The Agile Executive

Making Agile Work

Posts Tagged ‘ITIL

The Gat/Highsmith Joint Seminar on Technical Debt and Software Governance

leave a comment »

Jim and I have finalized the content and the format for our forthcoming Cutter Summit seminar. The seminar is structured around a case study which includes four exercise. We expect the case study/exercises will take close to two-thirds of the allotted time (the morning of October 27). In the other third we will provide the theory and practices to be used in the seminar exercises and (hopefully) in many future technical debt engagements participants in the workshop will oversee.

The seminar does not require deep technical knowledge. It targets participants who possess conceptual grasp of software development, software governance and IT operations/ITIL. If you feel like reading a little about technical debt prior to the Summit, the various posts on technical debt in this blog will be more than sufficient.

We plan to go with the following agenda (still subject to some minor tweaking):

Agenda for the October 27, 9:30AM to 1:00PM Technical Debt Seminar

  • Setting the Stage: Why Technical Debt is a Strategic Issue
  • Part I: What is Technical Debt?
  • Part II : Case Study – NotMyCompany, Inc.
    • Exercise #1 – Modernizing NotMyCompany’s Legacy Code
  • Part III: The Nature of Technical Debt
  • Part IV: Unified Governance
    • Exercise #2 – The acquisition of SocialAreUs by NotMyCompany
  • Part V: Process Control Models
    • Exercise #3 – How Often Should NotMyCompany Stop the Line?
  • (Time Permitting – Part VI: Using Technical Debt in Devops
    • Exercise #4 – The Agile Versus ITIL Debate at NotMyCompany)

By the end of the seminar you will know how to effectively apply technical debt techniques as an integral part of software governance that is anchored in business realities and imperatives.

Advertisements

Written by israelgat

September 30, 2010 at 3:20 pm

Why Spend the Afternoon as well on Technical Debt?

with 2 comments

Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pinksherbet/233228813/

Yesterday’s post Why Spend a Whole Morning on Technical Debt? listed eight characteristics of the technical debt metric that will be discussed during the morning of October 27 when Jim Highsmith and I deliver our joint Cutter Summit seminar. This posts adds to the previous post by suggesting a related topic for the afternoon.

No, I am not trying to “hijack” the Summit agenda messing with the afternoon sessions by colleagues Claude Baudoin and Mitchell Ummel. I am simply pointing out a corollary to the morning seminar that might be on your mind in the afternoon. Needless to say, thinking about it in the afternoon of the 28th instead of the afternoon of the 27th is quite appropriate…

Yesterday’s post concluded with a “what it all means” statement, as follows:

Technical debt is a meaningful metric at any level of your organization and for any department in it. Moreover, it is applicable to any business process that is not yet taking software quality into account.

If you accept this premise, you can use the technical debt metric to construct boundary objects between various departments in your company/organization. The metric could serve as the heart of boundary objects between dev and IT ops, between dev and customer support, between dev and a company to which some development tasks are outsourced, etc. The point is the enablement of working agreements between multiple stakeholders through the technical debt metric. For example, dev and IT ops might mutually agree that the technical debt in the code to be deployed to the production environment will be less than $3 per line of code. Or, dev and customer support might agree that enhanced refactoring will commence if the code decays over time to more than $4 per line of code.

You can align various departments by by using the technical debt metric. This alignment is particularly important when the operational balance between departments has been disrupted. For example, your developers might be coding faster than your ITIL change managers can process the change requests.

A lot more on the use of the technical debt metric to mitigate cross-organizational dysfunctions, including some Outmodel aspects, will be covered in our seminar in Cambridge, MA on the morning of the 27th. We look forward to discussing this intriguing subject with you there!

Israel

Changing Culture to Enable Devops

leave a comment »

InfoQ has posted the video recording of the panel on Cultural Change in Devops from DevOps Day US 2010. Under the skillful moderation of Andrew Shafer, panelists John Allpsaw, Lee Thompson, Lloyd Taylor and I shed light on the fascinating cultural dynamics that devops teams go through. The four of us and Andrew are not necessarily in complete agreement on every point, but we all emphasize one key lesson:

Defining learning and readiness in technical terms is inadequate in the devops context.

