Agile method
1 like369 views
The document presents a model for estimating acceleration in agile project processes and schedules, addressing challenges such as environmental changes and project planning difficulties. It introduces the CORADMO model, which quantifies key factors influencing schedules, including product, process, project, and people factors, and demonstrates its effectiveness through experimental results from various projects. The conclusion highlights the model's ability to explain variations in project acceleration and the importance of organizational culture on agile methodologies.
![database analysis [5] to be due about 50% for tool coverage and
25% each for toolset integration and maturity.
Project factors span four sub-factors describing execution of the
development effort: project staff size; degree and nature of team
collaboration; CIM of the single-domain models, methods,
processes, and tools (MMPTs) employed; and CIM of the multi-
domain MMPTs used, where required.
People factors describe the project staff using four sub-factors:
acceleration multipliers were chosen to span a relatively small
range of duration expansion and reduction, pending model
calibration. Our evaluation of rapid development projects in this
research, however, suggests that people factors [12] and risk
tolerance [9]—which tracks willingness to accept some product
imperfections to improve schedule—have greater effects than the
other factors, which is reflected in the greater span of their
associated schedule multipliers.
We evaluated the CORADMO model against a 12-project
Table 2. Commercial Projects rating factors and analysis
Application Type Technologies
Person
Months
Duration
(Months)
Duration
/ √PM
Product Process Project People Risk
Multi-
plier
Error
%
Insurance agency system HTML/VB 34.94 3.82 0.65 VH VH XH VH N 0.68 5%
Scientific/engineering C++ 18.66 3.72 0.86 L VH VH VH N 0.80 -7%
Compliance - expert HTML/VB 17.89 3.36 0.79 VH VH XH VH N 0.68 -15%
Barter exchange SQL/VB/ HTML 112.58 9.54 0.90 VH H H VH N 0.75 -16%
Options exchange site HTML/SQL 13.94 2.67 0.72 VH VH XH VH N 0.68 -5%
Commercial HMI C++ 205.27 13.81 0.96 L N N VH N 0.93 -3%
Options exchange site HTML 42.41 4.48 0.69 VH VH XH VH N 0.68 -1%
Time and billing C++/VB 26.87 4.80 0.93 L VH VH VH N 0.80 -14%
Hybrid Web/client-server VB/HTML 70.93 8.62 1.02 L N VH VH N 0.87 -15%
ASP HTML/VB/SQL 9.79 1.39 0.44 VH VH XH VH N 0.68 53%
On-line billing/tracking VB/HTML 17.20 2.70 0.65 VH VH XH VH N 0.68 4%
Palm email client C/HTML 4.53 1.45 0.68 N VH VH VH N 0.76 12%](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/agilemethodmidterm-160123075656/85/Agile-method-15-320.jpg)
Agile method
- 1. A Model for Estimating Agile Project Process and Schedule Acceleration Dan lngold Barry Boehm Supannika Koolmanojwong Jo Ann Lane 報告人： 992008002 邱晴
- 2. OutLine • Introduction • COCOMO II • Method • Experimental Results • Conclusion
- 3. Introduction
- 4. 趨勢 • 環境快速變化 • 新的威脅產生 • 快速回應市場 • 減少等待將產品推向市場的時間 • 加速開發流程 • Agile Method
- 5. Agile的困難 • 過多造成時間表變動的因素 • 專案規劃者難以做出適當的選擇以最佳化專案表現 • 分工和組織的問題 • 對陷阱的疏忽
- 6. Pitfalls • Making easiest- first • Hard-to-refactor architectural commitments • Choosing unscalable or incompatible off-the shelf products • Accepting unsuitable on-site customer representatives • Teambuilding insufficiently • Assuming low personnel turnover
- 8. Coradmo • Constructive Rapid Application Development Model • A derivative of the revised COCOMO II • 一種估算時間表的方式 • 量化影響時間表的關鍵因素的影響力 • 重新調整各個因素的比例(權重) • 使規劃者可以提出更準確的時間表
- 9. method
- 10. Key factors • Product Factors • Process Factors • Project Factors • People Factors • Risk Acceptance Factor
