Agile Methodology

Advances in Computers

Laurie Williams , in Advances in Computers, 2010

5 Summary

Agile methodologies began to emerge in the mid-1990s in response to increased requirements and environmental alter that was not able to exist handled via existing program-driven methodologies. In 2001, the agile methodology authors convened at Snowbird, Utah, USA, to discuss the similarities among their methodologies. They embodied these similarities in a statement of agile values called the "Agile Manifesto" [13]. The Snowbird participants and then farther defined their similarities past stating the "Principles Behind the Agile Manifesto"[13]. Afterward, Mary and Tom Poppendieck provided a different perspective on agile software development past stating the Lean Software Evolution Principles [26]. The Lean Software Evolution Principles drew a parallel between agile software development and lean manufacturing such as was adhered to by auto manufacturers such equally Toyota.

Overviews of three representative agile methodologies, XP, Crystal, and FDD, were presented. These and other active software development methodologies are all guided by the agile and lean principles. A summary of the distinguishing factors of these three methodologies is provided in Table V.

Table V. Comparison of Agile Methodologies

Agile methodology Distinguishing gene
Farthermost programming • Intended for x–12 colocated, object-oriented programmers
• Disciplined, programmer-centric engineering practices that focus on building quality into the product as it is developed
• Minimal archival documentation
• Rapid customer and developer feedback loops
Characteristic-driven evolution • Scalable to larger teams
• Highly specified development practices
• Five subprocesses, each divers with entry and exit criteria
• Developments are architectural shape, object models, and sequence diagrams (UML models used throughout)
• ii-week characteristic implementation cycles
Scrum • A project direction wrapper
• All-around to the engineering practices of choice by the software evolution team

Other agile software development methodologies include ASD [fifteen], Agile Modeling [78], and DSDM [17], and Crystal Software Development [3,16]. Additionally, teams tin configure an active Rational Unified Process (RUP) methodology [79]. About teams in manufacture create their own hybrid agile methodology by choosing a selection of the active practices presented in this paper rather than strictly adhering to any of the named agile methodologies.

Read full affiliate

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065245810800014

Toward Pragmatism

Stefan Bente , ... Shailendra Langade , in Collaborative Enterprise Compages, 2012

Lean and agile principles every bit facilitators for the compages factory

How can EA accomplish the tightrope walk betwixt likewise much and too niggling factory affinity? Hither nosotros can learn from software applied science in full general. The lean and agile methodologies have introduced certain new principles to traditional software development. They have replaced the inflexible, ponderous waterfall model with a more lightweight, efficient, and human-centric approach: lean and agile software evolution methods.

Talking of factory models again: The waterfall model is like a Taylorian factory—many processes, strict sectionalization of labor, strong decomposition of tasks, organization of the software creation process in a sequential assembly line. In a higher place all: The waterfall approach requires strict upward-front planning to avoid changes in the complex product machinery subsequently.

Lean and agile methodologies have formulated their antithesis: welcoming change, creating and planning incrementally, and focusing on structured human interaction instead of channeled reporting lines. At the aforementioned fourth dimension, lean and agile methods fully subscribe to the manufactory notion, too. They do non strive to abolish organizational structures and revert to the software-developing "noble cruel" 4 working on her own. Lean and agile methods innovate a reduced and efficient arrangement to produce large and complex software systems. As they focus on the highly skilled individual interacting with her peers, their factory notion is very close to the arts and crafts manufacturing shop we formulated previously as an ideal model for EA.

So, let lean and active principles create the same kind of manufacturing plant for EA if they can practice it so successfully for software development in general. The traditional EA has waterfall roots and a strong tendency toward its methods. Barry Boehm described the waterfall pattern v every bit a reversal of the Active Manifesto (Beck et al., 2001). Malicious tongues could interpret information technology as a description of contemporary EA:

•

Processes and tools over individuals and interactions

•

Comprehensive documentation over working software

•

Contract negotiation over customer collaboration

•

Following a plan over responding to change

If lean and active are the antithesis of a waterfall, they tin can also be a suitable tool to make EA less waterfall-prone. The ultimate goal of a lean and agile compages factory is highly skilled and creative nonetheless at the aforementioned time industrialized architecture cosmos. Its processes are streamlined and optimized—simply in a businesslike way, by concentrating on the essential qualities of architectural work, avoiding an overdose of structure and regulations.

