business value of agile methods · provide an overview of the business value of agile methods using...
TRANSCRIPT
Business Value of
Agile MethodsUsing Return on Investment
Dr. David F. Rico, PMP, CSM
2
AgendaIntroductionSources of Business ValuePlanning for Business ValueSurveys of Business ValueMeasures of Business ValueModels of Business ValueEstimation of Business ValueComparison of Business ValueSummary of Business Value
3
AuthorDoD contractor with 25+ years of IT experienceB.S. Comp. Sci., M.S. Soft. Eng., D.M. Info. Tech.Large NASA & DoD programs (U.S., Japan, Europe)
* Published five textbooks and over 15 articles on various topics in return on investment, information technology, agile methods, etc.
4
PurposeProvide an overview of the business value of Agile Methods using return on investment:
Business value is an approach for estimating the tangible and intangible worth of organizational assetsBusiness value is an appraisal of intellectual assets such as knowledge, experience, and skillsBusiness value is a technique for determining the complete worth of an investment to an enterpriseBusiness value is a method of determining the health and well-being of a firm in the long-runBusiness value includes employee, customer, supplier, alliance, management, and societal value
5
What is Agility?A-gil-i-ty (ə-'ji-lə-tē) Quickness, lightness, and ease of movement; nimbleness
Agility is the ability to create and respond to changein order to profit in a turbulent business environmentAgility is reprioritizing for maneuverability because of shifting requirements, technology, and knowledgeAgility is a very fast response to changes in customer requirements through intensive customer interactionAgility is the use of adaptability and evolutionary delivery to promote rapid customer responsivenessAgility is a better way of developing products using collaboration, teamwork, iterations, and flexibility
6
What are Agile Methods?‘Adaptable’ software development methodologies‘Human-centric’ method for creating business value‘Alternative’ to large document-based methodologies
Agile Manifesto. (2001). Manifesto for agile software development. Retrieved September 3, 2008, from http://www.agilemanifesto.org
7
Essence of Agile MethodsHigh degree of customer & developer interactionHighly-skilled teams producing frequent iterationsRight-sized, just-enough, and just-in-time process
Highsmith, J. A. (2002). Agile software development ecosystems. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
8
Why use Agile Methods?Adaptability to changing market/customer needsBetter cost efficiencies and fastest time-to-marketImproved quality, satisfaction, and project success
Agile Manifesto. (2001). Manifesto for agile software development. Retrieved September 3, 2008, from http://www.agilemanifesto.org
9
Antecedents of Agile MethodsRooted in management evolution from early 1900sEvolved from software methods from 1950s/1960sSpinoffs of NPD/RAD approaches from the 1980s
Rico, D. F., Sayani, H. H., & Field, R. F. (2008). History of computers, electronic commerce, and agile methods. In M. V. Zelkowitz (Ed.), Advances in computers: Emerging technologies, Vol. 73. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
10
AgendaIntroduction
Sources of Business ValuePlanning for Business ValueSurveys of Business ValueMeasures of Business ValueModels of Business ValueEstimation of Business ValueComparison of Business ValueSummary of Business Value
11
Types of Agile MethodsCrystal Methods and Scrum 1st Agile MethodsExtreme Programming swept the globe by 2002Scrum/Extreme Programming hybrids are popular
Highsmith, J. A. (2002). Agile software development ecosystems. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Feature Lists (Customer Needs), Domain Model (Object Orientation), Inspection (Peer Review)
Use Cases, Domain Models, Frequent Delivery, Reflection Workshops, Risk Management
DSDM
Easel
IBM
Beck
De Luca
Millington
Sutherland
Cockburn
Author
Release Planning, Onsite Customers, Iterations,Pair Programming, Test-Driven Development
User Involvement, Time Boxes and Prototypes (Iterations), Testing and Quality Assurance
Backlogs (Feature Lists), Daily Scrums, Sprints (Iterations), Retrospectives (Post Mortems)
Major Features
Chrysler
Nebulon
Firm
1998
1997
1993
1993
1991
Year
Feature-Driven Development
CrystalMethods
Extreme Programming
Dynamic Systems
Development
Scrum
Method
12
Crystal MethodsCreated by Alistair Cockburn in 1991Has 14 practices, 10 roles, and 25 productsScalable family of techniques for critical systems
Cockburn, A. (2002). Agile software development. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
13
ScrumCreated by Jeff Sutherland at Easel in 1993Has 5 practices, 3 roles, 5 products, rules, etc.Uses EVM to burn down backlog in 30-day iterations
Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2001). Agile software development with scrum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
14
Dynamic Systems Develop.Created by group of British firms in 199315 practices, 12 roles, and 23 work productsNon-proprietary RAD approach from early 1990s
Stapleton, J. (1997). DSDM: A framework for business centered development. Harlow, England: Addison-Wesley.