Click here for the recording of the panel on Changing Culture to Enable Devops.

Written by israelgat

August 23, 2010 at 12:20 pm

A Good Start Point for Devops – Guest Post by Peter McGarahan

with one comment

Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stevepj2009/3461077400/

Many of the devops posts in this blog were written from a dev perspective. Today’s guest post by Peter McGarahan examines the topic from the ops perspective. It is inspired by the following eloquent quip about change:

Assume we’re starting from scratch. Assume that we actually are a startup that doesn’t have over a hundred years of experience and sub-optimized IT legacy.

A few biographical details for readers who might not know Peter or know of him. Peter J. McGarahan is the founder and president of McGarahan & Associates, an IT Service Management consulting and training organization.  Peter offers 27 years of IT and Business Service Management experience in optimizing and aligning the service and support organizations of the Fortune 1000 to deliver value against business objectives. His thought leadership has influenced the maturity and image of the service and support industry. His passion for customer service led the Taco Bell support organization to achieve the Help Desk Institute Team Excellence Award in 1995. IT Support News named him one of the “Top 25 Professionals in the Service and Support Industry” in 1999.  Support professionals voted McGarahan “The Legend of the Year” in 2002 and again in 2004 at the Service Desk Professionals conference for his endless energy, mentoring and leadership coaching. As a practitioner, product manager and support industry analyst and expert, McGarahan has left his service signature on the support industry / community.

Here is Peter:

As a former Director of Infrastructure & Operations (I&O), I found it beneficial to establish a respectful working relationship with my Development Colleagues. It was important for the accountable leaders to better understand the objectives, workings and success metrics of each team. It was also critical for the leader to establish the ‘rules of engagement’ for how each team would assist each other in achieving their stated objectives (success metrics). It certainly helped to have an IT / Business leader who established a cooperative / collaborative teamwork culture. She also supported it with shared IT / Business objectives and performance goals for all accountable IT leaders. The I&O team certainly benefited from a CIO who understood the importance of customer service, the value of support and the business impact (negative IT perception) caused by repetitive incidents, problems and service disruptions. It was a game changing day for I&O when the CIO announced that all accountable leaders would have half of their performance objectives (bonus compensation) based on the success metrics of the I&O team.

In working with Infrastructure & Operations organizations, it has become apparent that as we continue to implement, measure and continuously improve the IT Infrastructure Library v3 (ITIL) processes, we must simultaneously address how we focus on all things new! In a recent Cutter Executive Update entitled IT’s Change Imperative, I relate lessons learned from my conversations with Geir Ramleth, CIO of Bechtel and Ron Griffin, Senior VP of Applications for Hewlett-Packard. Their leadership, vision and courage inspired me to think differently about how IT can better work together for the benefit of the business. In the end, the only success that matters – is the continued growth and profitability of the business. A summary of their change success stories:

  • Hewlett-Packard CIO Randy Mott hired the right people to implement his IT strategy and change plan that included building, consolidating and automating its data centers; transferred work in-house from contractors; standardized on only a quarter of its apps; and built one central data warehouse — all while cutting spending in half.
  • Geir Ramleth, CIO of Bechtel described how he used cloud computing principles to transform IT and make Bechtel’s computing environment more agile. He had a vision of allowing Bechtal’s global employees access to the right resources at any place at any time with any device – delivered securely and cost-effectively. He encouraged his IT people to step outside their comfort zones and do things in a different way. He resisted modifying the current state and went with the transformational change fearing they would only wind-up incrementally better. In targeting a desired end state, he gave his team guiding instructions to “Assume we’re starting from scratch. Assume that we actually are a startup that doesn’t have over a hundred years of experience and sub-optimized IT legacy.”

In the spirit of change, we should challenge ourselves to develop shared ‘devops’ goals / objectives. In the end, these should help us identify, link and realize how to translate IT objectives / metrics into tangible business benefits / value.

I have listed some shared ‘devops’ goals / objectives that I believe are a good starting point. I encourage and invite your thoughts, opinions and ideas around these and any others that you feel would aid ‘devops’ in working to establish measurable business value credibility.

