Comparing Apples to Apples - A technique to normalize software complexity and reach consensus on...
34
Comparing Apples to Apples Gilson Gaseorowski Fernando Ostanelli CI&T São Paulo, Brazil Apr 2016
-
Upload
fernando-ostanelli -
Category
Software
-
view
166 -
download
1
Transcript of Comparing Apples to Apples - A technique to normalize software complexity and reach consensus on...
Comparing Apples to ApplesGilson GaseorowskiFernando Ostanelli
CI&T
São Paulo, BrazilApr 2016
Look at that, Larry!! Is it that Agile stuff?
I dunno, Cliff! But it’s freaking beautiful!I want it now!
1995 2015
Agile
Lean IT
Enterprise Agile
RUP
CMM5
2 decades of learning
Business Value must be the north … always! … but predictability still matters… a lot!
Report: Build The Right Things Better And Faster With Modern Application Delivery MetricsAuthors: Diego Lo Giudice and Kurt BittnerDate released: July 28, 2015
“While I am very interested in knowing the business value my development teams generate, my board requires me to be predictable on how much we are spending and for what.” -- Dave West, chief product officer, Tasktop
No project has
unlimited resources
Have you ever been there?
“Cone of Uncertainty”
value(intrinsic)
quality(intrinsic)
Flexibility to adapt
The Agile Triangle
Constraints:
Scope, Time, Cost
Quality and value are non-negotiable!
We'll ask for estimates ...
… and then treat them as deadlines
I have altered the product scope
Pray I don't alterit in the future
Much disagreement...
I sense...
Without a common language, scope complexity is a matter of individual perspective.
Why does it always to end like this?
Because you keep adding
features!
and scope agreements
are a matter of
What I understood
VSWhat you
understood
oops… different scales?
oops… reference changed?
WTF! Where’s my old pal?!
We need a common language to normalize our perspectives!
2008 2012 2013 2015
Norm
aliz
ed S
tory
Poi
nts
Digi
tal M
arke
ting
Rule
Com
plex
ity P
oint
s Ru
le
Busi
ness
Com
plex
ity R
ule
Func
tion
Poin
ts
Line
s of
Cod
e
2006
Stor
y Po
ints
& T
-Shi
rt
Normalized Complexity - our Timeline
. . .2014
Acro
ss-t
he-b
oard
rollo
ut
Business Complexity Normalization
Normalized Complexity vs Risk vs Effort vs Experience
How to isolate complexity (or size) from other estimates aspects?
● unique, objective and easy to apply
● universal business and software engineering language
● decoupled from technical aspects
● immutable over time and among different teams
● regardless of effort, risk and team experience
● common language among the whole team and with clients
A model to normalize and determinesoftware functional complexity
Business Com
plexity Poin
ts
Rule
Business Complexity analysis rationale
NOVEMBER FEBRUARYDECEMBER JANUARY
2015 2016
SPRINT 05 WDs
0 CP’S
SPRINT 110 WDs
85 / 92 141 / 129 174 / 156
SPRINT 210 WDs
SPRINT 310 WDs
133 / 148
SPRINT 410 WDs
39 / 0
R 27 WDs
15Partner
Type Bulk Upload
9Chrome Landing
Page
9Android Landing
Page
24Partner
Bulk Upload
22Find
Partner By Type
25Show
Partner
19Advanced
Find Partner
6Geo
ordering
83Admin Auth
27Partner
Password Recovery
21Partner
Auth
46Approve
New Partner
20Approve Partner Update
41Partner Update
19Highlight Premium Partner
18Contact
Us
59Multiple offices
46Create a Partner
51Update Partner
18Delete Partner
Continuous UAT - User Acceptance Test
Continuous Backlog Grooming - Scope Refinement
Environment SETUP
Team Set-up
Tech Components
R 13 WDs
38 / 0
OUT OF SCOPE
8
Make Address
Not Required
17Include Partner
Focus Area
Become a Partner
44
Security Issues
23Analytics28UAT
Improvements
23UAT
Improvements
15Admin Bulk
Upload
22Inform
Location Filter
23Resend
Approval E-mail
36Adjust
Approval Workflow
15
Approve New
Partner - Assign
19Contact Partner
Foundation and non-functional requirements
Functional requirements
Performed / Baseline
Uncovered by budget
Continuous MTP
20Adjust Footer
Be transparent, share decisions and continuously manage expectations
#noestimates
CI&T and Business Complexity Points
Report: Build The Right Things Better And Faster With Modern Application Delivery MetricsAuthors: Diego Lo Giudice and Kurt BittnerDate released: July 28, 2015
Excerpts featuring CI&T
Stakeholders want innovation but still value predictability. Pyrrhic victories are never popular.Business stakeholders want to win but with costs that provide profitable margins. Predictability is important, too. Modern applications are paired with changes in business processes that must be orchestrated with precision to be successful. Digital services firm CI&T, which contributed significantly to Coca-Cola’s Happiness Flag project for the 2014 World Cup, has defined its own methodology to calculate what it calls business complexity points to determine the cost of developing business features.
Licensing model
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
You are free to Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.
learning while having fun!
ciandt.com
BUSINESS COMPLEXITY
RULE
Thank you!References:
Build The Right Things Better And Faster With Modern Application Delivery Metrics (http://bit.ly/1QDhFnP)
Cone of Uncertainty (http://bit.ly/1SNmb7w)
Business Complexity Rule - pdf (http://bit.ly/1TAMcau)
Business Complexity Rule - Google Spreadsheet (http://bit.ly/1VEKd8D)
Fernando OstanelliHead of Operations
br.linkedin.com/in/ostanelli
Contact Info
Gílson GaseorowskiLean/Agile Transformation Coach
br.linkedin.com/in/gaseorowskigilson
