFs • Capital IQ Advisor Platform • Quality • Pricing Services • Index Licensing • Ratings • Global Equity • Xpressfeed • Integrated Tools & Research • Listed Derivatives Operations Data Library • Compustat – Quantitative • Fund • Custom Indices Analytics • Proprietary Management • ClariFI – Originations Models Library Ratings • Index Data • SystematIQ – Ratings Market • Analytic & • S&P Investment Development • Money Market Research Advisory – Ratings Services Solutions Directories Editorial – Ratings Analytical Education Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s. 4.
    • Connect the Application Integration Hubs Worldwide London New York Tokyo Mumbai Melbourne Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s. 5.
    • Why Agile • One team • Embrace change • Value first and quickly • Have fun! Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s. 6.
    • Agile tick box • Business buy in • IT buy in • Investment • Continuous improvement • Partners • Start small • Larger projects lacked case studies and literature Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s. 7.
    • S&P EngineeringTM Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s. 8.
    • Code Dashboard Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s. 9.
    • Vendor Project Structure Fixed Price / Fixed Scope • Structure: Agree on the deliverables, deliver it. Customers like fixed price projects because it gives them security • Scope changes: The change request game (correction: change request process) is intended to limit scope changes. This process is costly, and the changes are usually not preventable. Since the customer almost by definition wants more scope, ending the project can be difficult. The supplier wants the customer to be happy, so the supplier usually yields. • Risk: Obvious risk is on the side of the supplier. If the estimates are wrong, the project will lose money. Less obvious risks are the change request game, through which the supplier negotiates additional revenue through scope changes. • Relationship: Competitive to indifferent. Customer generally wants to have more and the supplier wants to do less. Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s. 10.
    • Vendor Project Structure Time and Materials • Structure: Work for a month, then send the customer an invoice. Suppliers like it, because the customer carries the risk of changing his mind. • Scope: Not fixed. Sooner or later, the customer doesn't want to pay any more, so the project comes to an end. • Risks: carried 100% by the client. Supplier has little incentive to keep costs down. Effort to ensure that only legitimate effort and expenses are invoiced can be substantial. • Relationship: Indifferent. The supplier is happy when more work comes because more work means more money. Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s. 11.
    • Vendor Project Structure Phased Development • Structure: Fund quarterly releases and approve additional funds after each successful release. • Scope Changes: Not explicitly defined by the model. Releases are in effect time boxed. The knowledge that there will be another release next quarter makes it easier to accept postponing a feature to achieve the time box. • Risk: Customer’s risk is limited to one quarter’s worth of development costs. • Relationship: Cooperative. Both the customer and the supplier have an incentive that each release be successful, so that additional funding will be approved. Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s. 12.
    • Vendor Project Structure Bonus / Penalty Clauses • Structure: Supplier receives a bonus if the project completes early and pays a penalty if it arrives late. The amount of bonus or penalty is a function of the delay • Scope Changes: difficult to accept because changes potentially impact the delivery date, which is surely not allowed. • Risk: Does the customer have an incentive for early completion? The ROI arguments must be compelling and transparent. Otherwise the customer gets a cheaper solution the longer it takes. • Relationship: could be cooperative, but might degenerate into indifferent if the customer does not truly need the software by the date agreed. Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s. 13.
    • Vendor Project Structure Mixed Model • Structure: Initial sprints are T&M allowing the supplier to reach a stable velocity then the project is fixed once the project velocity levels off. • Scope: can be changed. Planned but unimplemented features can be replaced with other stories of the same size. Additional features cost extra. • Risk: Shared. Supplier has time to understand the complexity of the project, customer can fix budget after a period of time whilst also making changes. Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s. 14.
    • www.standardandpoors.com Permission to reprint or distribute any content from this presentation requires the prior written approval of Standard & Poor’s. 15.