Adepts and critics of lean and agile methods could contend that these methods, or at to the lowest degree their practitioners, often show some fundamentalist, near-religious traits. Can they really exist practical in a businesslike way to an enterprise domain similar EA? Indeed, both lean and agile methodologies worship a utopia to some extent.

In agile methods, it is the perfect socialism of a team free of hierarchy and politics. Agility comes from a history of "organizational anarchists" (Beck et al., 2001). This bears the gamble of a clash with the rather conservative enterprise civilisation. And of course, the agile community is not complimentary of cocky-deception and hypocrisy. 6

Lean software development, on the other hand, sometimes shows an uncritical worship of the "ideal company," into which Toyota is ofttimes superelevated. 7 This surely obscures the reflections how lean methods can be applied to the rather humble and chaotic enterprises that you detect in existent life.

So, it seems appropriate to accept whatever promises of argent bullets in the lean and active methodologies with a grain of common salt. We will use the ideas from both areas similar a toolbox: Not every tool fits everywhere. In the stop, stripped from their ideological elements, many lean and agile practices boil down to plainly common sense. We will run into that they can exist applied in a fruitful manner to make EA more than pragmatic.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124159341000078

Across the Dashboard

Alberto Ferreira , in Universal UX Pattern, 2017

3.iii.2 Agile Roles

Actors and stakeholders in an Active projection come together in a unique way that is a difference from traditional workflows. For companies in transition from waterfall to Agile, User Stories can follow an credence criteria and function similar small, manageable requirements. Any User Story implemented in a product has several components that need dissimilar expertise from a multispecialized squad, which can exist either contained in different departments or, optimally, working exclusively together on given parts of the production. In this setting, global strategy is a business organization from the showtime thanks to constant involvement with the core design and development teams, as well equally the product stakeholders. Projection management duties are distributed and the Product Owner'south vision is instrumental in the whole process.

The naming of roles often varies betwixt different Active methodologies, but some commonalities can exist identified.

Client

It can be a combination of the Product Owner and the end-customer. They specify the product requirements, regardless of the actual final plan.

Product Possessor

Fulfills a similar part to the classical perception of the Product Manager in waterfall methodologies:

▪

creating and collecting the general requirements of the project,

▪

establishing articulate objectives for ROI,

▪

releasing schedule,

▪

having responsibleness over the Product Excess prioritization and management.

Scrum Master

The office drives and supports the work adult past the team, helping the team to overcome potential obstacles to completing the projection stages. The office is of the chief facilitator and implementing the process for the whole team.

An iteration typically lasts 1–4 weeks and has four distinct phases:

Planning

The preparation of the project involves prioritizing and handling items in the Production Excess that will be implemented during the iteration, in example one is used. For noniterative approaches similar Kanban, the squad gets together regularly to review and program the next batch of items to be implemented. Normally, if the iterative model is used, it should have a clear theme or goal.

This is where the UX teams can exist most influential. Insights from research and preparation for both visual and experience pattern prepare the phase for development for implementation. This is as well where user testing can exist nearly useful, working on hypothesis and implementation ideas earlier.

Evolution

During the Evolution phase, there is also a daily status meeting known every bit the daily stand-up. In this meeting, each squad member states what they did the previous day, what they are going to do today, and identifies whatsoever existing or foreseeable roadblocks.

Review

When the iteration nears completion, a review meeting is held with all stakeholders to demonstrate the new software and receive feedback on information technology and the functionality that has been developed.

Retrospective

The last phase, or Retrospective, is a postmortem for the team to discuss how the procedure could be improved.