15
Feature Driven DevelopmentCreated by Jeff De Luca at Nebulon in 1997Has 8 practices, 14 roles, and 16 work productsUses object-oriented design and code inspections
Palmer, S. R., & Felsing, J. M. (2002). A practical guide to feature driven development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
16
Extreme ProgrammingCreated by Kent Beck at Chrysler in 1998Has 28 practices, 7 roles, and 7 work productsPopularized pair programming and test-driven dev.
Beck, K. (2000). Extreme programming explained: Embrace change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
17
Extreme Programming (cont’d)RELEASE PLANNING — Best Practice
Created by Kent Beck at Chrysler in 1998Lightweight project management frameworkUsed for managing both XP and Scrum projects
Beck, K., & Fowler, M. (2004). Planning extreme programming. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley.
18
PAIR PROGRAMMING — Best PracticeTerm coined by Jim Coplien in 1995Consists of two side-by-side programmersHighly-effective group problem-solving technique
Williams, L., & Kessler, R. (2002). Pair programming illuminated. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Extreme Programming (cont’d)
19
REFACTORING — Best PracticeTerm coined by William Opdyke in 1990Process of frequently rewriting source codeImproves readability, maintainability, and quality
Extreme Programming (cont’d)
Fowler, M. (1999). Refactoring: Improving the design of existing code. Boston, MA. Addison-Wesley.
20
TEST-DRIVEN DEV. — Best PracticeTerm coined by Kent Beck in 2003Consists of writing all tests before codingEnsures all source code is verified and validated
Beck, K. (2003). Test-driven development: By example. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Extreme Programming (cont’d)
21
Extreme Programming (cont’d)CONT. INTEGRATION — Best Practice
Term coined by Martin Fowler in 1998Process of automated build/regression testingEvaluates impact of all changes against entire system
Duvall, P., Matyas, S., & Glover, A. (2006). Continuous integration: Improving software quality and reducing risk. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley
BuildIntegration
Server
VersionControlServer
BuildScripts
UsesWatches
BuildStatus
ProvidesDeveloper A
Developer B
Developer C
CommitsChanges
CommitsChanges
CommitsChanges
Compile Source Code
Run Unit Tests
Run Coverage TestsStatic Code Analysis
Build Database
Generate Help FilesArchive and Deploy
22
AgendaIntroductionSources of Business Value
Planning for Business ValueSurveys of Business ValueMeasures of Business ValueModels of Business ValueEstimation of Business ValueComparison of Business ValueSummary of Business Value
23
Release Planning DeliverablesUsed in both Extreme Programming and ScrumLightweight framework of Agile planning productsRanges from release plans down through unit tests
Beck, K., & Fowler, M. (2004). Planning extreme programming. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley.
No. Deliverable Description
1. Release Plan Fluid informal roadmap (or program plan) for planning software releases (usually containing one or more iterations).
