Business Value of Agile Testing: Using TDD, CI, CD, & DevOps

Business Value ofAgile Testing

Using TDD, CI, CD & DevOpsDr. David F. Rico, PMP, CSEP, FCP, FCT, ACP, CSM, SAFe

Twitter: @dr_david_f_ricoWebsite: http://www.davidfrico.com

LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidfricoAgile Capabilities: http://davidfrico.com/rico-capability-agile.pdf

Agile Resources: http://www.davidfrico.com/daves-agile-resources.htmAgile Cheat Sheet: http://davidfrico.com/key-agile-theories-ideas-and-principles.pdf

Author Background Gov’t contractor with 32+ years of IT experience B.S. Comp. Sci., M.S. Soft. Eng., & D.M. Info. Sys. Large gov’t projects in U.S., Far/Mid-East, & Europe

2

Career systems & software engineering methodologist Lean-Agile, Six Sigma, CMMI, ISO 9001, DoD 5000NASA, USAF, Navy, Army, DISA, & DARPA projects Published seven books & numerous journal articles Intn’l keynote speaker, 130 talks to 12,000+ people Specializes in metrics, models, & cost engineeringCloud Computing, SOA, Web Services, FOSS, etc. Adjunct at five Washington, DC-area universities

Today’s Whirlwind Environment

3

OverrunsAttritionEscalationRunawaysCancellation

GlobalCompetition

DemandingCustomers

OrganizationDownsizing

SystemComplexity

TechnologyChange

VagueRequirements

Work LifeImbalance

InefficiencyHigh O&MLower DoQVulnerableN-M Breach

ReducedIT Budgets

81 MonthCycle Times

RedundantData Centers

Lack ofInteroperability

PoorIT Security

OverburdeningLegacy Systems

ObsoleteTechnology & Skills

Pine, B. J. (1993). Mass customization: The new frontier in business competition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Pontius, R. W. (2012). Acquisition of IT: Improving efficiency and effectiveness in IT acquisition in the DoD. Second Annual AFEI/NDIA Conference on Agile in DoD, Springfield, VA, USA.

Software in U.S. DoD Systems

Kennedy, M. P., & Umphress, D. A. (2011). An agile systems engineering process: The missing link. Crosstalk, 24(3), 16-20.

No. of software-intensive systems is growing 80% of US DoD functions performed in software Major driver of cost, schedule, & tech. performance

4

Software in U.S. DoD Avionics

Blackburn, M. R. (2014). Transforming systems engineering through a holistic approach to model centric engineering. Washington, DC: Stevens Institute of Technology.

Software in U.S. DoD avionics growing exponentially 10x growth from F-16 to F-22 (& another 10x to F-35) Productivity must grow by 10x for next gen systems

5

Traditional Projects

6

Big projects result in poor quality and scope changes Productivity declines with long queues/wait times Large projects are unsuccessful or canceled

Jones, C. (1991). Applied software measurement: Assuring productivity and quality. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Size vs. Quality

DE

FEC

TS

0.00

3.20

6.40

9.60

12.80

16.00

0 2 6 25 100 400

SIZE

Size vs. Productivity

PR

OD

UC

TIV

ITY

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

0 2 6 25 100 400

SIZE

Size vs. Change

CH

AN

GE

0%

8%

16%

24%

32%

40%

0 2 6 25 100 400

SIZE

Size vs. SuccessS

UC

CE

SS

0%

12%

24%

36%

48%

60%

0 2 6 25 100 400

SIZE

Global Project Failures

7Standish Group. (2015). Chaos summary 2015. Boston, MA: Author.Sessions, R. (2009). The IT complexity crisis: Danger and opportunity. Houston, TX: Object Watch.

Challenged and failed projects hover at 67% Big projects fail more often, which is 5% to 10% Of $1.7T spent on IT projects, over $858B were lost

$0.0

$0.4

$0.7

$1.1

$1.4

$1.8

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Trill

ions

(US

Dolla

rs)

Expenditures Failed Investments

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

28%

34%

29%

35%

32%

33%

27%

28%

29%

49%

51%

53%

46%

44%

41%

56%

55%

52%

23%

15%

18%

19%

24%

26%

17%

17%

19%

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2015

Year

Successful Challenged Failed

Requirements Defects & Waste

8Sheldon, F. T. et al. (1992). Reliability measurement: From theory to practice. IEEE Software, 9(4), 13-20Johnson, J. (2002). ROI: It's your job. Extreme Programming 2002 Conference, Alghero, Sardinia, Italy.

Requirements defects are #1 reason projects fail Traditional projects specify too many requirements More than 65% of requirements are never used at all

Other 7%

Requirements47%

Design28%

Implementation18%

Defects

Always 7%

Often 13%

Sometimes16%

Rarely19%

Never45%

Waste

What is Agility? A-gil-i-ty (ә-'ji-lә-tē) Property consisting of quickness,

lightness, and ease of movement; To be very nimble The ability to create and respond to change in order to

profit in a turbulent global business environment The ability to quickly reprioritize use of resources when

requirements, technology, and knowledge shift A very fast response to sudden market changes and

emerging threats by intensive customer interaction Use of evolutionary, incremental, and iterative delivery

to converge on an optimal customer solution Maximizing BUSINESS VALUE with right sized, just-

enough, and just-in-time processes and documentationHighsmith, J. A. (2002). Agile software development ecosystems. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

9

What are Agile Methods?