Localization and design are not separate worlds. Text is an essential part of a complete multimedia system that includes image and text. Visually and linguistically, text plays a major office in the user'southward perception of a production. The most refined and sophisticated UX can be wrecked by devil-may-care localization and haunted by issues and bugs. Fonts are lost, carefully complimentary labels suddenly appear juxtaposed, HTML is improperly adjusted to target locales: all are piddling product nightmares that tin only be countered by a combined approach that makes UX and localization part of the same combination.

Therefore, internationalization is cardinal to a consequent UX in a multilingual product. Internationalization defines the set of processes and techniques that are implicated in making a product capable of adaptation to different cultures. This is where UX implementation is at its trickiest. No sound internationalization-friendly design tin exist adequately implemented without an authentic study of localization prioritization. You must ascertain which languages and cultures you want to localize into and include both immediate priorities and future plans. This will enable y'all to optimize layouts for culturally sensitive graphics and indications or—optimally—to alter requirements in the light of new market place strategies.

Read full affiliate

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scientific discipline/commodity/pii/B9780128024072000034

Introduction to Continuous Architecture

Murat Erder , Pierre Pureur , in Continuous Architecture, 2016

Architecture in an (increasingly) Agile Globe

The first Agile methodology, XP, was created by Kent Beck in March 1996 when he was working at Chrysler. iii The first book on Active (Extreme Programming Explained) was published in October 1999, iv which was followed by several publications on various Agile methodologies inspired by XP.

Since and so, adoption of these methodologies has been null short of explosive, and Agile methodologies have been maturing so quickly that Agile is rapidly condign "sometime news." Fifty-fifty the most conservative companies have started looking into Agile. Techniques such as pair programming, test-driven evolution, and Continuous Integration have get mainstream. How have software architecture practitioners responded to the Agile tidal moving ridge? Poorly, in our opinion.

•

The beginnings: architecture and extreme programming: In the beginning, Agile (i.due east., XP) and architecture ignored each other. In the minds of XP practitioners, architects were part of the "red record" that they believed was counterproductive and were trying to eliminate. If a role or an activity was not seen equally directly correlated with the development of executable lawmaking, the XP response was to eliminate information technology, and architecture was considered part of this category.

In the XP arroyo, the architecture "emerges" from code edifice and refactoring activities, hence the term "emergent architecture," derived from the concept of "emergence" ("In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is a procedure whereby larger entities, patterns, and regularities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities that themselves do not showroom such properties" v ). There is no longer any demand for architects to create explicit architectural designs because "the best architectures, requirements and pattern emerge from self-organizing teams." 6

Unfortunately, this arroyo does not scale well as new requirements are identified; as refactoring activities become more and more complex, lengthy, and costly; and as systems abound in size. The systems tend to struggle to encounter their quality attribute requirements, and meeting these requirements often requires fifty-fifty more refactoring.

In addition, without some kind of documented architecture, it is hard to accurately predict infrastructure needs for development, testing, and production activities. Infrastructure items such as servers, storage, and networks may accept long lead times, and not being able to forecast the demand for those items results in lengthy project delays.

So how did most software architects react to the first Active wave? More often than not by ignoring information technology. They expected Agile to fade away and firmly believed that the pendulum would swing dorsum to serious "modern" Iterative methodologies such as the Rational Unified Process (RUP) that were deferent to architects past explicitly including architecture activities. (Please encounter the Glossary for a definition of RUP.)

•

Where nosotros are: architecture and the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe): As we all know, traditional software architects didn't get their wish—Agile did not fade abroad. Architects realized that Agile was hither to stay and that they could help Agile teams, and simultaneously Active teams realized that they needed some help from those pesky architects if they wanted their systems to calibration, be reliable, be secure, and still come across their functioning goals. (Please encounter the Glossary for a definition of Rubber.)