2. Iteration Plan Informal project plan that divides an iteration into user stories and development tasks (usually spanning two to three weeks)
3. User Story A software requirement that has value to end-users or customers (usually a simple sentence written on an index card)
4. Metaphor A simple narrative about how the whole system works (usually written as a sentence or paragraph with major objects)
5. Development Task A development activity necessary to satisfy a user story (usually a numbered list of software development activities)
6. Acceptance Test An end-user test to determine if an iteration satisfies its acceptance criteria (usually written and executed by customers)
7. Unit Test A development test to determine if software components are working properly (usually written and executed by developers)
24
Release PlanFluid, informal roadmap for planning releasesIncludes dates for releases, iterations, and storiesMust prioritize, split, estimate, and order user stories
Beck, K., & Fowler, M. (2004). Planning extreme programming. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley.
Release Plan
Release PlanReleaseIteration
Release PlanRelease Iteration
1234n
1122n
Story01 thru 0607 thru 1213 thru 1819 thru 2425 thru nn
25
Iteration PlanPlan that divides iterations into development tasksEach iteration is one to three weeks in durationIteration plans updated using daily standups
Iteration Plan
Iteration PlanStoryTaskStatus
Iteration PlanStory
1122n
Task1234n
DeveloperBobSueMaryJohn
n
Status1/32/33/33/3n/n
Beck, K., & Fowler, M. (2004). Planning extreme programming. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley.
26
User StoryA function or feature of value to a customerAn estimable and testable software requirementSix user stories should be implemented per iteration
Beck, K., & Fowler, M. (2004). Planning extreme programming. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley.
<Title of User Story>
Type of UserGoal of UserObjective of User
Make a Reservation
27
System MetaphorSimple story about how the whole system worksOverarching 10,000 foot view of system architecturePushes the system into a sense of coherent cohesion
System Metaphor
Metaphor
System Metaphor
Shopping Cart
Beck, K., & Fowler, M. (2004). Planning extreme programming. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley.
28
Development TasksDetailed steps for implementing user storiesUser stories are decomposed into technical tasksBrainstormed by developers to last two to three days
<Title of Development Task>
Action of DeveloperSoftware Unit
Technology
Splash Screen
Beck, K., & Fowler, M. (2004). Planning extreme programming. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley.
29
Acceptance TestsBlack-box, functional tests to be performedSpecified by customers during iteration planningRun when user stories and unit tests are completed
<Title of User Story>
Type of UserSatisfy their Goals and
Objectives
Make a ReservationVerify customers can establish a reservationVerify customers can change a reservationVerify customers can cancel a reservation
Beck, K., & Fowler, M. (2004). Planning extreme programming. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley.
30
Unit TestsA test written from the developer’s perspectiveEach task is implemented by two programmersUnit tests are developed prior to implementation
<Title of Development Task>
Type of UserSatisfy TaskCondition Occurs
Make a Splash ScreenVerify customers can see splash screen when they visit websiteVerify customers can see company logo when splash screen executesVerify customers can skip splash screen when they want to enter site
Beck, K., & Fowler, M. (2004). Planning extreme programming. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley.
31
AgendaIntroductionSources of Business ValuePlanning for Business Value
Surveys of Business ValueMeasures of Business ValueModels of Business ValueEstimation of Business ValueComparison of Business ValueSummary of Business Value
32
Surveys of Agile MethodsNumerous surveys of Agile Methods since 2003AmbySoft and Version One collect annual dataGenerally include both hard and soft benefits
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the return-on-investment of agile methods? Retrieved February 3, 2009, from http://davidfrico.com/rico08a.pdf
33
Shine TechnologiesSurvey of 131 international respondentsExtreme Programming (58%) and Scrum (8%)85% of respondents were experts in Agile Methods
Johnson, M. (2003). Agile methodologies: Survey results. Victoria, Australia: Shine Technologies.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Productivity
Quality
Satisfaction
Cost
Improvement
34
Agile JournalSurvey of 400 international respondentsExtreme programming (28%) and Scrum (20%)80% using Agile Methods to deliver maximum value
Barnett, L. (2006). And the agile survey says. Agile Journal, 1(1).