10

People-centric way to create innovative solutions Product-centric alternative to documents/process Market-centric model to maximize business value

Agile Manifesto. (2001). Manifesto for agile software development. Retrieved September 3, 2008, from http://www.agilemanifesto.orgRico, D. F., Sayani, H. H., & Sone, S. (2009). The business value of agile software methods. Ft. Lauderdale, FL: J. Ross Publishing.Rico, D. F. (2012). Agile conceptual model. Retrieved February 6, 2012, from http://davidfrico.com/agile-concept-model-1.pdf

Customer Collaboration

Working Systems & Software

Individuals & Interactions

Responding to Change

valuedmore than

valuedmore than

valuedmore than

valuedmore than

Contracts

Documentation

Processes

Project Plans

Frequent comm. Close proximity Regular meetings

Multiple comm. channels Frequent feedback Relationship strength

Leadership Boundaries Empowerment

Competence Structure Manageability/Motivation

Clear objectives Small/feasible scope Acceptance criteria

Timeboxed iterations Valid operational results Regular cadence/intervals

Org. flexibility Mgt. flexibility Process flexibility

System flexibility Technology flexibility Infrastructure flexibility

Contract compliance Contract deliverables Contract change orders

Lifecycle compliance Process Maturity Level Regulatory compliance

Document deliveries Document comments Document compliance

Cost Compliance Scope Compliance Schedule Compliance

Courage

Agile World View “Agility” has many dimensions other than IT It ranges from leadership to technological agility Today’s focus is on organizational & enterprise agility

Agile Leaders

Agile Organization Change

Agile Acquisition & Contracting

Agile Strategic Planning

Agile Capability Analysis

Agile Program Management

Agile Tech.

Agile Information Systems

Agile Tools

Agile Processes & Practices

Agile Systems Development

Agile Project Management

11

NetworkComputer

Operating SystemMiddlewareApplications

APIsGUI

How Agile Works Agile requirements implemented in slices vs. layers User needs with higher business value are done first Reduces cost & risk while increasing business success

12Shore, J. (2011). Evolutionary design illustrated. Norwegian Developers Conference, Oslo, Norway.

Agile Traditional1 2 3 Faster

Early ROI

Lower Costs

Fewer Defects

Manageable Risk

Better Performance

Smaller Attack Surface

Late

No Value

Cost Overruns

Very Poor Quality

Uncontrollable Risk

Slowest Performance

More Security Incidents Seven Wastes1. Rework2. Motion3. Waiting4. Inventory5. Transportation6. Overprocessing7. Overproduction

MINIMIZES MAXIMIZES

JIT, Just-enough architecture Early, in-process system V&V Fast continuous improvement Scalable to systems of systems Maximizes successful outcomes

Myth of perfect architecture Late big-bang integration tests Year long improvement cycles Breaks down on large projects Undermines business success

Thousands of TestsContinuously Executed

No More Late BigBang Integration

User needs designed & developed one-at-a-time Changes automatically detected, built, and tested System fully tested and deployed as changes occur

13Humble, J., & Farley, D. (2011). Continuous delivery. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Duvall, P., Matyas, S., & Glover, A. (2006). Continuous integration. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

BuildIntegration

Server

VersionControlServer

BuildScripts

UsesWatches

BuildStatus

ProvidesDeveloper A

Developer B

Developer C

CommitsChanges

CommitsChanges

CommitsChanges

Builds

Database

Analysis

Testing

Reporting

Documentation

Deployment

Early, Automated, Fast,Efficient, & Repeatable

Constant ReadinessState & CM Control

Lean, Waste Free, Low WIP,No Deadlocked Test Queues

Rapidly & SuccessfullyDev. Complex Systems

Basic Agile Mechanics

14

Capability/MMF #1

● Feature 1● Feature 2● Feature 3● Feature 4● Feature 5● Feature 6● Feature 7

Capability/MMF #2


Capability/MMF #3


Capability/MMF #4


Capability/MMF #5


Capability/MMF #6


Capability/MMF #7


1

2 3

4

5 6

7

8 9

10

11 12

13

14 15

16

17 18

19

20 21

Evolving “Unified/Integrated” Enterprise Data Model

“Disparate” LEGACY SYSTEM DATABASES (AND DATA MODELS)

ETL

A A

B C

D E F

G H I J K

A

B C

D E F

A

B C

D E

A

B C

D

A

B C

A

B

“Legacy” MS SQL Server Stovepipes “Inter-Departmental” Linux Blade/Oracle/Java/WebSphere Server

“Leased” DWA/HPC/Cloud Services

Sprint 1 Sprint 2 Sprint 3 Sprint 4 Sprint 5 Sprint 6 Sprint 7

Release

Release

Release

Release

ETL ETL ETL ETL ETL ETL

Bente, S., Bombosch, U., & Langade, S. (2012). Collaborative enterprise architecture: Enriching EA with lean, agile, and enterprise 2.0 practices. Waltham, MA: Elsevier.

