• Like

Loading…

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Managing Software Debt - Federal Reserve Bank

  • 1,621 views
Uploaded on

Presentation to Agile Support group inside Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco on October 25, 2010.

Presentation to Agile Support group inside Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco on October 25, 2010.

More in: Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,621
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
41
Comments
0
Likes
2

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Managing Software Debt Continued Delivery of High Value as Systems Age Chris Sterling VP of Engineering AgileEVM Inc. Web: www.AgileEVM.com Email: chris@agileevm.com Blog: www.GettingAgile.com Follow Me on Twitter: @csterwa Hash Tag for Presentation: #swdebt Thursday, October 28, 2010 1
  • 2. Chris Sterling – AgileEVM Inc. Developer of AgileEVM ( www.AgileEVM.com ), a project portfolio decision support tool Technology Consultant, Agile Consultant and Certified Scrum Trainer Consults on software technology, Agile technical practices, Scrum, and effective management techniques Innovation Games® Trained Facilitator Open Source Developer and Consultant Software technology, architecture, release Email: chris@agileevm.com management, monitoring, and design consulting for www.AgileEVM.com Agile Teams Web: http://www.sterlingbarton.com Blog: http://www.gettingagile.com Publishing book with Addison-Wesley called Follow me on Twitter: @csterwa “Managing Software Debt” - due out Dec 2010 © 2009-2010, 2 Thursday, October 28, 2010 2
  • 3. Brent Barton - AgileEVM Inc. President, AgileEVM Inc. More than 15 years software development in many roles as both employee and consultant for organizations from small start ups to multinational corporations Former CTO. Active Agile Coach, Mentor, Certified Scrum Trainer Actively involved in Agile Rollouts from small Product companies to very large IT organizations Scrum Articles www.AgileEVM.com “AgileEVM – Earned Value Management Email: brent@sterlingbarton.com in Scrum Projects”, IEEE Web: http://www.sterlingbarton.com Blog: http://www.gettingagile.com “Implementing a Professional Services Organization Using Type C Scrum”, IEEE Follow me on Twitter: @brentbarton “Establishing and Maintaining Top to Bottom Transparency Using the Meta-Scrum”, AgileJournal “All-Out Organizational Scrum as an Innovation Value Chain”, IEEE © 2009-2010, 3 Thursday, October 28, 2010 3
  • 4. Topics Being Covered Problems Found with Aging Software Software Debt Explained Technical Debt Quality Debt Configuration Management Debt Design Debt Platform Experience Debt The Wrap Up A Story of What is Possible © 2009-2010, 4 Thursday, October 28, 2010 4
  • 5. Problems Found with Aging Software Software gets difficult to add features to as it ages Business expectations do not lessen as software ages Software must remain maintainable and changeable to meet needs of business over time © 2009-2010, 5 Thursday, October 28, 2010 5
  • 6. Lack of emphasis on software quality attributes contributes to decay © 2009-2010, 6 Thursday, October 28, 2010 6
  • 7. The “Rewrite”, “NextGen” or “Like-to-like Migration” “It will be easy since we worked on the original version” - although we understand the domain we will be fighting with new features, technology, tools, and processes “We don’t have any other options” - Refactoring and test automation are potential alternatives to like-to-like migrations. © 2009-2010, 7 Thursday, October 28, 2010 7
  • 8. Limited Platform Expertise Risk and costs increase as expertise becomes more limited for aging software platforms. © 2009-2010, 8 Thursday, October 28, 2010 8
  • 9. Costs for Release Stabilization Increase Over Time 500000 375000 250000 125000 Release 6 Release 5 Release 4 0 Release 3 Release 2 Release 1 Cost of Fixing Defects Cost for Feature Dev © 2009-2010, Thursday, October 28, 2010 9
  • 10. Extreme Specialization Knowledge and capability to maintain legacy software decays with time Costs to maintain rarely used software platforms are higher Leads to waiting for people in specialized roles to finish their tasks in support of development effort © 2009-2010, 10 Thursday, October 28, 2010 10
  • 11. Software Debt Creeps into software slowly and leaves organizations with liabilities 11 Thursday, October 28, 2010 11
  • 12. Software Debt Creeps In © 2009-2010, 12 Thursday, October 28, 2010 12
  • 13. Software Debt Creeps In © 2009-2010, 13 Thursday, October 28, 2010 13
  • 14. Software Debt Creeps In © 2009-2010, 14 Thursday, October 28, 2010 14
  • 15. Managing Software Debt – an Overview © 2009-2010, 15 Thursday, October 28, 2010 15
