Busi ness Val ue of Lean &

Agi l e Met hods

Using ROI & Real Options
Dr . Davi d F. Ri c o, PMP, ACP, CSM
Twitter: @dr_david_f_rico

Website: http://www.davidfrico.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidfrico
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1540017424
2
Aut hor

Published six books & numerous journal articles

Adjunct at George Washington, UMUC, & Argosy

Agile Program Management & Lean Development

Specializes in metrics, models, & cost engineering

Six Sigma, CMMI, ISO 9001, DoDAF, & DoD 5000

Cloud Computing, SOA, Web Services, FOSS, etc.
E

DoD contractor with 28+ years of IT experience
E

B.S. Comp. Sci., M.S. Soft. Eng., & D.M. Info. Sys.
E

Large govt projects in U.S., Far/Mid-East, & Europe
3
Agenda
NEED f or Agi l e Met hods
I nt r o t o Agi l e Met hods
Types of Agi l e Met hods
Pr ac t i c es of Agi l e Met hods
St udi es of Agi l e Met hods
Cost & Benef i t s of Agi l e Met hods
Summar y of Agi l e Met hods
4
Todays Envi r onment
- Over r uns
- At t r i t i on
- Esc al at i on
- Runaways
- Canc el l at i on
Gl obal
Compet i t i on
Demandi ng
Cust omer s
Or gani zat i on
Dow nsi zi ng
Syst em
Compl ex i t y
Tec hnol ogy
Change
Vague
Requi r ement s
Wor k Li f e
I mbal anc e
Pine, B. J. (1993). Mass customization: The new frontier in business competition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
5
Sof t w ar e Cent ur y
E

No. of software-intensive systems is growing
E

80% of US DoD functions performed in software
E

Major driver of cost, schedule, & tech. performance
Kennedy, M. P., & Umphress, D. A. (2011). An agile systems engineering process: The missing link. Crosstalk, 24(3), 16-20.
6
Gl obal Pr oj ec t Fai l ur es
E

Challenged and failed projects hover at 67%
E

Big projects fail more often, which is 5% to 10%
E

Of $1.7T spent on IT projects, over $858B were lost
Standish Group. (2010). Chaos summary 2010. Boston, MA: Author.
Sessions, R. (2009). The IT complexity crisis: Danger and opportunity. Houston, TX: Object Watch.
16% 53% 31%
27% 33% 40%
26% 46% 28%
28% 49% 23%
34% 51% 15%
29% 53% 18%
35% 46% 19%
32% 44% 24%
33% 41% 26%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Y
e
a
r
Suc c essf ul Chal l enged Fai l ed
$0.0
$0.4
$0.7
$1.1
$1.4
$1.8
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
T
r
i
l
l
i
o
n
s

(
U
S

D
o
l
l
a
r
s
)
Expendi t ur es Fai l ed I nvest ment s
7
Tr adi t i onal Pr oj ec t s
E

Big projects result in poor quality and scope changes
E

Productivity declines with long queues/wait times
E

Long projects are unsuccessful or canceled
Jones, C. (1991). Applied software measurement: Assuring productivity and quality. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Si ze vs. Qual i t y
D
e
f
e
c
t

D
e
n
s
i
t
y
0.00
3.20
6.40
9.60
12.80
16.00
0 2 6 25 100 400
Li nes of Code (Thousands)
Si ze vs. Pr oduc t i vi t y
C
o
d
e

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

R
a
t
e
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
0 2 6 25 100 400
Li nes of Code (Thousands)
Si ze vs. Requi r ement s Gr owt h
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
0%
8%
16%
24%
32%
40%
0 2 6 25 100 400
Li nes of Code (Thousands)
Si ze vs. Suc c ess
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
0%
12%
24%
36%
48%
60%
0 2 6 25 100 400
Li nes of Code (Thousands)
8
Requi r ement s Def ec t s & Wast e
E

