• No results found

AGILE PRODUCTIVITY METRICS

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "AGILE PRODUCTIVITY METRICS"

Copied!
38
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

BIO

PRESENTATION

Better Software Conference June 26 – 29, 2006

W

K

2

6/28/2006 10:00 AM

A

GILE

P

RODUCTIVITY

M

ETRICS

Michael Mah

QSM Associates, Inc.

(2)

Michael Mah

Michael Mah is a contributing author of IT Measurement, Advice from the Experts and the upcoming book, Optimal Friction, People Dynamics at Work in the Information Age. Michael also publishes his writing on-line through the Cutter Consortium. His areas of expertise include organizational development, IT negotiation, software project

estimation, productivity benchmarking, outsourcing, risk management, and project “runway prevention.” Michael has been a keynote and featured speaker for the

Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Process Group Conference, the Better Software Conference & EXPO, the Cutter Summit series, and numerous Project Management Institute and SEI SPIN chapter meetings.

(3)

Michael Mah

Managing Partner

QSM Associates, Inc.

75 South Church Street

Pittsfield, MA 01201

413-499-0988

Fax 413-447-7322

e-mail:

[email protected]

Website:

www.qsma.com

Blog:

www.optimalfriction.com

Better Software Conference & Expo

June 26 - 29, 2006

Agile Productivity Metrics:

“XP and Productivity Measures – What

the Numbers Say”

(4)

Manifesto for Agile Software Development

We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing

it and helping others do it. Through this work we have come to

value:

‰

Individuals and interactions over processes and tools working

software over comprehensive documentation

‰

Customer collaboration over contract negotiation responding to

change over following a plan

‰

That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value

the items on the left more.

© 2001 Kent Beck, Mike Beedle, Arie van Bennekum, Alistair Cockburn, Ward

Cunningham, James Grenning, Jim Highsmith, Andrew Hunt, Ron Jeffries, Jon Kern,

Brian Marick, Robert C. Martin, Steve Mellor, Ken Schwaber, Jeff Sutherland, Dave

Thomas, Martin Fowler

(5)

“Frothy eloquence neither convinces

nor satisfies me. I am from Missouri.

You have got to show me.”

(6)
(7)

Industry Data from the QSM SLIM-Metrics Database

‰

Spans 20+ years

‰

Large heterogeneous database

contains over 7,000+ projects

‰

Represents over 685+ million SLOC,

7+ million function points, over 600

languages, from 500+ organizations in

18 countries

(8)
(9)

3 - DETERMINE PROCESS

METRICS & PROJECT POSITIONING

1 - COLLECT AND

VALIDATE PROJECT DATA

2 - ANALYZE PROJECTS USING

QSM REFERENCE DATABASE

4 - DOCUMENT RESULTS

Overview of Database

Number of Projects vs Division

D

ivisio

n

Desktop Faxes

High End Systems Mobile Coms Number of Projects 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.05.5 5.0 3.0 3.0

Avg, Min, Max PI Grade vs Division

D

ivisio

n

Desktop Faxes

High End Systems Mobile Coms

Number of Projects 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Average Value of Metrics

New Percent SLOC Modified % SLOC Unmodified % SLOC Number of Projects 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 56 12 35

Life Cycle Effort vs ESLOC

ESLOC (thousands) 1 10 100 1000 Li fe Effor t ( M HR) ( thous ands ) 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

ALL Systems Fax Corp 1997base Avg.

Agile Measurement Approach

(10)

“We’ve got to make our deadline – or kill our kids,”

Sam told his team.