Every bit a effect, architects accept started thinking nearly adapting their methodologies to become more "Agile friendly." For example, the third edition (published in 2013) of Software Compages in Practice by Len Bass, Paul Clements, and Rick Kazman includes a chapter chosen "Compages in Active Projects" (Part Three, "Architecture in the Life Wheel," Affiliate 15 7 ).

At the same time, some of the Active approaches and methodologies accept started including formal architecture steps. One of the best examples of this development is the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe), created past Dean Leffingwell. SAFe specifically includes compages steps grouped into an "Architecture Track" (see Glossary for a definition of Architecture Runway) and leverages the concept of "Intentional Architecture," described past Dean Leffingwell as "an enterprise do designed to produce and evolve robust system architectures in an Active fashion." 8

•

Where we are going: Continuous Delivery: The side by side step in this evolution is the realization past software developers that developing software in an Active fashion is not enough. They also need to deliver that software quickly to test and production environments so that it can be used past real-life users. This realization is driving the adoption of Continuous Commitment by software development teams, and again, software architects are slow in responding to this tendency and adapting their architecture methodologies and tools to support this approach. We clearly need a new manner of looking at architecture in a Continuous Commitment globe.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://world wide web.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128032848000014

Introduction to Agile

Diana DeMarco Brownish , in Agile User Feel Design, 2013

Hybrid agile, or custom agile

Hybrid Agile, or Custom Agile is used to depict what happens when a visitor takes the elements of whatsoever Agile methodologies that are highly-seasoned to it and uses them in a mode that makes sense for the organization. The company may exercise this considering only a part of an organization is using Active methods and the efforts demand to arrange to a broader project management framework. Or, perhaps, combining Agile methods with traditional methods is but a practiced fit for the visitor and the civilization. This requires a projection team to be conscious about how its adoption of Agile methods fits the broader framework and what hit this balance means for the team. Certainly, more try is required in doing this, because a squad cannot apply a prepackaged process and volition (ideally) invest time

FIGURE ane.2. Custom active.

in making the best trade-offs. If this investment is made, and then creating a custom process can potentially increase the odds of a successful and less painful transition in adopting Agile. There is a potential for problem, however, if an organisation is non being conscientious in defining this process—it tin wind upwards with something that is chosen Agile simply is more or less the same traditional procedure always used. This consequence is especially likely if an system is hybridizing its Agile approach because it is but reluctant to brand a broad organizational modify. This blazon of approach tends to have a high rate of failure, because it can often reflect a lack of genuine commitment to Agile rather than fully embracing the concept, instead just trying to squeeze it into the existing culture.

If the arrangement is genuinely committed to customization, then this type of implementation tin exist the nearly open to allowing the UX team to define its own role and be a very active vocalization in the procedure. If there is dedication to defining a homegrown method, the process definition should include all the functional areas involved and account for their needs in a way that fits best for the organisation If your organization has taken this tack for adopting Agile, the odds are pretty good that stakeholders from all areas will exist involved and the result volition be something that works well for all the teams. The expert news is that a civilization that embraces this arroyo volition likely get it right or be open up to course correction if it did non. On the other hand, if an arrangement is choosing this approach because it is hesitant to give up processes that are old, comfortable, and well established or at that place is a sporadic application of Active throughout the organization, this method can be the almost challenging approach of all. In is unlikely that much training volition be bachelor to people when that kind of dynamic is at play. The company might railroad train a few key people but not run into the value in providing training for something it feels volition exist defined in-house. This can exist problematic, considering it is very hard to know where to make changes if you lack a proficient agreement of that from which you are deviating.