(for example, assume 25 user stories per feature, 175 user stories per capability/MMF, and 1,225 user stories total)

Organize needs into capabilities, features, and stories Prioritize features, group releases, and initiate sprints Develop minimum set of features with highest value

Agile Systems Development

Models of AGILE DEVELOPMENT

15

Agile methods spunoff flexible manufacturing 1990s Extreme Programming (XP) swept the globe by 2002 Today, over 90% of IT projects use Scrum/XP hybrid

Use Cases

Domain Model

Object Oriented

Iterative Dev.

Risk Planning

Info. Radiators

Planning Poker

Product Backlog

Sprint Backlog

2-4 Week Spring

Daily Standup

Sprint Demo

Feasibility

Business Study

Func. Iteration

Design Iteration

Implementation

Testing

Domain Model

Feature List

Object Oriented

Iterative Dev.

Code Inspection

Testing

Release Plans

User Stories

Pair Programmer

Iterative Dev.

Test First Dev.

Onsite Customer

Cockburn, A. (2002). Agile software development. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2001). Agile software development with scrum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Stapleton, J. (1997). DSDM: A framework for business centered development. Harlow, England: Addison-Wesley.Palmer, S. R., & Felsing, J. M. (2002). A practical guide to feature driven development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Beck, K. (2000). Extreme programming explained: Embrace change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

CRYSTAL METHODS- 1991 -

SCRUM- 1993 -

DSDM- 1993 -

FDD- 1997 -

XP- 1998 -

Reflection W/S Retrospective Quality Control Quality Control Continuous Del.

Basic SCRUM Framework

Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2001). Agile software development with scrum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Created by Jeff Sutherland at Easel in 1993 Product backlog comprised of prioritized features Iterative sprint-to-sprint, adaptive & emergent model

16

Models of AGILE PROJECT MGT.

17

Dozens of Agile project management models emerged Many stem from principles of Extreme Programming Vision, releases, & iterative development common

Prioritization

Feasibility

Planning

Tracking

Reporting

Review

Visionate

Speculate

Innovate

Re-Evaluate

Disseminate

Terminate

Scoping

Planning

Feasibility

Cyclical Dev.

Checkpoint

Review

Envision

Speculate

Explore

Iterate

Launch

Close

Vision

Roadmap

Release Plan

Sprint Plan

Daily Scrum

Retrospective

Thomsett, R. (2002). Radical project management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.DeCarlo, D. (2004). Extreme project management: Using leadership, principles, and tools to deliver value in the face of volatility. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Wysocki, R.F. (2010). Adaptive project framework: Managing complexity in the face of uncertainty. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Highsmith, J. A. (2010). Agile project management: Creating innovative products. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Layton, M. C., & Maurer, R. (2011). Agile project management for dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing.

RADICAL- 2002 -

EXTREME- 2004 -

ADAPTIVE- 2010 -

AGILE- 2010-

SIMPLIFIED- 2011 -

Layton, M. C., & Maurer, R. (2011). Agile project management for dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing.

Created by Mark Layton at PlatinumEdge in 2012 Mix of new product development, XP, and Scrum Simplified codification of XP and Scrum hybrid

18

Simplified AGILE PROJECT MGT.

19

Numerous models of agile portfolio mgt. emerging Based on lean-kanban, release planning, and Scrum Include organization, program, & project management

Schwaber, K. (2007). The enterprise and scrum. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Larman, C., & Vodde, B. (2008). Scaling lean and agile development: Thinking and organizational tools for large-scale scrum. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Ambler, S. W., & Lines, M. (2012). Disciplined agile delivery: A practitioner's guide to agile software delivery in the enterprise. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Thompson, K. (2013). cPrime’s R.A.G.E. is unleashed: Agile leaders rejoice! Retrieved March 28, 2014, from http://www.cprime.com/tag/agile-governanceSchwaber, K. (2015). The definitive guide to nexus: The exoskeleton of scaled scrum development. Lexington, MA: Scrum.Org

Models of AGILE PORTFOLIO MGT.

ESCRUM- 2007 -

SAFe- 2007 -

LESS- 2007 -

DAD- 2012 -

RAGE- 2013 -

SPS- 2015 -

Product Mgt

Program Mgt

Project Mgt

Process Mgt

Business Mgt

Market Mgt

Strategic Mgt

Portfolio Mgt

Program Mgt

Team Mgt

Quality Mgt

Delivery Mgt

Business Mgt

Portfolio Mgt

Product Mgt

Area Mgt

Sprint Mgt

Release Mgt

Business Mgt

Portfolio Mgt

Inception

Construction

Iterations

Transition

Business

Governance

Portfolio

Program

Project

Delivery

Product Mgt

Program Mgt

Sprint Mgt

Team Mgt.