(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)

Industrial XP Environment

(15)
(16)

Traditional Release 1

(17)

Staffing & Probability Analysis

Avg Staff (pe ople )

<Single Goal - MBI 1.1946>

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Jul '01

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan '02

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan '03

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 0 5 10 15 20 25 A v g S ta ff ( peo pl e) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 R&D C&T Milestones 0 - CSR 1 - SRR 2 - HLDR 3 - LLDR 4 - CUT 5 - IC 6 - STC 7 - UAT 8 - FCR 9 - 99R 10 - 99.9R Milestones 0 - CSR 1 - SRR 2 - HLDR 3 - LLDR 4 - CUT 5 - IC 6 - STC 7 - UAT 8 - FCR 9 - 99R 10 - 99.9R

SOLUTION PANEL <Single Goal - MBI 1.1946>

Duration Effort Cost Peak Staff MTTD Start Date C&T 24.0 347 5893 19.5 0.3 9/29/2001 Life Cycle 27.0 397 6741 19.5 0.3 7/1/2001 Months PM $ (K) people Days

PI=17.0 MBI=1.2 Eff SLOC=376022

CONTROL PANEL <Single Goal - MBI 1.1946>

PI 13.6 20.4 17.0 Peak Staff 15.6 23.4 19.5 Eff SLOC (K) 301 451 376 Project: Condor

(18)

Agile 1

Agile 2

Agile 3

(19)

Staffing & Probability Analysis Avg Staff (people)

<XP Rel. 3.0>

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Apr

'02

May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan '03 Feb Mar 0 2 4 6 8 10 Av g S taff (peop le) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 R&D C&T Milestones 0 - CSR 1 - SRR 2 - HLDR 3 - LLDR 4 - CUT 5 - IC 6 - STC 7 - UAT 8 - FCR 9 - 99R 10 - 99.9R Milestones 0 - CSR 1 - SRR 2 - HLDR 3 - LLDR 4 - CUT 5 - IC 6 - STC 7 - UAT 8 - FCR 9 - 99R 10 - 99.9R

SOLUTION PANEL <XP Rel. 3.0>

Duration Effort Cost Peak Staff MTTD Start Date C&T 6.0 33 561 8.4 1.8 8/31/2002 Life Cycle 9.0 69 1173 8.4 1.8 6/1/2002 Months PM $ (K) people Days

PI=20.7 MBI=3.8 Eff SLOC=67023

CONTROL PANEL <XP Rel. 3.0>

PI 16.5 24.8 20.7 Peak Staff 6.7 10.1 8.4 Eff SLOC (K) 54 80 67 Project: Elan 3.0

(20)

Staffing & Probability Analysis

Avg Staff (people)

<XP Rel. 3.2>

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Jan

'03

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan '04

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 0 2 4 6 8 10 A v g S ta ff (peop le ) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 R&D C&T Milestones 0 - CSR 1 - SRR 2 - HLDR 3 - LLDR 4 - CUT 5 - IC 6 - STC 7 - UAT 8 - FCR 9 - 99R 10 - 99.9R Milestones 0 - CSR 1 - SRR 2 - HLDR 3 - LLDR 4 - CUT 5 - IC 6 - STC 7 - UAT 8 - FCR 9 - 99R 10 - 99.9R

SOLUTION PANEL <XP Rel. 3.2>

Duration Effort Cost Peak Staff MTTD Start Date C&T 15.0 88 1496 8.2 -0.0 6/30/2003 Life Cycle 19.0 109 1854 8.2 -0.0 3/1/2003 Months PM $ (K) people Days

PI=14.8 MBI=1.3 Eff SLOC=76276

CONTROL PANEL <XP Rel. 3.2>

PI 11.9 17.8 14.8 Peak Staff 6.6 9.8 8.2 Eff SLOC (K) 61 92 76

(21)
(22)

David

Tara

.

..

. .

. .

. .

.

.

.

.

. .

.

.

. .

.

.

.

. .

..

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

. .

.

. .

.