Another potential issue is that this might mean that a UX person tin can find himself or herself supporting both Agile and non-Agile projects, which tin exist a scheduling and logistical nightmare. The blueprint team can besides find itself working with all of the urgency and speed of Active but however producing heavy-handed specifications and experiencing the worst of both worlds. Another problem that often arises under these circumstances is that each team has a dissimilar understanding of Agile; and if the UX person is supporting multiple projects, it tin be a challenge to know how a given team is working. It is difficult to generalize knowledge of an hybrid method if no unmarried method is in apply.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scientific discipline/article/pii/B9780124159532000017

Operational Large Information

William McKnight , in Information Management, 2014

Action Plan

•

As a prerequisite to NoSQL deployments, get comfortable with open source technology, develop a cloud computing strategy (Chapter 13 ), and prefer an agile methodology ( Chapter sixteen)

•

Make up one's mind what you are doing with available sensor, social, and webclick data today; possibly more could exist captured with NoSQL adoption

•

Likewise, determine if any source data is not beingness captured considering of limitations of relational engineering science

•

When spider web applications are being considered or are in development, put the appropriate NoSQL technology (fundamental-value, certificate, or column store) on the proverbial tabular array

www.mcknightcg.com/bookch10

Read full affiliate

URL:

https://world wide web.sciencedirect.com/scientific discipline/article/pii/B9780124080560000102

Agile Practices for Information Management

William McKnight , in Information Management, 2014

Traditional Waterfall Methodology

Traditional waterfall methodologies incur too much cost, rework, and take chances to exist effective in the dynamic field of information direction. ROI tends to be delayed besides long. Agile methodologies residue out the take a chance (and reward) over time. Some of the ways SCRUM does this is through taking "how practice we handle this?" questions off the table. To a very high degree, anybody knowing the rules of the game makes for a much improve game. Just, yous say, all methodologies exercise this. Truthful, expert ones do, but allow me expose the elements of SCRUM that make it balanced.

We must maintain a residuum between rigor and inventiveness (run across Figure sixteen.two "Unbalanced Methodologies"). That's where leadership and judgment come up into play and no methodology will ever replace that! Whatever methodology that claims you simply put the people into identify and it works without major decision making forth the way, is folly. As I talk over active approaches, and SCRUM in particular, delight note I am not discounting the demand for leadership and judgment in the process.

Figure xvi.2. Unbalanced Methodologies.

Read total chapter

URL:

https://world wide web.sciencedirect.com/science/commodity/pii/B9780124080560000163

Advances in Techniques for Test Prioritization

Hadi Hemmati , in Advances in Computers, 2019

1 Introduction

Testing is one of the most practical methods of software quality assurance in industry [1,2]. The demand for testing is growing with the widespread application of Agile methodologies and the accent on continuous integration and delivery [3]. Such methodologies and approaches ideally advise running all test cases of the system, after every modification to the code (i.e., subsequently fixing a defect or adding a new feature to the software nether test) to make sure that (a) the new changes are being tested with some newly developed test cases, as before long every bit possible, and (b) the new modifications do not intermission any of the already right functionalities (regression testing [4]). Still, frequent rerunning of all test cases on big-scale systems with many test suites is very expensive. Information technology is ofttimes impossible to rerun all test cases later on every commit to the lawmaking. To get a sense of how many test executions large software companies are dealing with, allow's expect at the code commits at Google in 2013–14 reported past Ankit Mehta's opening talk at Google Exam Automation Briefing in 2014 [5]. In her talk she explains that there were around 30,000 commits per day in early October 2014 in the Google codebase. This resulted in effectually 100 million test runs per day at Google. Newer statistic from a keynote speech by John Micco from Google at the International Conference in Software Testing, Verification, and Validation (ICST) in 2017 shows that at Google 4.2 1000000 private tests are running continuously. They run before and afterwards code submission which results in 150 million exam executions per mean solar day (on average 35 runs per test per day).

I strategy to tackle the problem of "too many examination cases to rerun frequently" is scheduling the reexecution of test cases less often, east.g., once a twenty-four hours, every bit part of a nightly integration build, or before each major release [6]. In that location are at least ii pitfalls of this practice: (ane) yous may withal end up with larger-than-your-budget test suites to execute, particularly if you opt for regular schedules such every bit nightly builds, and (2) past postponing the test executions you let the defects accrue on top of each other, which makes the debugging process more difficult, whereas if you rerun your regression test suite after each change you will end upwardly debugging a very small-scale set of lawmaking changes [seven]. Therefore, to follow continuous integration principles in large-scale systems, we need to cull a subset of all test cases to be executed in each build; or ideally, prioritize the test cases so that depending on the time constraints of the build, but the well-nigh important tests are executed.