  • 16. Managing Software Debt It is impossible to stop software debt from creeping into our software Managing debt in software is based on putting frequent feedback mechanisms in place for code, quality assurance, configuration management, design, and organization of people on project team Feedback mechanisms should be frequent, automated, and easy to use to support their continued use or modified to new needs © 2009-2010, 16 Thursday, October 28, 2010 16
  • 17. Types of Software Debt Technical Debt Quality Debt Configuration Management Debt Design Debt Platform Experience Debt © 2009-2010, 17 Thursday, October 28, 2010 17
  • 18. Technical Debt Issues in software that will impede future development if left unresolved 18 Thursday, October 28, 2010 18
  • 19. * Ward Cunningham on “Technical Debt” Technical Debt includes those internal things that you choose not to do now, but which will impede future development if left undone. This includes deferred refactoring. Technical Debt doesn’t include deferred functionality, except possibly in edge cases where delivered functionality is “good enough” for the customer, but doesn’t satisfy some standard (e.g., a UI element that isn’t fully compliant with some UI standard). * Ward Cunningham - “Technical Debt” - http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TechnicalDebt © 2009-2010, 19 Thursday, October 28, 2010 19
  • 20. My Definition of “Technical Debt” “Technical debt is the decay of component and inter-component behavior when the application functionality meets a minimum standard of satisfaction for the customer.” © 2009-2010, 20 Thursday, October 28, 2010 20
  • 21. Regression Costs - Manual vs. Automated © 2009-2010, 21 Thursday, October 28, 2010 21
  • 22. Principles of Executable Design The way we design can always be improved. We’ll get it “right” the third time. We will not get it “right” the first time. Design and construct for change rather than longevity. Lower the threshold of pain. If we are not enhancing the design then we are just writing a bunch of tests. © 2009-2010, 22 Thursday, October 28, 2010 22
  • 23. Quality Debt A lack of quality will lessen the value per feature added over time 23 Thursday, October 28, 2010 23
  • 24. Accrual of Quality Debt with Releases © 2009-2010, 24 Thursday, October 28, 2010 24
  • 25. Break/Fix Only Prolongs the Agony © 2009-2010, 25 Thursday, October 28, 2010 25
  • 26. Effect of Project Constraints on Quality © 2009-2010, 26 Thursday, October 28, 2010 26
  • 27. Effect of Project Constraints on Quality © 2009-2010, 26 Thursday, October 28, 2010 26
  • 28. Acceptance Test-Driven Development © 2009-2010, 27 Thursday, October 28, 2010 27
  • 29. A Fit Case Study Cost reduction using Fit for test automation and data conversion 28 Thursday, October 28, 2010 28
  • 30. Manual Regression Testing Testing was taking 75 person hours during 2 full test runs consisting of: Comprehensive manual regression testing Data conversion and validation Cost for testing was $17,000 each iteration © 2009-2010, 29 Thursday, October 28, 2010 29
  • 31. Introducing Fit into Testing Process After 8 iterations team had introduced healthy amount of Fit fixtures and automated tests Reduced 70+ hour test runtime down to 6 hours which now included: Fit automated regression testing Data conversion and validation automated with Fit fixtures Reduced cost of testing each iteration from $17,000 to $7,000 © 2009-2010, 30 Thursday, October 28, 2010 30
  • 32. Configuration Management Debt Unpredictable and error-prone release management 31 Thursday, October 28, 2010 31
  • 33. Traditional Source Control Management © 2009-2010, 32 Thursday, October 28, 2010 32
  • 34. Traditional Source Control Management Main Branch © 2009-2010, 32 Thursday, October 28, 2010 32
  • 35. Traditional Source Control Management Code Complete Version 1 Integrate for Branch Version 2 Main Branch © 2009-2010, 32 Thursday, October 28, 2010 32
  • 36. Traditional Source Control Management Code Complete Version 1 Integrate for Branch Version 2 Debt Main Branch Death March © 2009-2010, 32 Thursday, October 28, 2010 32
  • 37. Traditional Source Control Management Code Complete Version 1 Integrate for Branch Version 2 Debt Main Branch Death March { Debt accrues quickly within stabilization periods © 2009-2010, 32 Thursday, October 28, 2010 32
  • 38. Flexible Source Control Management © 2009-2010, 33 Thursday, October 28, 2010 33
  • 39. Flexible Source Control Management Main Branch © 2009-2010, 33 Thursday, October 28, 2010 33
  • 40. Flexible Source Control Management Version 1 Main Branch © 2009-2010, 33 Thursday, October 28, 2010 33
  • 41. Flexible Source Control Management Version 1 Version 2 Main Branch © 2009-2010, 33 Thursday, October 28, 2010 33
  • 42. Flexible Source Control Management Version 1 Version 2 Main Branch { Not Easy! Must have proper infrastructure to do this. © 2009-2010, 33 Thursday, October 28, 2010 33
  • 43. Continuous Integration © 2009-2010, 34 Thursday, October 28, 2010 34
  • 44. Scaling to Multiple Integrations © 2009-2010, 35 Thursday, October 28, 2010 35