Requirements defects are #1 reason projects fail
E

Traditional projects specify too many requirements
E

More than 65% of requirements are never used at all
Sheldon, F. T. et al. (1992). Reliability measurement: From theory to practice. IEEE Software, 9(4), 13-20.
Johnson, J. (2002). ROI: It's your job. Extreme Programming 2002 Conference, Alghero, Sardinia, Italy.
Ot her 7%
Requi r ement s
47%
Desi gn
28%
I mpl ement at i on
18%
Def ec t s
Al w ays 7%
Of t en 13%
Somet i mes
16%
Rar el y
19%
Never
45%
Wast e
9
Agenda
Need f or Agi l e Met hods
I NTRO t o Agi l e Met hods
Types of Agi l e Met hods
Pr ac t i c es of Agi l e Met hods
St udi es of Agi l e Met hods
Cost & Benef i t s of Agi l e Met hods
Summar y of Agi l e Met hods
10
What i s Agi l i t y?
E

A-gi l -i -t y (-'ji-l-t) 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 documentation
Highsmith, J. A. (2002). Agile software development ecosystems. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
11
What ar e Agi l e Met hods?
E

People centric way to create innovative solutions
E

Market centric model to maximize business value
E

Demand centric

model that supports lean principles
al so
k now n as
Cust omer
Col l abor at i on
I ndi vi dual s &
I nt er ac t i ons
Wor k i ng
Syst ems
Respondi ng
t o Change
Customer
Interaction
High Performance
Teams
Iterative
Development
Adaptability
or Flexibility
Cont r ac t
Negot i at i on
Pr oc esses
& Tool s
Compr ehensi ve
Doc ument at i on
Fol l ow i ng
a Pl an
Agi l e Met hods
Val ues
al so
k now n as
al so
k now n as
al so
k now n as
val ued
mor e t han
val ued
mor e t han
val ued
mor e t han
val ued
mor e t han
Agi l e Met hods
Pr i nc i pl es
Tr adi t i onal Met hods
Val ues
Agile Manifesto. (2001). Manifesto for agile software development. Retrieved September 3, 2008, from http://www.agilemanifesto.org
12
How do Lean/Agi l e I nt er sec t ?
E

Agile is naturally

lean and based on small batches
E

Agile directly supports

six principles of lean thinking
E

Agile may be converted

to a continuous flow system
Leach, L. P. (2005). Lean project management: Eight principles for success. Boise, ID: Advanced Projects.
Agile Manifesto. (2001). Manifesto for agile software development. Retrieved June, 2011, from http://www.agilemanifesto.org
Reinertsen, D. G. (2009). The principles of product development flow: Second generation lean product development. New York, NY: Celeritas.
Economic View
Decentralization
Fast Feedback
Control Cadence
& Small Batches
Manage Queues/
Exploit Variability
WIP Constraints
& Kanban
Fl ow Pr i nc i pl es Agi l e Val ues
Cust omer
Col l abor at i on
I ndi vi dual s &
I nt er ac t i ons
Wor k i ng
Syst ems
Respondi ng
t o Change
Lean Pi l l ar s
Respect
for People
Continuous
Improvement
Customer Value
Relationships
Customer Pull
Continuous Flow
Perfection
Value Stream
Lean Pr i nc i pl es
- Customer relationships, satisfaction, trust, and loyalty
- Team authority, empowerment, and resources
- Team identification, cohesion, and communication
Lean & Agi l e Pr ac t i c es
- Product vision, mission, needs, and capabilities
- Product scope, constraints, and business value
- Product objectives, specifications, and performance
- As is policies, processes, procedures, and instructions
- To be business processes, flowcharts, and swim lanes
- Initial workflow analysis, metrication, and optimization
- Batch size, work in process, and artifact size limits
- Cadence, queue size, buffers, slack, and bottlenecks
- Workflow, test, integration, and deployment automation
- Roadmaps, releases, iterations, and product priorities
- Epics, themes, feature sets, features, and user stories
- Product demonstrations, feedback, and new backlogs
- Refactor, test driven design, and continuous integration
- Standups, retrospectives, and process improvements
- Organization, project, and process adaptability/flexibility
O O O
13
When t o Use Lean/Agi l e Met h.
E