Integ Mgt.

Release Mgt

Scaled Agile Framework (SAFE) Created by Dean Leffingwell of Rally in 2007 Knowledge to scale agile practices to enterprise Hybrid of Kanban, XP release planning, and Scrum

20Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

21

Agile Performance MeasurementW

ork

(Sto

ry, P

oint

, Tas

k)or

Eff

ort

(Wee

k, D

ay, H

our)

Time Unit (Roadmap, Release, Iteration, Month, Week, Day, Hour, etc.)

Burndown

Wor

k (S

tory

, Poi

nt, T

ask)

or E

ffor

t (W

eek,

Day

, Hou

r)


Cumulative Flow

Wor

k (S

tory

, Poi

nt, T

ask)

or E

ffor

t (W

eek,

Day

, Hou

r)


Earned Value Management - EVMCPI

SPI

PPC

APC

Wor

k (S

tory

, Poi

nt, T

ask)

or E

ffor

t (W

eek,

Day

, Hou

r)


Earned Business Value - EBV

What is Agile Testing? Traditional testing is a late, manual process Agile testing is an early and automated process Goal to deliver early & often and V&V components

22Rico, D. F. (2012). Agile testing resources. Retrieved Sep. 9, 2012, from http://davidfrico.com/agile-testing-resources.txtCrispin, L., & Gregory, J. (2009). Agile testing: A practical guide for testers and agile teams. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Grant, T. (2005). Continuous integration using cruise control. Northern Virginia Java Users Group (Novajug), Reston, Virginia, USA.

AGILE TESTING- Early Incremental Testing -

TRADITIONAL TESTING- Late Big Bang Integration Testing -

Test Criteria Accompany StoriesAutomated Tests Written FirstUnits Coded-Tested One at TimeCode is Frequently Checked InCode Automatically RetrievedCode Automatically CompiledTests Automatically Executed Instant Feedback & Test Reports

Test Criteria Written After FactManual Tests Written Much LaterUnits Coded Late All at One TimeCode Checked In Late in ProjectCode Manually Submitted to TestCode Manually Compiled & BuiltTests Manually Executed LateLate Project Feedback & Reports

Code Automatically DeployedLate Defects Freeze Projects

BASIC—Test Driven Development Term coined by Kent Beck in 2003 Consists of writing all tests before design Ensures all components are verified and validated

23Beck, K. (2003). Test-driven development: By example. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

ADVANCED—Continuous Integration Term coined by Martin Fowler in 1998 Process of automated build/regression testing Evaluates impact of changes against entire system

24Duvall, P., Matyas, S., & Glover, A. (2006). Continuous integration: Improving software quality and reducing risk. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

ALL DEVELOPERS RUN PRIVATE BUILDS

DEVELOPERS COMMIT CODE TO VERSION CONTROL

INTEGRATION BUILDS OCCUR SEVERAL TIMES PER DAY

100% OF SYSTEM TESTS MUST PASS FOR EVERY BUILD

A SHIPPABLE PRODUCT RESULTS FROM EVERY BUILD

FIXING BROKEN BUILDS IS OF THE HIGHEST PRIORITY

REPORTS AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED & REVIEWED

Agile testing consists of seven broad practices Automated build, database, inspection, tests, etc. Include reporting, documentation, deployment, etc.

25

Practice

Building

Database

Inspections

Testing

Feedback

Documentation

Deployment

Description

Frequently assembling products and services to ensure delivery readiness

Frequently generating/analyzing database schemas, queries, and forms

Frequently performing automated static analysis of product/service quality

Frequently performing automated dynamic product and service evaluation

Frequently generating automated status reports/messages for all stakeholders

Frequently performing automated technical/customer document generation

Frequently performing automated delivery of products/services to end users

Duvall, P., Matyas, S., & Glover, A. (2006). Continuous integration: Improving software quality and reducing risk. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Humble, J., & Farley, D. (2011). Continuous delivery. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

PRACTICES—Continuous Integration

Created by Jez Humble of ThoughtWorks in 2011 Includes CM, build, testing, integration, release, etc. Goal is one-touch automation of deployment pipeline

26Humble, J., & Farley, D. (2011). Continuous delivery. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Duvall, P., Matyas, S., & Glover, A. (2006). Continuous integration. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Ohara, D. (2012). Continuous delivery and the world of devops. San Francisco, CA: GigaOM Pro.

CoQ

• 80% MS Tst• 8/10 No Val• $24B in 90s• Rep by CD• Not Add MLK

ENTERPRISE—Continuous Delivery

Created by Patrick Debois of Jedi BVBA in 2007 Collaboration of developers & infrastructure people Goal to automate the deployment to end-user devices

27Bass, L., Weber, I., & Zhu, L. (2015). Devops: A software architect's perspective. Old Tappan, NJ: Pearson Education.Gruver, G., & Mouser, T. (2015). Leading the transformation: Applying agile and devops at scale. Portland, OR: IT Revolution Press.Humble, J., Molesky, J., & O'Reilly, B. (2015). Lean enterprise: How high performance organizations innovate at scale. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media.