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Time to Market
Quality
Alignment
Cost
Improvement
35
MicrosoftSurvey of 492 Microsoft respondentsScrum (65%) and Extreme Programming (5%)65% using Agile Methods in virtual distributed teams
Begel, A., & Nagappan, N. (2007). Usage and perceptions of agile software development in an industrial context: An exploratory study. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, Madrid, Spain, 255-264.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Communication
Time to Market
Flexibility
Quality
Satisfaction
Productivity
Improvement
36
UMUCSurvey of 250 international respondents70% of respondents using Agile Methods83% of were from small-to-medium sized firms
Rico, D. F., Sayani, H. H., Stewart, J. J., & Field, R. F. (2007). A model for measuring agile methods and website quality. TickIT International, 9(3), 3-15.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Satisfaction
Productivity
Cycle Time
Quality
Cost
Improvement
37
AmbySoftSurvey of 642 international respondents69% of firms had adopted an Agile Method62% were from firms with less than 1,000 people
Ambler, S. W. (2008). Agile adoption survey. Retrieved October 17, 2008, from http://www.ambysoft.com/downloads/surveys/AgileAdoption2008.ppt
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Productivity
Satisfaction
Project Success
Quality
Cost
Virtual Success
Improvement
38
IT AgileSurvey of 207 respondents in GermanyScrum (21%) and Extreme Programming (14%)97% of respondents are satisfied with Agile Methods
Wolf, H., & Roock, A. (2008). Agile becomes mainstream: Results of an Online Survey. Object Spektrum, 15(3), 10-13.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Flexibility
Job Satisfaction
Learning on the Job
Productivity
Project Status
Quality
Improvement
39
Version OneSurvey of 3,061 respondents from 80 countriesScrum (49%), Scrum/XP (22%), and XP (8%)68% from small firms and 57% distributed
Version One. (2008). The state of agile development: Third Annual Survey. Alpharetta, GA: Author.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Cycle Time
Project Visibility
Productivity
Quality
Maintainability
Cost
Improvement
40
AgendaIntroductionSources of Business ValuePlanning for Business ValueSurveys of Business Value
Measures of Business ValueModels of Business ValueEstimation of Business ValueComparison of Business ValueSummary of Business Value
41
Measures of Business ValueA major principle of Agile Methods is creating valueROI is the measure of value within Agile MethodsThere are seven closely related ROI measures
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the ROI of agile vs. traditional methods? TickIT International, 10(4), 9-18.
Metric Definition Formula Costs
Sum of Costs Total amount of money spent ∑
=
n
iiCost
1
Benefits Sum of Benefits
Total amount of money gained ∑=
n
iiBenefit
1
B/CR Benefit to Cost Ratio
Ratio of benefits to costs Costs
Benefits
ROI Return on Investment
Ratio of adjusted benefits to costs %100×−
CostsCostsBenefits
NPV Net Present Value
Discounted cash flows ∑=
−+
Years
iYears
i CostsRateDiscount
Benefits1
0)1(
BEP Breakeven Point
Point when benefits exceed costs 1−CostsNewCostsOldCostsNew
ROA Real Options Analysis
Value gained from strategic delay ( ) ( ) YearsRateeCostsdNBenefitsdN ×−××−× 21
d1 = [ln(Benefits ÷ Costs) + (Rate + 0.5 × Risk2) × Years] ÷ Risk × √ Years, d2 = d1 − Risk × √ Years
42
CostsTotal amount of money spent on Agile MethodsIncludes training, coaching, automated tools, etc.Minimally, includes the dev. effort of Agile Methods
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the ROI of agile vs. traditional methods? TickIT International, 10(4), 9-18.