Exploratory

or research/development

projects
E

When fast customer responsiveness is paramount
E

In organizations that are highly

innovative/creative
Pine, B. J. (1993). Mass customization: The new frontier in business competition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Agi l e Met hods
- Hi gh l evel s of unc er t ai nt y & unpr edi c t abi l i t y
- Hi gh t ec hnol ogy pr oj ec t s
- Fast pac ed, hi ghl y c ompet i t i ve i ndust r i es
- Rapid pace of technological change
- Research oriented, discovery projects
- Large fluctuations in project performance
- Shorter term, performance based RDT&E contracts
- Achieving high impact product/service effectiveness
- Highly creative new product development contracts
- Customer intensive, one off product/service solutions
- Highly volatile and unstable market conditions
- High margin, intellectually intensive industries
- Delivering value at the point of sale
Tr adi t i onal Met hods
- Pr edi c t abl e si t uat i ons
- Low t ec hnol ogy pr oj ec t s
- St abl e, sl ow movi ng i ndust r i es
- Low levels of technological change
- Repeatable operations
- Low rates of changing project performance
- Long term, fixed price production contracts
- Achieving concise economic efficiency goals
- Highly administrative contracts
- Mass production and high volume manufacturing
- Highly predictable and stable market conditions
- Low margin industries such as commodities
- Delivering value at the point of plan
14
Agi l e Wor l dvi ew
E

Agility

has many dimensions

beyond IT
E

It ranges from leadership

to technological

agility
E

This brief focuses upon systems

development

agility
Agile Tech.
Agile Leaders
Agile Organization Change
Agile Acquisition & Contracting
Agile Strategic Planning
Agile Capability Analysis
Agi l e Pr ogr am Management
Agile Information Systems
Agile Tools
Agi l e Pr oc esses & Pr ac t i c es
Agi l e Syst em & Sof t w ar e Li f ec yc l es
Agi l e Pr oj ec t Management
15
Agenda
Need f or Agi l e Met hods
I nt r o t o Agi l e Met hods
TYPES of Agi l e Met hods
Pr ac t i c es of Agi l e Met hods
St udi es of Agi l e Met hods
Cost & Benef i t s of Agi l e Met hods
Summar y of Busi ness Val ue
16
Cr yst al Met hods
E

Created by Alistair Cockburn in 1991
E

Has 14 practices, 10 roles, and 25 products
E

Scalable family of techniques for critical systems
Cockburn, A. (2002). Agile software development. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
17
Sc r um
E

Created by Jeff Sutherland at Easel in 1993
E

Has 5 practices, 3 roles, 5 products, rules, etc.
E

Uses EVM to burn down backlog in 30-day iterations
Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2001). Agile software development with scrum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
18
Dynami c Syst ems Devel op.
E

Created by group of British firms in 1993
E

15 practices, 12 roles, and 23 work products
E

Non-proprietary RAD approach from early 1990s
Stapleton, J. (1997). DSDM: A framework for business centered development. Harlow, England: Addison-Wesley.
19
Feat ur e Dr i ven Devel opment
E

Created by Jeff De Luca at Nebulon in 1997
E

Has 8 practices, 14 roles, and 16 work products
E

Uses object-oriented design and code inspections
Palmer, S. R., & Felsing, J. M. (2002). A practical guide to feature driven development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
20
Ex t r eme Pr ogr ammi ng
E

Created by Kent Beck at Chrysler in 1998
E

Has 28 practices, 7 roles, and 7 work products
E

Popularized pair programming and test-driven dev.
Beck, K. (2000). Extreme programming explained: Embrace change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
21
Kanban
E

Adapted to IT by Dave Anderson in 2006
E

Activities, buffers, queues, WIP limits, tasks, etc.
E

Lean, JIT pull/demand system leading to high quality
Anderson, D. J. (2010). Kanban: Successful evolutionary change for your technology business. Sequim, WA: Blue Hole Press.
22
Agenda
Need f or Agi l e Met hods
I nt r o t o Agi l e Met hods
Types of Agi l e Met hods
PRACTI CES of Agi l e Met hods
St udi es of Tr adi t i onal Met hods
Cost & Benef i t s of Agi l e Met hods
Summar y of Agi l e Met hods
23
Agi l e Ent er pr i se Management
E