GLOBAL—Development Operations

Agile methods are based on traditional measures Story points, velocity, and burndown basic metrics Experts use Agile EVM, test, ROI & portfolio metrics

28Rico, D. F., Sayani, H. H., & Sone, S. (2009). The business value of agile software methods. Ft. Lauderdale, FL: J. Ross Publishing.

AGILE METRICS1. Agile CODE Metrics2. Agile PROJECT Metrics3. Agile TRACKING Metrics4. Agile TESTING Metrics5. Agile VALUE Metrics6. Agile HEALTH Metrics7. Agile PORTFOLIO Metrics

1. Agile CODE Metrics Code Size Code Complexity Object Oriented Code Coverage Code Defects Relational Design

2. Agile PROJECT Metrics Software Size Software Productivity Software Effort Software Quality Software Schedule Software Success

3. Agile TRACKING Metrics Story Points Sprint Burndown Release Burndown Velocity Feature Progress Agile Earned Value

4. Agile TESTING Metrics Test Coverage Test Automation Integration Builds Running Tested Features DevOps Automation Deployment Frequency

7. Agile PORTFOLIO Metrics Portfolio Kanban Epic Progress Portfolio Radar Release Train Radar Lean Portfolio Metrics Enterprise Scorecard

6. Agile HEALTH Metrics Teamwork Quality Collaboration Quality Agile Process Maturity Agile Adoption Rate Degree of Agility Product Flexibility

5. Agile VALUE Metrics Total Lifecycle Costs Total Lifecycle Benefits Benefit to Cost Ratio Return on Investment Net Present Value Real Options Analysis

Agile Testing Metrics—Taxonomy

29

METRIC DESCRIPTION

TEST COVERAGE Percent or degree to which software source code is tested

TEST AUTOMATION Ratio or degree to which software tests are automated

INTEGRATION BUILDS Frequency of automated software builds and integrations

RUNNING TESTED FEATURES Number of completed and tested features or user stories

DEVOPS AUTOMATION Ratio or degree to which deployments are automated

DEPLOYMENT FREQUENCY Frequency of automated software deployments or deliveries

Software test automation emerged during the 1970s Reached their height in personal computer (PC) era Most are FOSS and used by successful agile teams

Duvall, P., Matyas, S., & Glover, A. (2006). Continuous integration: Improving software quality and reducing risk. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Agile Testing Metrics—Definitions

Agile Testing Metrics—Example

30Duvall, P., Matyas, S., & Glover, A. (2006). Continuous integration: Improving software quality and reducing risk. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

31

Traditional vs. Agile Cumulative Flow

Wor

k (S

tory

, Poi

nt, T

ask)

or E

ffor

t (W

eek,

Day

, Hou

r)


Wor

k (S

tory

, Poi

nt, T

ask)

or E

ffor

t (W

eek,

Day

, Hou

r)


Traditional Cumulative Flow Agile Cumulative Flow

Late big bang integration increases WIP backlog Agile testing early and often reduces WIP backlog Improves workflow and reduces WIP & lead times

Anderson, D. J. (2004). Agile management for software engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Anderson, D. J. (2010). Kanban: Successful evolutionary change for your technology business. Sequim, WA: Blue Hole Press.

Agile Testing—Workflow

Fewer integrations leave in higher bug counts Frequent, early integrations eliminate most defects Goal is to have as many early integrations as possible

32Lacoste, F. J. (2009). Killing the gatekeeper: Introducing a continuous integration system. Proceedings of the Agile 2009 Conference, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 387-392.

Number ofIntegrations

Less Defects•More Integrations•Early IntegrationsMore Defects

•Few Integrations•Late Integrations

Agile Testing—Economic Drivers

Traditional testing finds a defect in about 10 hours Manual code inspections find a defect in 1 hour Agile testing finds a defect every 6 minutes

33Rico, D. F. (2012). The Cost of Quality (CoQ) for Agile vs. Traditional Project Management. Fairfax, VA: Gantthead.Com.

Agile Testing—Economics

Agile testing is 10x better than code inspections Agile testing is 100x better than traditional testing Agile testing is done earlier “and” 1,000x more often

34Rico, D. F. (2012). The Cost of Quality (CoQ) for Agile vs. Traditional Project Management. Fairfax, VA: Gantthead.Com.

