Balancing Agility and Discipline

Barry Boehm has been trying to balance agility and discipline in software development since 1955. The TRW professor of software engineering and director of the USC Center for Software Engineering, he earlier served as director of the DARPA Information Science and Technology Office and as a chief scientist at TRW. Dr. Boehm's contributions to the field include the Constructive Cost Model (COCOMO), the Spiral Model of the software process, the Theory W (win-win) approach to software management and requirements determination, and his classic book, Software Engineering Economics (Prentice Hall, 1981).Richard Turner, a research professor in engineering management and systems engineering at the George Washington University, approaches balanced software development and acquisition with broad industry and government experience and a skeptical attitude toward best practices. In support of the U.S. Department of Defense, he is responsible for identifying and transitioning new software technology into the development and acquisition of complex, software-intensive defense systems. Dr. Turner was on the original author team for Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) and is coauthor off CMMI Distilled, Second Edition (Addison-Wesley, 2004).

• Foreword by Grady Booch. Foreword by Alistair Cockburn. Foreword by Arthur Pyster. Preface. Acknowledgments. Prelude. 1. Discipline, Agility, and Perplexity. The Sources of Perplexity. Multiple Definitions. Distinguishing Method Use from Method Misuse. Overgeneralization Based on the Most Visible Instances. Claims of Universality. Early Success Stories. Purist Interpretations. Clarifying Perplexity. The Two Approaches. Plan-Driven Methods. Agile Methods. Finding Middle Ground. 2. Contrasts and Home Grounds. Application Characteristics. Primary Goals. Size. Environment. Management Characteristics. Customer Relations. Planning and Control. Project Communication. Technical Characteristics. Requirements. Development. Testing. Personnel Characteristics. Customers. Developers. Culture. Summary. Home Grounds. Misconceptions. Five Critical Factors. 3. A Day in the Life. Typical Days. A Typical Day Using PSP/TSP. A Typical Day Using Extreme Programming. Crisis Days. A Crisis Day with TSP/PSP. A Crisis Day with XP. Summary. Differences. Similarities. Observations. 4. Expanding the Home Grounds: Two Case Studies. Using Plans to Scale Up Agile Methods: Lease Management Example. Assumption 1: The Effort to Develop or Modify a Story Does Not Increase with Time and Story Number. Assumption 2: Trusting People to Get Everything Done on Time Is Compatible with Fixed Schedules and Diseconomies of Scale. Assumption 3: Simple Design and YAGNI Scale Up Easily to Large Projects. Agile Methods Scaleup: Summing Up. Using Agility to Streamline Plan-Driven Methods: USAF/TRW CCPDS-R Example. Individuals and Interactions over Processes and Tools: CCPDS-R. Working Software over Comprehensive Documentation: CCPDS-R. Customer Collaboration over Contract Negotiation: CCPDS-R. Responding to Change over Following a Plan: CCPDS-R. Summary. 5. Using Risk to Balance Agility and Discipline. An Overview of the Method. An Example Family of Applications: Agent-Based Planning Systems. An Intermediate Application: Supply Chain Management. Step 1: SupplyChain.com Project Risk Ratings. Step 2: Compare the Agile and Plan-Driven Risks. Step 4a: Individual Risk Resolution Strategies. Step 4b: Risk-Based Strategy for SupplyChain.com System Development. Small Application: Event Planning. Step 1: Event Planning Project Risk Ratings. Step 2: Compare the Agile and Plan-Driven Risks. Steps 4a, 4b: Risk-Based Strategy for Event Planning System Development. Very Large Application: National Information System for Crisis Management (NISCM). Step1: NISCM Project Risk Ratings. Step 2: Compare the Agile and Plan-Driven Risks. Steps 3 and 4: Risk-Based Strategy for NISCM System Development. Summary. 6. Conclusions. The Top Six Conclusions. No Agile or Plan-Driven Method Silver Bullet. Agile and Plan-Driven Method Home Grounds. Future Applications Will Need Both Agility and Discipline. Balanced Agility-Discipline Methods Are Emerging. Build Your Method UpÑDonÕt Tailor It Down. Focus Less on MethodsÑMore on People, Values, Communication, and Expectations Management. What Can You Do Next about Balancing Agility and Discipline? Steps toward Balancing Software Development Agility and Discipline. Afterword. Appendix A. Comparing the Methods. Scrum. Thumbnail Sketch. Comments. References. Adaptive Software Development (ASD). Thumbnail Sketch. Comments. References. Lean Development (LD). Thumbnail Sketch. Comments. References. Crystal. Thumbnail Sketch. Comments. References. eXtreme Programming (XP). Thumbnail Sketch. Comments. Reference. Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM). Thumbnail Sketch. Comments. References. Rational Unified Process (RUP). Thumbnail Sketch. Comments. References. Team Software Process (TSP). Thumbnail Sketch. Comments. References. Feature-Driven Development (FDD). Thumbnail Sketch. Comments. References. Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI). Thumbnail Sketch. Comments. References. Capability Maturity Model for Software (SW-CMM). Thumbnail Sketch. Comments. References. Personal Software Process (PSP). Thumbnail Sketch. Comments. References. Cleanroom. Thumbnail Sketch. Comments. References. Method Comparison Table. Appendix B. Manifesto for Agile Software Development. Principles behind the Agile Manifesto. Appendix C. Capability Maturity Models. A Short History of CMMs. CMM Concepts. Using Models to Improve Processes. Appendix D. Tools for Balancing. D1. The Spiral Model Anchor Point Milestones. D2. Benefits Realization Analysis and the DMR Results Chain. Benefits Realized. Results Chain. D3. Schedule as an Independent Variable. Shared Vision and Expectations Management. Feature Prioritization. Schedule Range Estimation. Architecture and Core Capability Determination. Incremental Development. Change and Progress Monitoring and Control. Appendix E. Empirical Information. E1. The Cost of Change: Empirical Findings. E2. How Much Architecting Is Enough? A COCOMO II Analysis. E3. Experiments and Studies of Agile and Plan-Driven Methods. Overall Distribution of Project Size. Process Improvement. Team Software Process and Agile Methods. Pair Programming. Hybrid Agile/Plan-Driven Methods. Notes. References. Index.