∑=
n
iiCost
1
43
BenefitsTotal amount of money gained from Agile MethodsIncludes economic benefit from using new systemMinimally, includes maintenance rework savings
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the ROI of agile vs. traditional methods? TickIT International, 10(4), 9-18.
∑=
n
iiBenefit
1
44
Benefit to Cost RatioRatio of total benefits to total costs of Agile MethodsIncludes development, maintenance, and businessMinimally, benefits should be larger than all costs
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the ROI of agile vs. traditional methods? TickIT International, 10(4), 9-18.
CostsBenefits
45
Return on InvestmentRatio of adjusted benefits to costs of Agile MethodsBenefits are adjusted downward using total costsMinimally, benefits should be larger than costs
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the ROI of agile vs. traditional methods? TickIT International, 10(4), 9-18.
%100×−
CostsCostsBenefits
46
Net Present ValueDiscounted benefits of using Agile MethodsFuture benefits are discounted due to inflationMinimally, future benefits should exceed all costs
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the ROI of agile vs. traditional methods? TickIT International, 10(4), 9-18.
∑=
−+
Years
iYears
i CostsRateDiscount
Benefits1
0)1(
47
Breakeven PointPoint when benefits exceed costs of Agile MethodsPoint where slope of benefits and costs intersectMinimally, old costs should exceed new costs
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the ROI of agile vs. traditional methods? TickIT International, 10(4), 9-18.
1−CostsNewCostsOldCostsNew
48
Real Options AnalysisIterative benefits gained from using Agile MethodsFuture benefits are increased because of risksMinimally, benefits should exceed costs
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the ROI of agile vs. traditional methods? TickIT International, 10(4), 9-18.
( ) ( ) YearsRateeCostsdNBenefitsdN ×−××−× 21
d1 = [ln(Benefits ÷ Costs) + (Rate + 0.5 × Risk2) × Years] ÷ Risk × √ Yearsd2 = d1 − Risk × √ Years
49
AgendaIntroductionSources of Business ValuePlanning for Business ValueSurveys of Business Value
Models of Business ValueMeasures of Business ValueEstimation of Business ValueComparison of Business ValueSummary of Business Value
50
Software Lifecycle Costs1:10:100 is a classical ratio of dev. to maint. hoursDefects have negative multiplicative effect on costA conservative and contemporary ratio is 1:6:30
Boehm, B. W. (1981). Software engineering economics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Highsmith, J. A. (2002). Agile software development ecosystems. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Rel
a tiv
e C
o st
to F
ix E
rror
51
Software Cost ModelsCost estimation models still in use todayUsed to estimate effort of Traditional MethodsAdjusted average of 5,088 used for ROI estimation
Benediktsson, O., & Dalcher, D. (2005). Estimating size in incremental software development projects. Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 152(6), 253-259.
52
Total Lifecycle Costs0.51 hours/line of code for Traditional Methods10% defect inject rate (1,000 defects/10 KLOC)67% of defects in test (33% in maintenance)
Rico, D. F. (2004). ROI of software process improvement: Metrics for project managers and software engineers. Boca Raton, FL: J. Ross Publishing.In, H. P., et al. (2006). A quality-based cost estimation model for the product line life cycle. Communications of the ACM, 49(12), 85-88.McCann, B. (2007). The relative cost of interchanging, adding, or dropping quality practices. Crosstalk, 20(6), 25-28.
53
Agile Productivity StudiesProductivity data found in 26 Agile Methods studiesStudies conducted from 2002 to the present timeAverage productivity 21.2374 LOC per hour
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the ROI of agile vs. traditional methods? TickIT International, 10(4), 9-18.
Abrahamsson 2003 XP Case Study 19.2550
Abrahamsson & Koskela 2004 XP Case Study 16.9000
Back, Hirkman, & Milovanov 2004 XP Experiment 8.0000
Cohn 2008 Scrum Case Study 5.9050
Jones 2008 Scrum Case Study 5.7400
Sutherland 2006 Scrum Case Study 4.6858
Average 21.2374
54
Agile Productivity ModelsBased on 13 studies of Extreme Programming (XP)Also based on 7 studies of pair programming (PP)“Pair programming” had highest productivity
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the ROI of agile vs. traditional methods? TickIT International, 10(4), 9-18.