Agile Testing—Cost of Quality

Agile Cost & Benefit Analysis Costs based on avg. productivity and quality Productivity ranged from 4.7 to 5.9 LOC an hour Costs were $588,202 and benefits were $3,930,631

35Rico, D. F., Sayani, H. H., & Sone, S. (2009). The business value of agile software methods: Maximizing ROI with just-in-time processes and documentation. Ft. Lauderdale, FL: J. Ross Publishing.

d1 = [ln(Benefits Costs) + (Rate + 0.5 Risk2) Years] Risk Years, d2 = d1 Risk Years

5

1i

Benefits of Agile Methods Analysis of 23 agile vs. 7,500 traditional projects Agile projects are 54% better than traditional ones Agile has lower costs (61%) and fewer defects (93%)

Mah, M. (2008). Measuring agile in the enterprise: Proceedings of the Agile 2008 Conference, Toronto, Canada.

Project Cost in Millions $

0.75

1.50

2.25

3.00

2.8

1.1

Before Agile

After Agile

61%LowerCost

Total Staffing

18

11

Before Agile

After Agile

39%LessStaff

5

10

15

20

Delivery Time in Months

5

10

15

20

18

13.5

Before Agile

After Agile

24%Faster

Cumulative Defects

625

1250

1875

2500

2270

381

Before Agile

After Agile

93%Less

Defects

36

Agile vs. Traditional Success Traditional projects succeed at 50% industry avg. Traditional projects are challenged 20% more often Agile projects succeed 3x more and fail 3x less often

Standish Group. (2012). Chaos manifesto. Boston, MA: Author.

37

Agile Traditional

Success42%

Failed9%

Challenged49%

Success14%

Failed29%

Challenged57%

Grant, T. (2005). Continuous integration using cruise control. Northern Virginia Java Users Group (Novajug), Reston, Virginia, USA.Fredrick, J. (2008). Accelerate software delivery with continuous integration and testing. Japanese Symposium on Software Testing, Tokyo, Japan.

Most agile testing tools are “free” open source Build server costs no more than a commodity PC 10x more efficient/effective than traditional testing

38

Agile Testing—CI Statistics

39

Hewlett-Packard is a major user of CI, CD, & DevOps 400 engineers developed 10 million LOC in 4 years Major gains in testing, deployment, & innovation

Gruver, G., Young, M. & Fulghum, P. (2013). A practical approach to large-scale agile development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

TYPE METRIC MANUAL DEVOPS MAJOR GAINS

CYCLE TIME

IMPROVEMENTS

Build Time 40 Hours 3 Hours 13 x

No. Builds 1-2 per Day 10-15 per Day 8 x

Feedback 1 per Day 100 per Day 100 x

Regression Testing 240 Hours 24 Hours 10 x

DEVELOPMENT

COST EFFORT

DISTRIBUTION

Integration 10% 2% 5 x

Planning 20% 5% 4 x

Porting 25% 15% 2 x

Support 25% 5% 5 x

Testing 15% 5% 3 x

Innovation 5% 40% 8 x

Agile Testing—CD Statistics

Assembla went from 2 to 45 releases every month 15K Google developers run 120 million tests per day 30K+ Amazon developers deliver 8,600 releases a day

40Singleton, A. (2014). Unblock: A guide to the new continuous agile. Needham, MA: Assembla, Inc.

62x FasterU.S. DoD

IT Project

3,645x FasterU.S. DoD

IT Project

Agile Testing—DevOps Statistics

Google early adopter of agile methods and Scrum Google also uses agile testing at enterprise scale 15,000 developers run 120 million tests per day

41Micco, J. (2013). Continuous integration at google scale. Eclipse Con, Boston, MA.Whittaker, J., Arbon, J., & Carollo, J. (2012). How google tests software. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

440 billion unique users run 37 trillion searches each year Single monolithic code tree with mixed language code Submissions at head – One branch – All from source 20+ code changes/minute – 50% code change/month 5,500+ submissions/day – 120 million tests per day 80,000 builds per day – 20 million builds per year Auto code inspections – For low defect density 10X programming productivity improvement $150 million in annual labor savings (ROI as a result)

Agile Testing—Google Statistics

Amazon adopted agile in 1999 and Scrum in 2004 Using enterprise-scale continuous delivery by 2010 30,000+ developers deploy over 8,600 releases a day

42Atlas, A. (2009). Accidental adoption: The story of scrum at amazon.com. Proceedings of the Agile 2009 Conference, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 135-140.Jenkins, J. (2011). Velocity culture at amazon.com. Proceedings of the Velocity 2011 Conference, Santa Clara, California, USA.Elisha, S. (2013). Continuous deployment with amazon web services. Proceedings of the AWS Summit 2013, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Software deployment every 11.6 seconds (as of 2011) 24,828 to 86,320 releases per Iteration 161,379 to 561,080 releases per Quarter 645,517 to 2,244,320 releases per Year

Automatic, split-second roll-forward & backward 75-90% reduction in release-caused outages (0.001%) Millions of times faster (than traditional methods) 4,357,241 to 15,149,160 per traditional release

Thousands of times faster (than manual agility) 161,379 to 561,080 per Scrum/SAFe release

Used agile methods long before U.S. government (1999)

Agile Testing—Amazon Statistics

Enables enterprises to be flexible but disciplined Allows enterprises to distribute project work teams Ensures distributed project teams are collaborating

