Agile EA. A Case Study: MIP Future IPT. Doug Sim.

Transcription

1 Doug Sim Agile EA A Case Study: MIP Future IPT Doug.Sim@SystemsInspired.com

2 Introduction Definition of Terms Agile Manifesto Review Enterprise Architecture (EA) Agile EA Case Study What is MIP? The Problem The Solution Making it Happen Execution Lessons Questions

3 Definition of Terms Agile The Agile Manifesto (swap solution for software) Satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery Harness change for the customer's competitive advantage Deliver working solution elements frequently Business people and developers must work together daily Motivated individuals and trust them to get the job done Face-to-face conversation is preferred A Working solution is the primary measure of progress Sustainable development - maintain a constant pace Technical excellence and good design Simplicity is essential Self-organizing teams Reflects on how to become more effective

4 James Lapalme, Three Schools of Thought on Enterprise Architecture, IT Professional, vol. 14, no. 6, pp , Nov. Dec. 2012, doi: /mitp Definition of Terms Enterprise Architecture Three Definitions of EA 1. The enterprise-wide IT platform, including all components (software, hardware, and so on) of the enterprise IT assets 2. The enterprise as a sociocultural, techno-economic system, including all facets of the enterprise (where enterprise IT is just one facet) 3. The enterprise in its environment, including not only the enterprise but also its environment and the bidirectional relationship and transactions between the enterprise and its environment

5 Architectural Agility Definition of Terms Agile EA In Agile EA where is the agility? The architecture The solution or Both If developing EA using Agile Techniques; How do we test it? Measure progress? EA Developed using Agile Techniques Waterfall or Iterative Limited Agility Both EA and Solution use Agile Techniques EA supporting Agile Solution Development Developmental Agility

6 What is the MIP Multilateral Interoperability Programme Joint Collaboration, Command and Control Information Exchange Data Model (JC3IEDM) Database Exchange Model (DEM) Command and Control standard developed by 28 Nations plus NATO Endorsed by NATO (STANAG 2525) Used Operationally in Afghanistan Commander Syste m JC3IEDM DEM Commander Syste m JC3IEDM

7 MIP the Problem Monolithic and difficult to change Developing the response to C-IED took 3 years. Size of Delegations not sustainable 200+ delegates, 4 working groups a year, plus test cycle Credit Crunch, significant reductions in Defence Spending Evolution based on consensus not by Design It Works! Used by ISAF in Afghanistan

8 MIP The Solution Faster turn around to meet operational tempo Smaller cost of ownership Exchange aligned with Operational Need Using only the data required Composable to provide the same overall capability Adaptable Add new capability easily without changing everything Flexible Exchange Mechanisms to meet operational need Internet, Radio, Messaging Future IPT set up to explore Maintain Live Agile Development Services Platform Independen t Model

9 CCB Making it Happen - Organisational Change MIP PMG OWG SEWG DMWG TEWG Future - IPT F-IPT Board EA Co-ordination Service Service Development Service Development Service Development Development Multi-Disciplinary Teams Operationa l PIM Development Implementers Trials SLT

10 Making it Happen Governance Changes MIP Governance led by PMG All PMG decisions done by vote All Decisions made by Voting Nations must be unanimous Other Nations had no vote (Influence only) Slow easily paralysed by one nation with an effective Veto Day to Day Working Working Groups (OWG, SEWG, DMWG, TEWG) Conflicts between WGs or objections raised to PMG Release Control of Artefacts PMG, & Change Control Board Future IPT Led by F-IPT Board Work Initiation, Conflict Resolution Majority voting Day to Day working Multi-Disciplinary Team Lead and/or Owner Acceptance (CCB) By Majority not Veto Faster Resolution All contributing nations have a vote (Yay, Nay, Time, Object) Time could delay a vote 24 hours (only once) to allow reach back to national SMEs. Objections had to be concrete with a rational and a potential resolution. Typically resolved by adding additional tasks to backlog Release Control (F-IPT/PMG)

11 Making it Happen Delivering Ways of Working - Agile Based on SCRUM and Rational Unified Process RUP used to map iterative nature of SCRUM to PRINCE2 approach used by PMG 1-2 week sprints A Single Working Group Staff changes different from one Working Group to the next Advanced Planning Request SME expertise a year in advance from Nations Demonstrate Approach works within 2 years New Information Exchange services New Platform Independent Model and Transformation Services New Exchange Mechanisms System Trials 2 or more nations exchanging data using 2 or more information exchange services

12 Making it Happen Enterprise Architecture Capability led based on operational need Coherent and Consistent Set of Services Deliver Capability Understand the Interactions/Dependencies/Relationships Service Types Information Services Understand the information exchange requirements Mandate/Exclude the possible delivery services Delivery Services delivery mechanisms All requirements captured in a single repository SparxEA NATO Architectural Framework v3.0 Model Driven Architecture

13 NATO Architectural Framework ALL Views Provide information pertinent to an architecture TECHNICAL Views Articulate policy, standards, guidance, constraints & forecasts CAPABILITY Views Supports the process of analysing and optimizing the delivery of military capabilities in line with the strategic intent OPERATIONAL Views Describes the tasks and activities, operational elements, and information exchanges required to accomplish NATO missions SERVICE ORIENTED Views Describes the services needed to support the operational domain SYSTEM Views Describes systems and system interconnections required for war-fighting and business functions PROGRAMME Views Articulate programme dependencies, milestones and statuses

14 Making it Happen Model Driven Architecture (MDA) Mapping the MDA layers to NAF views: Computational independent models (CIM) map to NCV and NOV sub-views, Platform-Independent Models (PIM) map to logical NSOV/NSV subviews, and Platform-Specific Models (PSM) map to physical NSOV/NSV sub-views. MP-IST An Enterprise Architecture for the Delivery of a Modular Interoperability Solution; D.R.C. Sim, B Lang, M Gerz & O Meyer.

15 Execution Discovery Phase Enterprise Architecture Develop Repository and Exporting Functions Capability Description (EA and Operational) Identify scope and describe High Level Capabilities Develop Capability Hierarchy and Prioritise from operational perspective Service Description (EA and DM/SE SME) Identify service hierarchy required to deliver capability Decompose services and identify common service elements. Prioritise from a Implementation Perspective Platform Independent Model (EA and DM SME) Remove Exchange Artefacts Rationalise and Refactor existing Data Model Develop mechanisms to create Platform Specific Models Delivery Services (DM and SE SME) Identify Candidate Mechanisms Develop Descriptions including any DB requirements

16 Execution Development Phase Identify Candidate Services Deliver Operational Value Dependent Services are already available SME Resource availability Establish Multi-Disciplinary Team Team Lead Joint - Ownership Operational SME, Implementation SME, Team DB, SE, Ops EA Co-ordination Output is a Capability Package Product Backlog Sprint Planning Sprint Backlog Iterate Sprint Review Capability Package

17 Execution A Capability Package

18 Execution Trials Phase Services built by Volunteer Nations ORBAT Order of Battle Troop Formations & Identifiers Messaging Unit Type, Unit ID Troop Movement Database Update Unit ID, Position, Speed, Axis of Advance, etc. Obstacle Database Update Obstacle Type, Position Demonstrate Services between National Systems

19 Lessons Identified Agile EA works EA Developed using Agile Techniques Architecture captures needs and specifies solution When is it done? In a Sprint No Solution to Test Not one Product Owner Operational users to define the scope/need Implementers to define when they are clear enough to implement Aligns well with the formal solutions DSDM TOGAF

20 Combining Standards TOGAF DSDM Pre-Project Feasibility & Foundations Evolutionary Development Deployment

21