Created by Dean Leffingwell of Rational in 2009
E

Begins with a high-level product vision/architecture
E

Includes multi-level teams and product requirements
Leffingwell, D. (2011). Agile software requirements: Lean requirements practices for teams, programs, and the enterprise. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
24
Agi l e Pr oj ec t Management
E

Created by Jim Highsmith at Cutter in 2003
E

Focus on strategic plans and capability analysis
E

Most holistic agile project management framework
Highsmith, J. A. (2004). Agile project management: Creating innovative products. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
I nnovat i on Li f ec yc l e
Envi si on
- Product Vision
- Product Architecture
- Project Objectives
- Project Community
- Delivery Approach
Spec ul at e
- Gather Requirements
- Product Backlog
- Release Planning
- Risk Planning
- Cost Estimation
Ex pl or e
- Iteration Management
- Technical Practices
- Team Development
- Team Decisions
- Collaboration
Launc h
- Final Review
- Final Acceptance
- Final QA
- Final Documentation
- Final Deployment
Cl ose
- Clean Up Open Items
- Support Material
- Final Retrospective
- Final Reports
- Project Celebration
I t er at i ve Del i ver y
Tec hni c al Pl anni ng
- Story Analysis
- Task Development
- Task Estimation
- Task Splitting
- Task Planning
- Standups, Architecture, Design, Build, Integration, Documentation, Change, Migration, and Integration
St or y Depl oyment
Adapt
- Focus Groups
- Technical Reviews
- Team Evaluations
- Project Reporting
- Adaptive Action
Oper at i onal Test i ng
- Integration Testing
- System Testing
- Operational Testing
- Usability Testing
- Acceptance Testing
Devel opment , Test , & Eval uat i on
- Development Pairing
- Unit Test Development
- Simple Designs
- Coding and Refactoring
- Unit and Component Testing
Cont i nuous
25
Onsi t e Cust omer s
E

Term coined by Kent Beck in 1999
E

Customer who sits with developers full-time
E

Fast and efficient way to capture customer needs
Tabaka, J. (2006). Collaboration explained: Facilitation skills for software project leaders. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison Wesley.
26
Rel ease Pl anni ng
E

Created by Kent Beck at Chrysler in 1998
E

Project plan with a 30-60-90-day timing horizon
E

Disciplined and adaptable project management F/W
Beck, K., & Fowler, M. (2004). Planning extreme programming. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley.
27
User St or i es
E

Term coined by Kent Beck in 1999
E

Functions or features of value to customers
E

Highly-adaptable requirements engineering process
Cohn, M. (2004). User stories applied: For agile software development. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
28
Test -Dr i ven Devel opment
E

Term coined by Kent Beck in 2003
E

Consists of writing all tests before design
E

Ensures all components are verified and validated
Beck, K. (2003). Test-driven development: By example. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
29
Pai r Devel opment
E

Term coined by Jim Coplien in 1995
E

Consists of two side-by-side developers
E

Highly-effective group problem-solving technique
Williams, L., & Kessler, R. (2002). Pair programming illuminated. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
30
Ref ac t or i ng
E

Term coined by William Opdyke in 1990
E

Process of frequently redesigning the system
E

Improves readability, maintainability, and quality
Fowler, M. (1999). Refactoring: Improving the design of existing code. Boston, MA. Addison-Wesley.
31
Cont i nuous I nt egr at i on
E