43

Agile Tools“Across the Life Cycle”

Project Management

RequirementsDOORSRequisite ProSLATE

DesignRhapsodyTelelogic System ArchitectRational System Architect

CodingEclipseVisual StudioSun Studio

TestingJUnitNUnitXunitCPPUnit

GtestFitFitnesseSelenium

Quality AssuranceCheckStylePMDEMMAJdependCoberturaGcov

Configuration MgtSubversion (SVN)Concurrent Versions Sys.ClearCase

Build AutomationAntNAntMavenMake

Continuous Integ.Cruise ControlHudsonBuildBot

CollaborationWebExSkypeMeetMeWimba

WikiMediaWikiTracWikiPhpWiki

DocumentationNDocJavadocDoxygeniText

Version OneRallyScrum WorksVSTS

Agile TeamAgile EnterpriseScope ManagerStory Studio

XP Plan ItIterateXP TrackerAgilo

XP CGIXP WebXplannerIce Scrum

Project CardsTarget ProcessXtreme PlannerTeam System

CommunityEnterpriseMingleHansoft

There are literally hundreds of agile testing tools There are tools for building, testing, and deployment Integration tools monitor repositories and initiate tests

44

Agile Tools“In-Depth Test Automation”

Smart, J. (2009). Automated deployment with maven and friends: Going the whole nine yards. Proceedings of the Agile 2009 Conference, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Simple example of a DevOps reference architecture Includes CM, continuous integration, & deployment Code automatically built/tested/deployed to users

45

Agile Tools“Simple DevOps Automation”

Morris, B., & Cassatt, C. (2015). Devops for the rest of us. Proceedings of the Agile DC Conference, Washington, DC, USA.Weeks, D. E. (2014). Devops and continuous delivery reference architectures (volume 1 & 2). Fulton, MD: Sonatype.

46

Agile Tools“Periodic Table of DevOps Automation”

XeniaLabs. (2016). Periodic table of devops tools. Retrieved April 11, 2016, from https://xebialabs.com/periodic-table-of-devops-tools.

47Holler, R. (2015). Ninth annual state of agile survey: State of agile development. Atlanta, GA: VersionOne.

VersionOne found 94% using agile methods today Most are using Scrum with several key XP practices Lean-Kanban is a rising practice with a 31% adoption

ContinuousIntegration

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

Agile Testing—Adoption Statistics

Agile test use is low in spite of its age, i.e., 15 years Many do not understand its utter simplicity and power Failure to use agile testing undermines project success

48Kim, D. (2013). The state of scrum: Benchmarks and guidelines. Indianapolis, IN: Scrum Alliance.

Agile PracticesRetrospectives

Refactoring

Done Definition

Test Tools

Test Driven Dev.

CM Tools

Simplicity

Pair Programming

Technical Debt

Agile Testing 13%

Continuous Integrations

Weekly

Daily

2-3 TimesPer Day

Never

2-3Times

PerIteration

Agile Testing—Usage Statistics

Agile teams don’t often use TDD, CI, CD & DevOps Implement independent test teams after Sprints done Sprint Waterfalling, Scrummerfalling, & Wagile result

49Heusser, M. (2015). 12 years of agile testing: What do we know now. Proceedings of the Agile Gathering, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA.

Incorrect• Phased Testing• Separate Teams• Delayed Testing

Correct• Integrated Testing• Integrated Teams• Continuous Testing

Agile Testing—Anti-Patterns

Agile testing slows down with very large systems Slow testing slows integration and increases bugs Agile testing can speed back up with more attention

50Kokko, H. (2009). Increase productivity with large scale continuous integration. Proceedings of the Agile 2009 Conference, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

MICRO ADJUSTMENTS- Focused Impact Tuning-

MACRO ADJUSTMENTS- Wide Impact Tuning-

Add More CPUs & MemoryParallelize System BuildsReplace 3rd Party Test LibrariesReduce or Remove Test TimeoutsSelect Different TestsRefactor Code & ComponentsTune Network & SoftwareTune Database & Middleware

In-Memory CompilationParallelize Test RunsPre-Install Test LibrariesRemove Process RandomnessUse Faster Code & Test Tools Incremental vs. Big Bang TestsParallelize Build & InstallTune & Optimize Build Process

Agile Testing—Scaling Practices

Industry very slow in adopting agile testing model Cost, difficulty, and territorialism are common issues Developers must take initiative for disciplined testing

51

Technical BarriersOrganizational BarriersDevelopers don’t want to test

· Infrequently committing code· Committing broken code· Failing to immediately fix builds· Not writing automated tests· Not ensuring 100% of tests pass· Not running private builds· Resorting to traditional testing

Resistance to change· Fear of investment costs· Fear of learning new skills· Test group territorialism· Organizational policy conflicts· Overhead of maintaining CI· Complexity and scaling· Not developing a quality culture

··

Duvall, P., Matyas, S., & Glover, A. (2006). Continuous integration: Improving software quality and reducing risk. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Agile Testing—Common Barriers

Eliminates big-bang integration in the 11th hour Creates a repeatable and reliable testing process Evaluates system-wide changes throughout project

52Maeda, M. K. (2009). Agile testing: Early, often, and smart. Arlington, MA: Cutter Consortium.

