Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Managing softwaredebt agilepalooza-redmond-sept2010
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Managing softwaredebt agilepalooza-redmond-sept2010

1,886
views

Published on


0 Comments
5 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,886
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
38
Comments
0
Likes
5
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 Technology Consultant / Agile Coach / Certified Scrum Trainer Sterling Barton, LLC Web: www.SterlingBarton.com Email: chris@sterlingbarton.com Blog: www.GettingAgile.com Follow Me on Twitter: @csterwa Hash Tag for Presentation: #swdebt Friday, September 24, 2010 1
  • 2. 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, 2 Friday, September 24, 2010 2
  • 3. 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, 3 Friday, September 24, 2010 3
  • 4. Lack of emphasis on software quality attributes contributes to decay © 2009-2010, 4 Friday, September 24, 2010 4
  • 5. 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, 5 Friday, September 24, 2010 5
  • 6. Limited Platform Expertise Risk and costs increase as expertise becomes more limited for aging software platforms. © 2009-2010, 6 Friday, September 24, 2010 6
  • 7. 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, Friday, September 24, 2010 7
  • 8. 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, 8 Friday, September 24, 2010 8
  • 9. Software Debt Creeps into software slowly and leaves organizations with liabilities 9 Friday, September 24, 2010 9
  • 10. Software Debt Creeps In © 2009-2010, 10 Friday, September 24, 2010 10
  • 11. Software Debt Creeps In © 2009-2010, 11 Friday, September 24, 2010 11
  • 12. Software Debt Creeps In © 2009-2010, 12 Friday, September 24, 2010 12
  • 13. Managing Software Debt – an Overview © 2009-2010, 13 Friday, September 24, 2010 13
  • 14. 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, 14 Friday, September 24, 2010 14
  • 15. Types of Software Debt Technical Debt Quality Debt Configuration Management Debt Design Debt Platform Experience Debt © 2009-2010, 15 Friday, September 24, 2010 15
  • 16. Technical Debt Issues in software that will impede future development if left unresolved 16 Friday, September 24, 2010 16
  • 17. * 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, 17 Friday, September 24, 2010 17
  • 18. 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, 18 Friday, September 24, 2010 18
  • 19. Regression Costs - Manual vs. Automated © 2009-2010, 19 Friday, September 24, 2010 19
  • 20. 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, 20 Friday, September 24, 2010 20
  • 21. Quality Debt A lack of quality will lessen the value per feature added over time 21 Friday, September 24, 2010 21
  • 22. Accrual of Quality Debt with Releases © 2009-2010, 22 Friday, September 24, 2010 22
  • 23. Break/Fix Only Prolongs the Agony © 2009-2010, 23 Friday, September 24, 2010 23
  • 24. Effect of Project Constraints on Quality © 2009-2010, 24 Friday, September 24, 2010 24
  • 25. Effect of Project Constraints on Quality © 2009-2010, 24 Friday, September 24, 2010 24
  • 26. Acceptance Test-Driven Development © 2009-2010, 25 Friday, September 24, 2010 25
  • 27. A Fit Case Study Cost reduction using Fit for test automation and data conversion 26 Friday, September 24, 2010 26
  • 28. 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, 27 Friday, September 24, 2010 27
  • 29. 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, 28 Friday, September 24, 2010 28
  • 30. Configuration Management Debt Unpredictable and error-prone release management 29 Friday, September 24, 2010 29
  • 31. Traditional Source Control Management © 2009-2010, 30 Friday, September 24, 2010 30
  • 32. Traditional Source Control Management Main Branch © 2009-2010, 30 Friday, September 24, 2010 30
  • 33. Traditional Source Control Management Code Complete Version 1 Integrate for Branch Version 2 Main Branch © 2009-2010, 30 Friday, September 24, 2010 30
  • 34. Traditional Source Control Management Code Complete Version 1 Integrate for Branch Version 2 Debt Main Branch Death March © 2009-2010, 30 Friday, September 24, 2010 30
  • 35. 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, 30 Friday, September 24, 2010 30
  • 36. Flexible Source Control Management © 2009-2010, 31 Friday, September 24, 2010 31
  • 37. Flexible Source Control Management Main Branch © 2009-2010, 31 Friday, September 24, 2010 31
  • 38. Flexible Source Control Management Version 1 Main Branch © 2009-2010, 31 Friday, September 24, 2010 31
  • 39. Flexible Source Control Management Version 1 Version 2 Main Branch © 2009-2010, 31 Friday, September 24, 2010 31
  • 40. Flexible Source Control Management Version 1 Version 2 Main Branch { Not Easy! Must have proper infrastructure to do this. © 2009-2010, 31 Friday, September 24, 2010 31
  • 41. Continuous Integration © 2009-2010, 32 Friday, September 24, 2010 32
  • 42. Scaling to Multiple Integrations © 2009-2010, 33 Friday, September 24, 2010 33
  • 43. The Power of 2 Scripts: Deploy and Rollback Deploy Rollback © 2009-2010, 34 Friday, September 24, 2010 34
  • 44. Design Debt Design decays when not attended to so design software continually 35 Friday, September 24, 2010 35
  • 45. * Abuse User Stories Implement Security for User Information * From “User Stories Applied” presented by Mike Cohn Agile 2006 © 2009-2010, 36 Friday, September 24, 2010 36
  • 46. * 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, 36 Friday, September 24, 2010 36
  • 47. Platform Experience Debt Silos of knowledge and increased specialization will increase cost of maintenance over time 37 Friday, September 24, 2010 37
  • 48. 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, 38 Friday, September 24, 2010 38
  • 49. Team Configuration Patterns Virtual Architect Pattern Integration Team Pattern Component Shepherd Pattern Team Architect Pattern © 2009-2010, 39 Friday, September 24, 2010 39
  • 50. Virtual Team Pattern Enterprise Planning © 2009-2010, 40 Friday, September 24, 2010 40
  • 51. 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, 41 Friday, September 24, 2010 41
  • 52. Integration Team Pattern All features are Integrate implemented Features and integrated every iteration Feature Development © 2009-2010, 42 Friday, September 24, 2010 42
  • 53. 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, 43 Friday, September 24, 2010 43
  • 54. Component Shepherd Pattern © 2009-2010, 44 Friday, September 24, 2010 44
  • 55. 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, 45 Friday, September 24, 2010 45
  • 56. Feature Team Pattern © 2009-2010, 46 Friday, September 24, 2010 46
  • 57. 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, 47 Friday, September 24, 2010 47
  • 58. What is possible? High quality can be attained and enables accelerated feature delivery. 48 Friday, September 24, 2010 48
  • 59. 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, 49 Friday, September 24, 2010 49
  • 60. Lets wrap this up... What should I take away from this? 50 Friday, September 24, 2010 50
  • 61. 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, 51 Friday, September 24, 2010 51
  • 62. Thank you Questions and Answers 52 Friday, September 24, 2010 52
  • 63. Chris Sterling – Sterling Barton, LLC Technology Consultant, Agile Consultant and Certified Scrum Trainer Developer of AgileEVM ( www.AgileEVM.com ), a project portfolio decision support tool Consults on software technology, Agile technical practices, Scrum, and effective management techniques Innovation Games® Trained Facilitator Open Source Developer and Consultant Email: chris@sterlingbarton.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, 53 Friday, September 24, 2010 53