(23)
(24)
(25)

C&T Duration (Months) vs Effective SLOC

10 100 1000

Effective SLOC (thousands)

1 10 100 C & T Du ra tion ( M onth s ) Agile 1 Agile 3 Agile 2 Traditional 1 Traditional 2 Agile 1 Agile 3 Agile 2 Traditional 1 Traditional 2

Fast Schedules on Traditional Projects

Even Faster on Agile Projects

(26)

Errors SIT-FOC vs Effective SLOC

10 100 1000

Effective SLOC (thousands)

1 10 100 1000 10000 E rro rs S IT -F O C Traditional 1 Traditional 2 Agile 1 Agile 2 Agile 3 Traditional 1 Traditional 2 Agile 1 Agile 2 Agile 3

High Defects on Traditional Projects

Low Defects on Agile Projects

(27)

Example PI Calculation

Size = 376,022 SLOC

Effort = 347

Person-Months

Time = 24 Months

*

Condor

PI =

SIZE

TIME

EFFORT

= 17

(28)

Productivity Index (PI)

(

industry values by application type

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Productivity Index (PI) w/ ±1 Standard Deviation

Avionics

Business

Command and Control

Microcode

Process Control

Real Time

Scientific

System

Telecommunications

Information

Engineering

Real Time

(29)

Previous

Performance

Current

Performance

Percent

Improvement

Project Cost

$2.8 Million

$1.1 Million

61%

Project Schedule

18 months

13.5 months

24%

Cumulative

Defects

2,270

381

83%

Staffing

18

11

39%

* Using average project size of 150,000 lines of new and modified code

(30)
(31)
(32)
(33)

SLIM-Metrics

SLIM-Estimate

SLIM-Control

Metrics

Repository

& Analysis

Size, Schedule,

Cost & Quality

Estimating

Statistical

Process

Control &

Adaptive

Forecasting

(34)

“Without metrics, you’re just

another

person with a different

opinion.”

(35)

Recommended

Reading

™

Honore, Carl,

“In Praise of Slowness, How A Worldwide

Movement is Challenging the Cult of Speed”,

© 2004 HarperSanFrancisco

™

Gladwell, Malcolm,

“Blink; The Power of Thinking Without Thinking”

© 2005 Little, Brown.

™

Mah, Michael,

“The Making of the Agile IT Executive”

Business IT Strategies Advisory Executive Report Vol 6 Number 10.

© 2004 Cutter Information Corp.

™

Putnam, Lawrence H., and Myers, Ware,

“Five Core Metrics,

The Intelligence Behind Successful Software Management”

(36)

Recommended

Reading

™

Demarco, Tom and Tim Lister

“Waltzing With Bears,

Managing Risk on Software Projects”

© 2003 Dorset House.

™

Ury, William, “

Getting Past NO”

© 1993 Bantam.

™

Fisher, Roger and Alan Sharp,

“Getting It Done, How to Lead

When You’re Not in Charge”,

© 1998 HarperCollins.

™

Heen, Sheila, Doug Stone and Bruce Patton

“Difficult Conversations - How to Discuss What Matters Most”,

(37)

Recommended Web Resources

™

Blogosphere:

www.optimalfriction.com

™

QSM Associates Web Library/Resource Center:

www.qsma.com

(38)

For Additional Information

Contact:

Michael Mah

Managing Partner

QSM Associates Inc.

Clocktower Building

75 So. Church St., Suite 600

Pittsfield, MA 01201

Email:

[email protected]

References

Related documents

In his magnificent book on the language relations across Bering Strait (1998), Michael Fortescue does not consider Nivkh (Gilyak) to be a Uralo-Siberian lan- guage.. Elsewhere I

Based on data obtained from results of the post-test of the ability of problem solving of mathematics in students who were taught by Cooperative Learning of STAD Type and Learning

Ø An application would not be acted on if, within the previous two years, the same site or one within 500 feet of it has been pro- posed for the same type of license and the

At day 26, only some incidental altera- tions were observed in clinical chemistry parameters and most parameters were back to levels similar to control vehicle-treated animals,

MLT, Bentham House 6pm Wednesday 14 th December 2011 Mock Interviews. Mock Interviews hosted by Herbert Smith at

The household-level data showed that the major strategies that farmers have been using to adapt to climate change are controlled grazing, water management, new crop varieties,

Governance structures mediate the acceptability of measures to promote environmental quality (Blackstock et al. The development of new models of governance for