  1. Lower the total cost of ownership of all services (best way to achieve this is build them with serviceability, usability and maintainability in the design of all new applications, systems and services).
  2. Increase business value – achieve business benefits (lower operational costs, increased revenues, improved customer experience)
  • Simplified navigation
  • Productivity enhancing capabilities /functionality
  • Plug ‘n play integration
  • Personalization
  • Training / On-line Self-help features

3. Minimize business impact

  • Reduce change-related outages / incidents.
  • Reduce number of problems / incidents / calls.
  • Reduce the number of requests / training-related calls / inquiries.
    • Provide insights and tracking to the number of Known errors / workarounds / knowledge articles (solutions).
  • Speed to resolution based on business prioritization model
    • Operating Level Agreement / Commitment between Single Point of Contact (SPOC) Service Desk and internal IT Service Providers based on response / resolution times / commitments.
    • Bug-fix Process:

– Provide insights into the ‘bug/fix/enhancement’ list and process with transparent visibility to business prioritization (needs / requirements / quantifiable benefits).

4. Improved and frequent Communication

  • A marketing / product launch / status update and awareness campaign.
    • Especially around rollout / enhancement time.

A Devops Case Study

leave a comment »

An outline of my forthcoming Agile 2010 workshop was given in the post “A Recipe for Handling Cultural Conflicts in Devops and Beyond” earlier this week. Here is the case study around which the workshop is structured:

NotHere, Inc. Case Study

NotHere, Inc. is a $500M company based in Jerusalem, Israel. The company developed an eCommerce platform for small to medium retailers. Through a combination of this platform and its hosting data center, NotHere provides online store fronts, shopping carts, order processing, inventory, billing and marketing services to tens of thousands of retailers in a broad spectrum of verticals. For these retailers, NotHere is a one-stop “shopping” for all their online needs. In particular, instead of partnering with multiple companies like Amazon, Ebay, PayPal and Shopzilla, a retailer merely needs to partner with NotHere (who partners with these four companies and many others).

The small to medium retailers that use the good services of NotHere are critically dependent on the availability of its data center. For all practical purposes retailers are (temporarily) dead when the NotHere data center is not available. In recognition of the criticality of this aspect of its IT operations, NotHere invested a lot of effort in maturing its ITIL[i] processes. Its IT department successfully implements the ITIL service support and service delivery functions depicted in the figure below. From an operational perspective, an overall availability level of four nines is consistently attained. The company advertises this availability level as a major market differentiator.

In response to the accelerating pace in its marketplace, NotHere has been quite aggressive and successful in transitioning to Agile in product management, dev and test. Code quality, productivity and time-to-producing-code have been much improved over the past couple of years. The company measures those three metrics (quality, productivity, time-to-producing-code) regularly. The metrics feed into whole-hearted continuous improvement programs in product management, dev and test. They also serve as major components in evaluating the performance of the CTO and of the EVP of marketing.

NotHere has recently been struggling to reconcile velocity in development with availability in IT operations. Numerous attempts to turn speedy code development into fast service delivery have not been successful on two accounts:

  • Technical:  Early attempts to turn Continuous Integration into Continuous Deployment created numerous “hiccups” in both availability and audit.
  • Cultural: Dev is a competence culture; ops is a control culture.

A lot of tension has arisen between dev and ops as a result of the cultural differences compounding the technical differences. The situation deteriorated big time when the “lagging behind” picture below leaked from dev circles to ops.

The CEO of the company is of the opinion NotHere must reach the stage of Delivery over Development. She is not too interested in departmental metrics like the time it takes to develop code or the time it takes to deploy it. From her perspective, overall time-to-delivery (of service to the retailers) is the only meaningful business metric.

To accomplish Delivery over Development, the CEO launched a “Making Cats Work with Dogs[ii]” project. She gave the picture above to the CTO and CIO, making it crystal clear that the picture represents the end-point with respect to the relationship she expects the two of them and their departments to reach. Specifically, the CEO asked the CTO and the CIO to convene their staffs so that each department will:

  • Document its Outmodel (in the sense explored in the “How We Do Things Around Here In Order to Succeed” workshop) of the other department.
  • Compile a list of requirements it would like to put on the other group “to get its act together.”