Term coined by Martin Fowler in 1998
E

Process of automated build/regression testing
E

Evaluates impact of changes against entire system
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.
Bui l d
I nt egr at i on
Ser ver
Ver si on
Cont r ol
Ser ver
Bui l d
Sc r i pt s
Uses Wat c hes
Bui l d
St at us
Pr ovi des
Devel oper A
Devel oper B
Devel oper C
Commi t s
Changes
Commi t s
Changes
Commi t s
Changes
Compi l e Sour c e
Code
Run Uni t Test s
Run Cover age
Test s
St at i c Code
Anal ysi s
Bui l d Dat abase
Gener at e Hel p
Fi l es
Ar c hi ve and
Depl oy
32
Agenda
Need f or Agi l e Met hods
I nt r o t o Agi l e Met hods
Types of Agi l e Met hods
Pr ac t i c es of Agi l e Met hods
STUDI ES of Agi l e Met hods
Cost & Benef i t s of Agi l e Met hods
Summar y of Agi l e Met hods
33 33
Agi l e Adopt i on Rat es
E

VersionOne found 80% using agile methods today
E

Most are using Scrum with several key XP practices
E

Release planning/continuous integration are vital tools
House, D. (2012). Sixth annual state of agile survey: State of agile development. Atlanta, GA: VersionOne.
34
Sur veys of Agi l e Met hods
E

Many surveys of agile methods since 2003
E

AmbySoft and VersionOne collect annual data
E

Agile benefits are above 50% in most categories
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the return-on-investment of agile methods? Retrieved February 3, 2009, from http://davidfrico.com/rico08a.pdf
35
Agi l e Tr adi t i onal Cat egor y
Ret ur n on I nvest ment 2,811%
Cust omer Sat i sf ac t i on I mp. 70%
Qual i t y I mpr ovement 74%
Pr oduc t i vi t y I mpr ovement 117%
Sc hedul e Reduc t i on 70%
Cost Reduc t i on 29%
470%
14%
50%
62%
37%
20%
Di f f er enc e
2,341%
56%
24%
55%
33%
9%
E

Agile (138 pt.) and traditional methods (99 pt.)
E

Agile methods fare better in all benefits categories
E

Agile methods 359% better than traditional methods
Rico, D. F. (2008). What is the ROI of agile vs. traditional methods? TickIT International, 10(4), 9-18.
St udi es of Agi l e Met hods
36 36
Benef i t s of Agi l e Met hods
E

Analysis of 23 agile vs. 7,500 traditional projects
E

Agile projects are 54% better than traditional ones
E

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.
Pr oj ec t Cost i n Mi l l i ons $
0.75
1.50
2.25
3.00
2.8
1.1
Bef or e Agi l e
Af t er Agi l e
61%
Low er
Cost
Tot al St af f i ng
18
11
Bef or e Agi l e
Af t er Agi l e
39%
Less
St af f
5
10
15
20
Del i ver y Ti me i n Mont hs
5
10
15
20
18
13.5
Bef or e Agi l e
Af t er Agi l e
24%
Fast er
Cumul at i ve Def ec t s
625
1250
1875
2500
2270
38 1
Bef or e Agi l e
Af t er Agi l e
93%
Less
Def ec t s
37
Agi l e Test i ng Cost s & Benef i t s
E

Most agile testing tools are free

open source
E

A build server is no more than a commodity PC
E

10x more efficient/effective than traditional testing
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
36% reduction in defect rate
when integration/regression testing at each code check-in
90% reduction in bugs reaching QA
Major municipal gas utility
95% cut in cost of bugs
Large retail web site
90% cut in defect remediation cost
Global supplier of healthcare equipment
Faster time-to-market
More features and higher quality
Agility in the marketplace
Added new functionality 2 weeks before ship
Confidence in the process
Oozing Confidence
38 38
Agi l e Or gani zat i onal Benef i t s
E

Study of 15 agile vs. non-agile Fortune 500 firms
E

Based on models to measure organizational agility
E

Agile firms out-perform non-agile firms by up to 36%
Hoque, F., et al. (2007). Business technology convergence. The role of business technology convergence
in innovation and adaptability and its effect on financial performance. Stamford, CT: BTM Institute..
39
Agenda
Need f or Agi l e Met hods
I nt r o t o Agi l e Met hods
Types of Agi l e Met hods
Pr ac t i c es of Agi l e Met hods
St udi es of Agi l e Met hods
COST & BENEFI TS of Agi l e Met hods
Summar y of Agi l e Met hods
40 40
Measur es of Busi ness Val ue
E