- 11. • Product Factors • Simplicity, Element Reuse , Low-Priority Deferrals, Models vs Documents, Key Technology, Maturity • Process Factors • Concurrent Operational Concept, Requirements, Architecture, V&V, Process Streamlining , General SE tool support CIM (Coverage, Integration, Maturity) • Project Factors • Project size (peak # of personnel), Collaboration support • Single-domain MMPTs (Models, Methods, Processes, Tools) Multi-domain MMPTs • People Factors • General SE KSAs (Knowledge, Skills, Agility) Single-Domain KSAs • Multi-Domain KSAs Team Compatibility • Risk Acceptance Factor
- 12. The effort and schedule multipliers for these factors were 2. METHOD Table 1. Schedule Accelerators and Rating Factors Accelerators/Ratings Very Low Low Nominal High Very High Extra High Product Factors 1.09 1.05 1.0 0.96 0.92 0.87 Simplicity Extremely complex Highly complex Mod. complex Moderately simple Highly simple Extremely simple Element Reuse None (0%) Minimal (15%) Some (30%) Moderate (50%) Considerate (70%) Extensive (90%) Low-Priority Deferrals Never Rarely Sometimes Often Usually Anytime Models vs Documents None (0%) Minimal (15%) Some (30%) Moderate (50%) Considerate (70%) Extensive (90%) Key Technology Maturity >0 TRL 1,2 or >1 TRL 3 1 TRL 3 or > 1 TRL 4 1 TRL 4 or > 2 TRL 5 1-2 TRL 5 or >2 TRL 6 1-2 TRL 6 All > TRL 7 Process Factors 1.09 1.05 1.0 0.96 0.92 0.87 Concurrent Operational Concept, Requirements, Architecture, V&V Highly sequential Mostly sequential 2 artifacts mostly concurrent 3 artifacts mostly concurrent All artifacts mostly concurrent Fully concurrent Process Streamlining Heavily bureaucratic Largely bureaucratic Conservative bureaucratic Moderate streamline Mostly streamlined Fully streamlined General SE tool support CIM (Coverage, Integration, Maturity) Simple tools, weak integration Minimal CIM Some CIM Moderate CIM Considerable CIM Extensive CIM Project Factors 1.08 1.04 1.0 0.96 0.93 0.9 Project size (peak # of personnel) Over 300 Over 100 Over 30 Over 10 Over 3 ≤ 3 Collaboration support Globally distributed weak comm. , data sharing Nationally distributed, some sharing Regionally distributed, moderate sharing Metro-area distributed, good sharing Simple campus, strong sharing Largely collocated, Very strong sharing Single-domain MMPTs (Models, Methods, Processes, Tools) Simple MMPTs, weak integration Minimal CIM Some CIM Moderate CIM Considerable CIM Extensive CIM Multi-domain MMPTs Simple; weak integration Minimal CIM Some CIM or not needed Moderate CIM Considerable CIM Extensive CIM People Factors 1.13 1.06 1.0 0.94 0.89 0.84 General SE KSAs (Knowledge, Skills, Agility) Weak KSAs Some KSAs Moderate KSAs Good KSAs Strong KSAs Very strong KSAs Single-Domain KSAs Weak Some Moderate Good Strong Very strong Multi-Domain KSAs Weak Some Moderate or not needed Good Strong Very strong Team Compatibility Very difficult interactions Some difficult interactions Basically cooperative interactions Largely cooperative Highly cooperative Seamless interactions Risk Acceptance Factor 1.13 1.06 1.0 0.94 0.89 0.84 Highly risk- averse Partly risk- averse Balanced risk aversion, acceptance Moderately risk-accepting Considerably risk-accepting Strongly risk- accepting
- 13. change risk-accepting. As discussed in the Introduction, a good baseline estima schedule reduction through rapid development methods ha found to be proportional to the square root of effort. CORA estimates duration (D) as the product of multipliers associate the rating factors in Table 1 (Fi) and the nominal agile dura the square root of baseline effort in person-months (PM), ! = !! !". (1 It also has multipliers that adjust the original effort estim reflect the effect of RAD on effort. As seen in Table 1, each of the proposed factors is rated alon value Likert scale ranging from Very Low to Extra High, factors rating lower in the scale tend to extend the schedul
- 14. Result