The CEO also indicated she will convene and chair a meeting between the two departments. In this meeting she would like each department to present its two deliverables (world view of the other department & and the requirements to be put on it) and listen carefully to reflections and reactions from the other department. She expects the meeting will be the first step toward a mutual agreement between the two departments how to speed up overall service delivery.


[i] “Information Technology Infrastructure library – a set of concepts and practices for Information Technology Services Management (ITSM), Information Technology (IT) development and IT operations” [Wikipedia].

[ii] I am indebted to Patrick DeBois for suggesting this title.

© Copyright 2010 Israel Gat

Boundary Objects in DevOps

with one comment

Boundary Object by Cherice.

Source: Flickr; Chrice‘s Photostream

The following recommendation was given in the post How to Initiate a Devops Project:

For a DevOps project, start by establishing the technical debt of the software to be released to operations. By so doing you build the foundations for collaboration between development and operations through shared data. In the devops context, the technical debt data form the basis for the creation and grooming of a unified backlog which includes various user stories from operations.

I would like to augment this recommendation with a suggestion with respect to the mindset during the initiation phase. Chances are the IT folks feel outnumbered by the dev folks. It might or might not be a matter of optics, but recognizing and appreciating this mindset is will help a lot in getting the devops project on track.

Here is a simple example I heard from a participant in the June 25 devops day in Mountain View, CA. The participant with whom I talked is an IT ops person who tries to get ops aligned with  fairly proficient Agile development teams. She is, however, constrained with respect to the IT ops resources available to her. She simply does not have the resources required to attend each and every Scrum meeting as 25 such meetings take place every day. She strongly feels “outnumbered.”

Various schemes could be devised to enable meaningful participation of ops in the Agile process. The more important thing though is to be fully sensitized to the “outnumbered” feeling. The extension of Agile principles to ops will not succeed at the face of such a feeling.

Discussing the subject with my friend Andrew Shafer, he mentioned the effectiveness of boundary objects in such cross-organizational situations:

Boundary objects are objects which are both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites. They are weakly structured in common use, and become strongly structured in individual-site use. They may be abstract or concrete. They have different meanings in different social worlds but their structure is common enough to more than one world to make them recognizable means of translation. The creation and management of boundary objects is key in developing and maintaining coherence across intersecting social worlds. [Source: Wikipedia].

As an example, the boundary object for the situation described in this post could be a set of technical debt criteria that make the code eligible for deployment from a product life cycle perspective. By so doing, it shifts the dialog from the process to the outcome of the process. Instead of working on generating IT resources in an “outnumbered” mode, the energy shifts toward developing a working agreement on the intrinsic quality of the code to be deployed.

Some technical debt criteria that could form the core of a devops boundary object are mentioned in the post Technical Debt Meets Continuous Deployment. Corresponding criteria could be used in the boundary object to satisfy operational requirements which are critical to the proper functioning of the code. For example, a ceiling on configuration drift in IT could be established to ensure an adequate operating environment for the code. A boundary object that contains both technical debt criteria and configuration drift criteria satisfies different concerns – those of dev and those of ops – simultaneously.

Written by israelgat

July 6, 2010 at 6:44 am

Devops: It is Not About ITIL, It is About Proficiency

with 2 comments

As you would expect, the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) topic was brought up in the devops day held last Friday in a LinkedIn facility in Mountain View, CA. We, of course, had the expected spectrum of opinions about ITIL in the context of devops – from “ITIL will never work for a true continuous development shop” to “well, you can make ITIL work under such circumstances.” Needless to say, a noticeable level of passion accompanied these two statements…

IMHO the heart of the issue is not ITIL per se but system management proficiency. If your system management proficiency is high, you are likely to be able to effectively respond to 10, 20 or 50 deploys per day. Conversely, if your system management proficiency is low, ops is not likely to be able to cope with high velocity in dev. The critical piece is alignment of velocities between dev and ops, not the method used to manage IT systems and services.  Whether you use ITIL, COBIT or your own home-grown set of best practices is irrelevant. Achieving alignment of velocities between dev and ops is a matter of proficiency in system management.