A major principle of Agile Methods is creating value
E

ROI is the measure of value within Agile Methods
E

There are seven closely related ROI measures
Met r i c Def i ni t i on For mul a
Cost s
Sum of Costs
Total amount of money spent
=
n
i
i
Cost
1

Benef i t s
Sum of Benefits
Total amount of money gained
=
n
i
i
Benefit
1

B/CR
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Ratio of benefits to costs
Costs
Benefits

ROI
Return on Investment
Ratio of adjusted benefits to costs % 100

Costs
Costs Benefits

NPV
Net Present Value
Discounted cash flows
=

+
Years
i
Years
i
Costs
Rate Discount
Benefits
1
0
) 1 (

BEP
Breakeven Point
Point when benefits exceed costs
1 Costs New Costs Old
Costs New
ROA
Real Options Analysis
Value gained from strategic delay ( ) ( )
Years Rate
e Costs d N Benefits d N


2 1

d1 = [ln(Benefits Costs) + (Rate + 0.5 Risk
2
) Years] Risk \ Years, d2 = d1 Risk \ Years
q q q
R
7

N v
Rico, 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.
41 41
Agi l e Met hods
E

Cost s based on avg. pr oduc t i vi t y and qual i t y
E

Pr oduc t i vi t y ranged from 3.5 to 86 LOC an hour
E

Cost s were $226,807, benef i t s were $4,283,190

=
5
1 i
Rico, 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.
42
ROI of Agi l e Met hods
E

XP ROI 18X more than traditional methods
E

Scrum ROI 3.4X more than traditional methods
E

Agile methods ROI 10X more than trad. methods
Rico, D. F., Sayani, H. H., & Sone, S. (2009). The business value of agile software methods. Ft. Lauderdale, FL: J. Ross Publishing.
3,103%
1,788%
1,607%
1,499%
580%
173%
0%
925%
1,850%
2,775%
3,700%
XP Agile TDD PP Scrum CMMI
Sof t war e Met hod
R
e
t
u
r
n

o
n

I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
43
Agenda
Need f or Agi l e Met hods
I nt r o t o Agi l e Met hods
Types of Agi l e Met hods
Pr ac t i c es of Agi l e Met hods
St udi es of Agi l e Met hods
Cost & Benef i t s of Agi l e Met hods
SUMMARY of Agi l e Met hods
44
Agi l e Met r i c s
E

Agile methods are based on traditional measures
E

Size, effort, velocity, structure, and quality common
E

Top-notch shops use satisfaction and business value
Rico, 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.
Type
Si ze
Ef f or t
Vel oc i t y
St r uc t ur e
Qual i t y
Sat i sf ac t i on
Busi ness Val ue
Exampl e
Story Points, Ideal Days, Function Points, Lines of Code, etc.
Ideal or Actual Hours, Days, Weeks, Months, Years, etc.
Release/Iteration Burndown/Burnup, Cumulative Flow, EVM, etc.
Object-Oriented, Relational Database, McCabe, Halstead, etc.
Running Tested Features, Defect Density, FURPS, MTBF, etc.
CUPRIMDA, Communications, Trust, Loyalty, Retention, etc.
Costs, Benefits, BEP, B/CR, ROI, NPV, IRR, ROA, EBV, etc.
45 45
Busi ness Val ue of Agi l i t y
E

Productivity is accelerated with light weight processes
E

Quality goals are obtained with disciplined processes
E

Agile methods have up to 20 times lower total costs
Rico, 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.
46 46
Book s on ROI of SW Met hods
E

Guides to software methods for business leaders
E

Communicates business value of software methods
E

Rosetta stones to unlocking ROI of software methods

http://davidfrico.com/agile-book.htm

(Description)

http://davidfrico.com/roi-book.htm

(Description)