55
Agile Quality StudiesDefect density found in 21 studies of Agile MethodsStudies conducted from 2002 to the present timeAverage quality 1.7972 defects per KLOC
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the ROI of agile vs. traditional methods? TickIT International, 10(4), 9-18.
Abrahamsson 2003 XP Case Study 2.1450
Abrahamsson & Koskela 2004 XP Case Study 1.4300
Back, Hirkman, & Milovanov 2004 XP Experiment 0.7000
Cohn 2008 Scrum Case Study 2.9000
Jones 2008 Scrum Case Study 8.5000
Schatz & Abdelshafi 2005 Scrum Case Study 0.4350
Average 1.7972
56
Quality ModelsBased on 10 studies of Extreme Programming (XP)Also based on 6 studies of pair programming (PP)“Extreme Programming” had the highest quality
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the ROI of agile vs. traditional methods? TickIT International, 10(4), 9-18.
57
AgendaIntroductionSources of Business ValuePlanning for Business ValueSurveys of Business ValueMeasures of Business ValueModels of Business Value
Estimation of Business ValueComparison of Business ValueSummary of Business Value
58
Agile Lifecycle CostsCosts based on productivity and quality modelsDevelopment costs based on LOC ÷ productivity rateMaintenance costs based on defects × KLOC × MH
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the ROI of agile vs. traditional methods? TickIT International, 10(4), 9-18.
59
Agile Lifecycle BenefitsBenefits based on total traditional less agile costsTraditional costs based LOC × dev. + maint. effortTraditional costs credited testing effort applied
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the ROI of agile vs. traditional methods? TickIT International, 10(4), 9-18.
1. XP
2. TDD
3. PP
4. Scrum
5. Agile
No. Method
$1,708,039
$1,714,690
$1,573,096
$1,695,146
Benefits
$1,667,079
Agile Lifecycle Benefit Models
(10,000 3.51 – 3,651.48 4.47) 100 – $208,069
(10,000 3.51 – 3,651.48 4.47) 100 – $167,109
(10,000 3.51 – 3,651.48 4.47) 100 – $160,459
(10,000 3.51 – 3,651.48 4.47) 100 – $302,052
(10,000 3.51 – 3,651.48 4.47) 100 – $180,002
60
Extreme ProgrammingCosts based on avg. productivity and qualityProductivity moderated from 16.1575 to 5.3858Costs were $208,069, benefits were $1,667,079
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the ROI of agile vs. traditional methods? TickIT International, 10(4), 9-18.
∑ =
5
1i
61
Test Driven DevelopmentCosts based on avg. productivity and qualityProductivity moderated from 29.2800 to 9.7600Costs were $167,109, benefits were $1,708,039
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the ROI of agile vs. traditional methods? TickIT International, 10(4), 9-18.
∑ =
5
1i
62
Pair ProgrammingCosts based on avg. productivity and qualityProductivity moderated from 33.4044 to 11.135Costs were $160,459, benefits were $1,714,690
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the ROI of agile vs. traditional methods? TickIT International, 10(4), 9-18.
∑ =
5
1i
63
ScrumCosts based on avg. productivity and qualityProductivity data remained the same at 5.4436Costs were $302,052, benefits were $1,573,096
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the ROI of agile vs. traditional methods? TickIT International, 10(4), 9-18.
∑ =
5
1i
64
Agile MethodsCosts based on avg. productivity and qualityProductivity data resulted in average of 7.9311Costs were $180,002, benefits were $1,695,146
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the ROI of agile vs. traditional methods? TickIT International, 10(4), 9-18.
