Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Agile Australia 2017 Hypothesis-Driven COTS Software Selection Tiago Griffo

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Upcoming SlideShare
Appsec Agility: A Brief Tour
Appsec Agility: A Brief Tour
Loading in …3
×

Check these out next

1 of 31 Ad

Agile Australia 2017 Hypothesis-Driven COTS Software Selection Tiago Griffo

Download to read offline

Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) applications are a part of most (perhaps every) medium to large enterprises. A lot of money is spent every year in selection and implementation projects of such applications – think millions to billions of dollars if you consider lost opportunity costs (which are hard to measure).

Unfortunately, buying instead of building is no guarantee of success. Tales of monumental package implementation overruns and disappointing functionality – not to mention outright failures – abound. These failures occur despite elaborate, detailed evaluation processes meant to select just the right package and reduce the risk of implementation. It is clear that businesses have to get better at researching, evaluating, and selecting software products.

In this talk we’ll describe an approach to selecting and implementing package software that focuses on engineering quality and business agility. We prefer an approach that involves hands-on, experiential hypothesis testing and evidence gathering over endless feature checklists and vendor demonstrations.

Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) applications are a part of most (perhaps every) medium to large enterprises. A lot of money is spent every year in selection and implementation projects of such applications – think millions to billions of dollars if you consider lost opportunity costs (which are hard to measure).

Unfortunately, buying instead of building is no guarantee of success. Tales of monumental package implementation overruns and disappointing functionality – not to mention outright failures – abound. These failures occur despite elaborate, detailed evaluation processes meant to select just the right package and reduce the risk of implementation. It is clear that businesses have to get better at researching, evaluating, and selecting software products.

In this talk we’ll describe an approach to selecting and implementing package software that focuses on engineering quality and business agility. We prefer an approach that involves hands-on, experiential hypothesis testing and evidence gathering over endless feature checklists and vendor demonstrations.

Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

Slideshows for you (20)

Similar to Agile Australia 2017 Hypothesis-Driven COTS Software Selection Tiago Griffo (20)

Advertisement

Agile Australia 2017 Hypothesis-Driven COTS Software Selection Tiago Griffo

  1. 1. HYPOTHESIS-DRIVEN COTS SOFTWARE SELECTION Agile Australia 2017 @tiagogriffo
  2. 2. Principal Technologist at ThoughtWorks Developer Seen too many bad COTS software selection processes 2
  3. 3. Large software projects are risky. There is an assumption that by implementing COTS we will be reducing the risk. That assumption very often doesn’t hold true. Even more often COTS gets in the way of IT performance and bottom line results. 3
  4. 4. 4 TALES OF MONUMENTAL FAILURE
  5. 5. 5 http://spectrum.ieee.org/static/monuments-to-failure
  6. 6. 6
  7. 7. 7 DO WE BUILD OR DO WE BUY?
  8. 8. 8 TRADITIONAL REASONS FOR BUYING Software Development is Risky Software Development is Inefficient Software Development is NOT Our Core Competency https://erik.doernenburg.com/2012/09/buy-vs-build-shift-part-1/
  9. 9. 9 TRADITIONAL ISSUES WHEN BUYING Deliver Features That Are Not Needed Bring Their Own Roadmap Require Customisation https://erik.doernenburg.com/2012/09/buy-vs-build-shift-part-1/
  10. 10. BUILD OR BUY? Utility Strategic Better to build! This differentiates your company Ok to buy! Change the process https://martinfowler.com/bliki/UtilityVsStrategicDichotomy.html
  11. 11. 11 THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH
  12. 12. GOA Golf Oriented Architecture
  13. 13. GENERIC, PHASED TRADITIONAL APPROACH Planning and Budgeting Requirements Gathering/ Analysis Vendor Research Demos and Data Capturing Decision and Contract Negotiation
  14. 14. 14 HiPPO Highest Paid Person Opinion
  15. 15. 15 Who has been involved in a COTS software selection process like this before?
  16. 16. 16 Keep your hands up if you think the process achieved the results you expected it to.
  17. 17. WE NEED TO SELECT SOFTWARE THAT HELPS US MOVE TOWARDS A HIGHER PERFORMANCE IT ORGANISATION
  18. 18. 18 WHAT DOES HIGH IT PERFORMANCE LOOK LIKE
  19. 19. IT Performance Deployment Frequency Deployment Lead Time Mean Time To Recover Cycle Time MTTR over MTBF 2016 State of DevOps Report presented by Puppet and Dora
  20. 20. or in a few words: THE ABILITY TO RESPOND AND CHANGE QUICKLY AND SAFELY
  21. 21. How is customising COTS software different than writing software in a bespoke language?
  22. 22. Customisations should be version controlled
  23. 23. 23 https://martinfowler.com/bliki/TestPyramid.html TEST AUTOMATION
  24. 24. INFRASTRUCTURE AUTOMATION
  25. 25. OTHER REALLY IMPORTANT STUFF THAT OFTEN DOESN’T GET THE ATTENTION THEY DESERVE Integration Modularisation UpgradesEnvironments
  26. 26. WHAT DOES HYPOTHESIS DRIVEN SOFTWARE SELECTION LOOK LIKE?
  27. 27. WE BELIEVE the ability to apply agile, continuous delivery and devops practices to our COTS systems WILL RESULT in rapid evolution, value delivery and overall higher IT performance WE WILL HAVE CONFIDENCE to sign a contract with the vendor when we can make small changes that deliver business value in a safe and quick way
  28. 28. 29 HYPOTHESIS-DRIVEN PROCESS Important Hypothesis Biggest Risks Agile-driven Experiment 
 COTS A / Team A Agile-driven Experiment 
 COTS B / Team B Lessons Learned, Compromises COTS Decision
  29. 29. RECAP 30
  30. 30. THANK YOU

×