What’s the Bottom Line?“Agile Testing Done Early & Often”

Agile TestingTraditional TestingDramatically reduces risks

· Automates manual processes· Instant verification & validation· High project visibility· Greater confidence and morale· Incremental business value· 24x7 deployability to users· Highly quality and reliability

Late defect discovery· Low quality software· Poor project visibility· Lack of deployability· Late big-bang integration· Testing is a bottleneck· Poor customer satisfaction· Outright project failure

··

Conclusion Agile methods DON’T mean deliver it now & fix it later Lightweight, yet disciplined approach to development Reduced cost, risk, & waste while improving quality

53Rico, D. F. (2012). What’s really happening in agile methods: Its principles revisited? Retrieved June 6, 2012, from http://davidfrico.com/agile-principles.pdfRico, D. F. (2012). The promises and pitfalls of agile methods. Retrieved February 6, 2013 from, http://davidfrico.com/agile-pros-cons.pdfRico, D. F. (2012). How do lean & agile intersect? Retrieved February 6, 2013, from http://davidfrico.com/agile-concept-model-3.pdf

What How ResultFlexibility Use lightweight, yet disciplined processes and artifacts Low work-in-process

Customer Involve customers early and often throughout development Early feedback

Prioritize Identify highest-priority, value-adding business needs Focus resources

Descope Descope complex programs by an order of magnitude Simplify problem

Decompose Divide the remaining scope into smaller batches Manageable pieces

Iterate Implement pieces one at a time over long periods of time Diffuse risk

Leanness Architect and design the system one iteration at a time JIT waste-free design

Swarm Implement each component in small cross-functional teams Knowledge transfer

Collaborate Use frequent informal communications as often as possible Efficient data transfer

Test Early Incrementally test each component as it is developed Early verification

Test Often Perform system-level regression testing every few minutes Early validation

Adapt Frequently identify optimal process and product solutions Improve performance

Dave’s PROFESSIONAL CAPABILITIES

54

SoftwareQuality

Mgt.

TechnicalProject

Mgt.

SoftwareDevelopment

Methods

OrganizationChange

SystemsEngineering

CostEstimating

GovernmentContracting

GovernmentAcquisitions

LeanKanban

Big Data,Cloud, NoSQL

WorkflowAutomation

Metrics,Models, & SPC

SixSigma

BPR, IDEF0,& DoDAF

DoD 5000,TRA, & SRA

PSP, TSP, &Code Reviews

CMMI &ISO 9001

InnovationManagement

Statistics, CFA,EFA, & SEM

ResearchMethods

EvolutionaryDesign

Valuation — Cost-Benefit Analysis, B/CR, ROI, NPV, BEP, Real Options, etc.

Lean-Agile — Scrum, SAFe, Continuous Integration & Delivery, DevOps, etc.

STRENGTHS – Data Mining Gathering & Reporting Performance Data Strategic Planning Executive & Manage-ment Briefs Brownbags & Webinars White Papers Tiger-Teams Short-Fuse Tasking Audits & Reviews Etc.

● Data mining. Metrics, benchmarks, & performance.● Simplification. Refactoring, refinement, & streamlining.● Assessments. Audits, reviews, appraisals, & risk analysis.● Coaching. Diagnosing, debugging, & restarting stalled projects.● Business cases. Cost, benefit, & return-on-investment (ROI) analysis.● Communications. Executive summaries, white papers, & lightning talks.● Strategy & tactics. Program, project, task, & activity scoping, charters, & plans.

PMP, CSEP,FCP, FCT

ACP, CSM,& SAFE

32 YEARSIN IT

INDUSTRY

Books on Agile Testing Thousands of textbooks on agile methods Include requirements, design, coding, test, etc. Continuous Integration, Delivery, & DevOps best

55

Beck, K. (2003). Test-driven development: By example. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Crispin, L., & Gregory, J. (2009). Agile testing: A practical guide for testers and agile teams. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Gregory, J., & Crispin, L. (2015). More agile testing: Learning journeys for the whole team. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Duvall, P., Matyas, S., & Glover, A. (2006). Continuous integration: Improving software quality and reducing risk. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Humble, J., & Farley, D. (2011). Continuous delivery: Reliable software releases through build, test, and deployment automation. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Books on ROI of SW Methods Guides to software methods for business leaders Communicates the business value of IT approaches Rosetta stones to unlocking ROI of software methods

http://davidfrico.com/agile-book.htm (Description) http://davidfrico.com/roi-book.htm (Description)

56

Business Value of Agile Testing: Using TDD, CI, CD, & DevOps

Engineering

Transcript of Business Value of Agile Testing: Using TDD, CI, CD, & DevOps