∑ =
5
1i
65
AgendaIntroductionSources of Business ValuePlanning for Business ValueSurveys of Business ValueMeasures of Business ValueModels of Business ValueEstimation of Business Value
Comparison of Business ValueSummary of Business Value
66
Data for Agile MethodsAgile Methods were ranked based on ROIAgile Methods with high quality had lower ROIAgile Methods with high productivity had high ROI
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the ROI of agile vs. traditional methods? Retrieved September 3, 2008, from http://davidfrico.com/agile-benefits.xls
67
ROI of Agile MethodsAgile Methods were ordered based on ROIAgile Methods had a high ROI value of 969%Agile Methods yielded an average ROI of 842%
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the ROI of agile vs. traditional methods? Retrieved September 3, 2008, from http://davidfrico.com/agile-benefits.xls
68
Data for Traditional MethodsTraditional Methods were ranked based on ROIMethods with good cost and quality had higher ROIAgile Methods had better ROI than heaviest methods
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the ROI of agile vs. traditional methods? Retrieved September 3, 2008, from http://davidfrico.com/agile-benefits.xls
69
ROI of Traditional MethodsTraditional Methods were ordered using ROITraditional Methods had high ROI value of 1,562%Agile Methods had better ROI than heaviest methods
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the ROI of agile vs. traditional methods? Retrieved September 3, 2008, from http://davidfrico.com/agile-benefits.xls
70
Data for All MethodsSoftware methods were ranked based on ROIMethods with good cost and quality had best ROIBest Agile and Traditional Methods had similar ROI
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the ROI of agile vs. traditional methods? Retrieved September 3, 2008, from http://davidfrico.com/agile-benefits.xls
Traditional
Traditional
Agile
Traditional
Agile
Agile
Traditional
Agile
Traditional
Traditional
Type Costs Benefits B/CR ROI NPV BEP ROAMethod
Agile
PSPsm $105,600 $1,755,148 17:1 1,562% $1,414,174 $945 $1,672,907
TSPsm $148,400 $1,706,648 12:1 1,050% $1,329,379 $5,760 $1,591,127
Inspections $82,073 $897,499 11:1 994% $695,067 $51,677 $833,681
PP $160,459 $1,714,690 11:1 969% $1,324,283 $5,919 $1,590,034
TDD $167,109 $1,708,039 10:1 922% $1,311,874 $6,430 $1,578,575
Agile $180,002 $1,695,146 9:1 842% $1,287,817 $7,483 $1,556,997
XP $208,069 $1,667,079 8:1 701% $1,235,446 $10,064 $1,513,332
Scrum $302,052 $1,573,096 5:1 421% $1,060,084 $21,682 $1,389,810
SW-CMM® $311,433 $1,153,099 4:1 270% $687,030 $153,182 $998,013
ISO 9001 $173,000 $566,844 3:1 228% $317,828 $1,196,206 $486,750
CMMI® $1,108,233 $1,153,099 1:1 4% -$109,770 $545,099 $891,412
71
ROI of All MethodsSoftware methods were ordered by ROIAgile Methods had a high ROI value of 969%Traditional Methods had high ROI value of 1,562%
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the ROI of agile vs. traditional methods? Retrieved September 3, 2008, from http://davidfrico.com/agile-benefits.xls
72
Unadjusted ROI of All MethodsAre data based on unrealistic laboratory conditions?Are productivity data from lab studies optimistic?Are total lifecycle costs closer to 1:10:100?
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the ROI of agile vs. traditional methods? Retrieved September 3, 2008, from http://davidfrico.com/agile-benefits.xls
73
AgendaIntroductionSources of Business ValuePlanning for Business ValueSurveys of Business ValueMeasures of Business ValueModels of Business ValueEstimation of Business ValueComparison of Business Value
Summary of Business Value
74
Benefit SummaryAgile (138 pt.) and Traditional Methods (99 pt.)Agile Methods fare better in all benefits categoriesAgile Methods 459% better than Traditional Methods
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the ROI of agile vs. traditional methods? TickIT International, 10(4), 9-18.
