Posts Tagged ‘Risk’
Technical Debt: Assessment and Reduction
Below is the detailed outline for my August 8, 1:30-5:00PM Technical Debt Workshop in Agile 2011. I look forward to meeting you and interacting with you in the conference before, during and after this workshop!
Best,
Israel
Technical Debt: Assessment and Reduction
Part I: Technical Debt in the Overall Context of the Software Process
- A Holistic Model of the Software Process
- Two Aspects of Output
- Three Aspects of Technical Debt
- Six Aspects of Software
Part II: What Really is Technical Debt?
- What’s in a Metaphor?
- Code Analysis
- Time is Money
- Monetizing Technical Debt
- Typical Stakeholder Dialog Around Technical Debt
- Analysis of the Cassandra Code
- Project Dashboard
Part III : Case Study – NotMyCompany, Inc.
- NotMyCompany Highlights
- Modernizing Legacy Code
- Error Proneness
Part IV: The Tricky Nature of Technical Debt
- The Explicit Form of Technical Debt
- The Implicit Form of Technical Debt
- The Strategic Impact of Technical Debt
- No Good Strategy Following Prolonged Neglect
Part V: Unified Governance
- How We View Success
- Three Core Metrics
- Productivity, Affordability, Risk
- What is the Real ROI?
Part VI: Process Control Models
- A Typical Technical Debt Pattern
- Process Control View of Scrum
- Integration of Technical Debt in the Agile Process
- Using Statistical Process Control Methods
Part VII: Reducing Technical Debt
- A Framework for Thinking about and Acting on Technical Debt Issues
- Portfolio Governance
Part VIII: Takeaways
- Nine Simple Takeaway
- Connecting the dots
How to Use Technical Debt Data in the M&A Process
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brajeshwar/266749872/
As a starting point, please read Implication of Technical Debt Uncertainty for Software Licensing Negotiations. Everything stated there holds for negotiating M&A deals. In particular:
- You (as the buyer) should insist on conducting a Technical Debt Assessment as part of the due diligence process.
- You should be able to deduct the monetized technical debt figure from the price of the acquisition.
- You should be able to quantify the execution risk (as far as software quality is concerned).
An important corollary holds with respect to acquiring a company who is in the business of doing maintenance on an open source project, helping customers deploy it and training them in its use. You can totally eliminate uncertainty about the quality of the open source project without needing to negotiate permission to conduct technical debt assessment. Actually, you will be advised to conduct the assessment of the software prior to approaching the target company. By so doing, you start negotiations from a position of strength, quite possibly having at your disposal (technical debt) data that the company you consider acquiring does not possess.
Action item: Supplement the traditional due diligence process with a technical debt assessment. Use the monetized technical debt figure to assess execution risk and drive the acquisition price down.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tantek/254940135/
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Negotiating a major M&A deal? Let me know if you would like assistance in conducting a technical debt assessment and bringing up technical debt issues with the target company. I will help you with negotiating the acquisition price down. Click Services for details and contact information.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
How Many Metrics do You Need to Effectively Govern the Software Process?
A Simple Metrics-Driven Software Governance Framework Based on Jim Highsmith’s Agile Triangle Framework
In my recent Cutter Blog post entitled Three Governance Metrics I recommended using just three metrics:
- Value
- Cost
- Technical debt
The heart pf this recommendation is that all three can be expressed in dollar terms as depicted in the figure above. An apples-to-apples comparison is made through the common denominator – $$. For example, something is likely to be either technically, methodically or governance-wise wrong if the technical debt figure exceeds the cost figure for a prolonged period of time. One can actually characterize such a situation as accruing debt faster than building equity.
I am often asked about adding metrics to this simple governance framework. For example, should not productivity be included in the framework?
‘Less is more’ is my usual response to such questions. IMHO value, cost and technical debt address the most important high level governance considerations:
- Value –> Why are we doing the project?
- Cost –> Can we afford the project?
- Technical debt –> Is the execution risk acceptable?
Please pay special attention to the unit of measure of any metric you might add to this simple governance framework. As long as the metric is a dollar-based metric, the cohesion of the governance framework can be maintained. However, metrics which are not expressed in dollars will probably superimpose other frameworks on top of the simple governance framework. For example, you introduce a programming framework if you add a productivity metric which is measured in function points per man month. Sponsors who govern using value, cost, technical debt and productivity will need to mentally alternate between the simple governance framework and the programming framework whenever they try to combine the productivity metric with any of the other three metrics.