  • 45. The Power of 2 Scripts: Deploy and Rollback Deploy Rollback © 2009-2010, 36 Thursday, October 28, 2010 36
  • 46. Design Debt Design decays when not attended to so design software continually 37 Thursday, October 28, 2010 37
  • 47. * Abuse User Stories Implement Security for User Information * From “User Stories Applied” presented by Mike Cohn Agile 2006 © 2009-2010, 38 Thursday, October 28, 2010 38
  • 48. * Abuse User Stories Implement Security As a Malicious Hacker I for User Information want to steal credit card information so that I can make fraudulent charges * From “User Stories Applied” presented by Mike Cohn Agile 2006 © 2009-2010, 38 Thursday, October 28, 2010 38
  • 49. Platform Experience Debt Silos of knowledge and increased specialization will increase cost of maintenance over time 39 Thursday, October 28, 2010 39
  • 50. How to Combat Platform Experience Debt Ignore it (I do not suggest this!) Surround existing functionality with automated functional tests ~OR~ Wrap platform interfaces with adapters Transfer knowledge of platform to more people Rewrite on more current platform Move thin slices of functionality to newer platform Start platform upgrade discussions and rearrange teams into known effective team © 2009-2010, 40 Thursday, October 28, 2010 40
  • 51. Team Configuration Patterns Virtual Team Pattern Integration Team Pattern Component Shepherd Pattern Team Architect Pattern © 2009-2010, 41 Thursday, October 28, 2010 41
  • 52. Virtual Team Pattern Enterprise Planning © 2009-2010, 42 Thursday, October 28, 2010 42
  • 53. Virtual Team Pattern Pros Share architecture ideas and needs across teams Based on verbal communication Cons Usually singles out special Team Member role Could lead to top-down architecture decisions IT may gain extensive influence and begin to run Product Backlog prioritization for architecture needs © 2009-2010, 43 Thursday, October 28, 2010 43
  • 54. Integration Team Pattern All features are Integrate implemented Features and integrated every iteration Feature Development © 2009-2010, 44 Thursday, October 28, 2010 44
  • 55. Integration Team Pattern Pros Reduces complexity on Feature Teams Forces delivery from Integration Team instead of interface and deployment designs Cons Perpetuates specialized roles Don’t always work on highest value Product Backlog items © 2009-2010, 45 Thursday, October 28, 2010 45
  • 56. Component Shepherd Pattern © 2009-2010, 46 Thursday, October 28, 2010 46
  • 57. Component Shepherd Pattern Pros Share more knowledge within organization to minimize platform experience debt Work on highest value Product Backlog items Cons Not always optimal as using individual knowledge Difficult to learn multiple systems across Teams © 2009-2010, 47 Thursday, October 28, 2010 47
  • 58. Feature Team Pattern © 2009-2010, 48 Thursday, October 28, 2010 48
  • 59. Feature Team Pattern Pros Team owns architecture decisions Decisions are made close to implementation concerns Cons May not have appropriate experience on Team Team could get “stuck” on architecture decisions © 2009-2010, 49 Thursday, October 28, 2010 49
  • 60. What is possible? High quality can be attained and enables accelerated feature delivery. 50 Thursday, October 28, 2010 50
  • 61. A Story: Field Support Application 2000+ users access application each day Application supports multiple perspectives and workflows from Field Support Operations to Customer Service Team of 5 people delivering features on existing Cold Fusion platform implementation Migrating to Spring/Hibernate in slices while delivering valuable features 36 2-week Sprints, 33 production releases, and only 1 defect found in production So, what was the defect you say? Let me tell you… © 2009-2010, 51 Thursday, October 28, 2010 51
  • 62. Lets wrap this up... What should I take away from this? 52 Thursday, October 28, 2010 52
  • 63. Principles for Managing Software Debt Maintain one list of work Emphasize quality Evolve tools and infrastructure continually Improve system design always Share knowledge across the organization And most importantly, get the right people to work on your software! © 2009-2010, 53 Thursday, October 28, 2010 53
  • 64. Thank you Questions and Answers 54 Thursday, October 28, 2010 54
  • 65. Chris Sterling – AgileEVM Inc. Developer of AgileEVM ( www.AgileEVM.com ), a project portfolio decision support tool Technology Consultant, Agile Consultant and Certified Scrum Trainer Consults on software technology, Agile technical practices, Scrum, and effective management techniques Innovation Games® Trained Facilitator Open Source Developer and Consultant Email: chris@agileevm.com Software technology, architecture, release www.AgileEVM.com Web: http://www.sterlingbarton.com management, monitoring, and design consulting Blog: http://www.gettingagile.com for Agile Teams Follow me on Twitter: @csterwa © 2009-2010, 55 Thursday, October 28, 2010 55