75
Cost of QualityApply traditional reliability and quality theoryDefects are inexpensive to remove early in cycleLate bug removal has negative, multiplicative effect
Rico, D. F. (2000). Using cost benefit analyses to develop software process improvement (SPI) strategies. Rome, NY: DACS.
Inspection Cost (57X PSP)
Soft
war
e De
fect
s
PSP
Test Cost (138X PSP)
Ad Hoc (326X)
Analysis Design CodeUnitTest
System Test
ComponentTest
CustomerUse
PSP Cost (326X lower than Ad Hoc)
76
Real OptionsNPV models losses of Traditional MethodsReal options model profits from Agile MethodsAgile Methods incur less initial risk and higher ROI
Fichman, R. G., Keil, M., & Tiwana, A. (2005). Beyond valuation: Options thinking in IT project management. California Management Review, 47(2), 74-96.
Prob
abili
ty
Prob
abili
ty
77
Agile vs. Traditional MetricsAgile Methods are a fundamentally new paradigmAgile Methods are “not” lighter Traditional MethodsThey should not be viewed through a Traditional lens
Rico, D. F. (2009). Metrics for agile methods. Retrieved February 7, 2009, from http://davidfrico.com/agile-metrics.pdf
78
New BookGuide to Agile Methods for business leadersCommunicates business value of Agile MethodsRosetta stone to Agile Methods for Traditional folks
* Rosetta stone to the business value and culture of Agile Methods for executives, managers, and thought leaders in the field of software methods.
THE BUSINESS VALUE OF AGILE METHODS
Maximizing ROI with Right-Sized, Just-Enough, and Just-in-Time Processes and Documentation
DR. DAVID F. RICO, DR. HASAN H. SAYANI AND DR. SAYA SONE
Forward by Dr. Jeffrey V. Sutherland
Table of Contents
1. Introduction2. Values of Agile Methods3. History of Agile Methods4. Antecedents of Agile Methods5. Types of Agile Methods6. Practices of Agile Methods7. Agile Project Management8. Agile Software Engineering9. Agile Support Processes10. Agile Tools and Technologies11. Comparison of Agile Methods12. Agile Metrics and Models13. Costs of Agile Methods14. Benefits of Agile Methods15. ROI of Agile Methods16. NPV of Agile Methods17. Real Options of Agile Methods18. Conclusion
79
ReferencesRico, D. F. (2000). Using cost benefit analyses to develop software process improvement (SPI) strategies. Rome, NY: DACS.Rico, D. F. (2002). How to Estimate ROI for Inspections, PSP, TSP, SW-CMM, ISO 9001, and CMMI. Software Tech News, 5(4), 23-31.Rico, D. F. (2002). The Return on investment in quality. TickIT International, 4(4), 13-18.Rico, D. F. (2004). ROI of software process improvement: Metrics for project managers and software engineers. Boca Raton, FL: J. Ross Publishing.Rico, D. F. (2005). Practical metrics and models for return on investment. TickIT International, 7(2), 10-16.Rico, D. F. (2006). A framework for measuring the ROI of enterprise architecture. International Journal of End User Computing, 18(2), 1-12.Rico, D. F. (2007). Optimizing the ROI of enterprise architecture using real options. In S. Clarke (Ed.), End user computing challenges and technologies: Emerging tools and applications. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the ROI of agile vs. traditional methods? An analysis of extreme programming, test-driven development, pair programming, and scrum (using real options). TickITInternational, 10(4), 9-18.Solingen, R. A., & Rico, D. F. (2006). Calculating software process improvement’s return on investment. In M. V. Zelkowitz (Ed.), Advances in computers: Quality software development, Vol. 66 (pp. 1-41). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
80
Contact InformationWebsite: http://davidfrico.comBiography: http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidfricoCapabilities: http://davidfrico.com/rico-capability.pdf