- 15. database analysis [5] to be due about 50% for tool coverage and 25% each for toolset integration and maturity. Project factors span four sub-factors describing execution of the development effort: project staff size; degree and nature of team collaboration; CIM of the single-domain models, methods, processes, and tools (MMPTs) employed; and CIM of the multi- domain MMPTs used, where required. People factors describe the project staff using four sub-factors: acceleration multipliers were chosen to span a relatively small range of duration expansion and reduction, pending model calibration. Our evaluation of rapid development projects in this research, however, suggests that people factors [12] and risk tolerance [9]—which tracks willingness to accept some product imperfections to improve schedule—have greater effects than the other factors, which is reflected in the greater span of their associated schedule multipliers. We evaluated the CORADMO model against a 12-project Table 2. Commercial Projects rating factors and analysis Application Type Technologies Person Months Duration (Months) Duration / √PM Product Process Project People Risk Multi- plier Error % Insurance agency system HTML/VB 34.94 3.82 0.65 VH VH XH VH N 0.68 5% Scientific/engineering C++ 18.66 3.72 0.86 L VH VH VH N 0.80 -7% Compliance - expert HTML/VB 17.89 3.36 0.79 VH VH XH VH N 0.68 -15% Barter exchange SQL/VB/ HTML 112.58 9.54 0.90 VH H H VH N 0.75 -16% Options exchange site HTML/SQL 13.94 2.67 0.72 VH VH XH VH N 0.68 -5% Commercial HMI C++ 205.27 13.81 0.96 L N N VH N 0.93 -3% Options exchange site HTML 42.41 4.48 0.69 VH VH XH VH N 0.68 -1% Time and billing C++/VB 26.87 4.80 0.93 L VH VH VH N 0.80 -14% Hybrid Web/client-server VB/HTML 70.93 8.62 1.02 L N VH VH N 0.87 -15% ASP HTML/VB/SQL 9.79 1.39 0.44 VH VH XH VH N 0.68 53% On-line billing/tracking VB/HTML 17.20 2.70 0.65 VH VH XH VH N 0.68 4% Palm email client C/HTML 4.53 1.45 0.68 N VH VH VH N 0.76 12%
- 16. needs for rapid response projects, however, have led the division to desire a change to a more agile approach. The people factor ratings are: good general knowledge, skills, and agility (KSAs) (H); good single-domain KSAs (H); good Table 4. Initial To-Be Rating Factors (Initial Post-Adoption Rating Factors) Accelerators/Ratings VL L N H VH XH Product Factors 1.09 1.05 1.0 0.96 0.92 0.87 Simplicity X Element Reuse X Low-Priority Deferrals X Models vs Documents X Key Technology Maturity X Process Factors 1.09 1.05 1.0 0.96 0.92 0.87 Concurrent Operational Concept, Requirements, Architecture, V&V X Process Streamlining X General SE tool support CIM (Coverage, Integration, Maturity) X Project Factors 1.08 1.04 1.0 0.96 0.93 0.9 Project size (peak # of personnel) X Collaboration support X Single-domain MMPTs (Models, Methods, Processes, Tools) X Multi-domain MMPTs X People Factors 1.13 1.06 1.0 0.94 0.89 0.84 General SE KSAs (Knowledge, Skills, Agility) X Single-Domain KSAs X Multi-Domain KSAs X Team Compatibility X Risk Acceptance Factor 1.13 1.06 1.0 0.94 0.89 0.84 X Table 5. Final To-Be Rating Factors (Target Post-Adoption Rating Factors) Accelerators/Ratings VL L N H VH XH Product Factors 1.09 1.05 1.0 0.96 0.92 0.87 Simplicity X Element Reuse X Low-Priority Deferrals X Models vs Documents X Key Technology Maturity X Process Factors 1.09 1.05 1.0 0.96 0.92 0.87 Concurrent Operational Concept, Requirements, Architecture, V&V X Process Streamlining X General SE tool support CIM (Coverage, Integration, Maturity) X Project Factors 1.08 1.04 1.0 0.96 0.93 0.9 Project size (peak # of personnel) X Collaboration support X Single-domain MMPTs (Models, Methods, Processes, Tools) X Multi-domain MMPTs X People Factors 1.13 1.06 1.0 0.94 0.89 0.84 General SE KSAs (Knowledge, Skills, Agility) X Single-Domain KSAs X Multi-Domain KSAs X Team Compatibility X Risk Acceptance Factor 1.13 1.06 1.0 0.94 0.89 0.84 X
- 17. Case • CORDADMO 0.77 • 23%的時間表加速 • 持續使用加入其他slowdown因素能保持在15％加速 • 能排到更遠的地方
- 18. Conclusion
- 19. CORADMO factors • 可以解釋各project中的進度加速變化 • 不確定準確到什麼程度 • 良好的參考清單 • 評估團隊組的的現況和前景 • 組織的⽂文化是敏捷⽅方法短期收益能⼒力的關鍵因素
- 20. Thank You