The solution to the above problem is called "examination instance prioritization" (TCP). The concepts of selecting a subset of test cases or prioritizing them are non new in software testing. They are by and large used in the context of regression testing, where researchers take proposed several techniques to effectively minimize, select, and prioritize the existing test cases. The goal of exam minimization is to eliminate the redundant test cases (e.g., those that verify the same functionality in a aforementioned fashion) from the test suite. Exam case selection, on the other mitt, selects a subset of exam cases for execution, which are more relevant to the current (untested) change(s). Finally, test case prioritization techniques exercise non throw away whatever test case and only rank the existing examination cases for execution, based on a heuristic [four]. In other words, when test cases are prioritized, ane executes the test cases in the given order, until the testing upkeep is over. Thus, a TCP's target is to optimize the overall fault detection rate of the executed test cases for any given budget [viii].

In this chapter, we specifically focus on the TCP techniques. The goal of this chapter is giving an introductory read on the advances in test prioritization. Thus we run across both basic techniques and more advanced ones. However, nosotros practise not survey all existing techniques, in details (there are already many surveys and literature reviews in this domain, for interested readers [4,6,9–11]).

The rest of this chapter is organized equally follows: in Section ii TCP problem is introduced. Section 3 categorizes TCP studies from two perspectives (their input resources and optimization heuristics). Section 4 discusses different approaches for evaluating a TCP approach and Section 5 summarizes the about of import trends and future directions in this context. Finally, Section 6 concludes this chapter.

Read full affiliate

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scientific discipline/article/pii/S0065245817300566

What Enterprise Architects Do

Stefan Bente , ... Shailendra Langade , in Collaborative Enterprise Architecture, 2012

Competency tree for an enterprise architect

The first stride in profiling an enterprise builder is to build a competency tree. This ways identifying the competency areas relevant to the enterprise architecture, organizing them in a structure, and defining associated proficiency levels.

A competency area entails the body of knowledge pertaining to a bailiwick or a field of study. These can exist areas equally dissimilar as customer relationship management, enterprise data management, integration patterns, Web 2.0, agile methodology, or project management. The proficiency levels help measure an individual's depth of knowledge and level of experience in a given competency surface area. The competency areas for an architect can typically be grouped under 4 main capability streams:

•

Business organisation acumen. This pertains to an individual'due south cognition, skills, and experience in the specific business organisation domain nether consideration. For instance, the It organization in Bank4Us needs broad and deep insight into the banking domain, ranging from the basic account-opening procedure in retail banking up to adventure analysis and hedging of exotic derivative products in investment banking.

•

Technical expertise. This of form is the core competence required for any IT system. It depends on the technology environment of the enterprise as to what expertise is required at that place. In Bank4Us, deep know-how in mainframe, Java/JEE, packaged CRM, Unix/C, and relational database management systems (RDBMS) such equally Oracle, DB2, and MS SQL Server are valued.

•

Process excellence. This deals with the cognition about master It processes, comprising software engineering (for instance, agile and waterfall), quality management, operational direction (e.1000., ITIL), program management, investment and gamble management, procurement, and vendor relationship management.

•

Organizational leadership. This area primarily comprises people and behavioral skills pertaining to team leadership, intense collaboration, communication, and negotiation.

A balanced competence framework should listing about x relevant competency areas for each of the preceding capabilities. If needed, this structure tin can be further enhanced—for instance, by decomposing a competency area into a three-level tree showing a subject area (root), topics (branches), and learning modules (leaves). Such a tree is specific to the skills and experience requirements in a given enterprise and needs to be set up with hindsight into the context of market opportunities, organizational needs, and ecology constraints of that enterprise.

Having divers the competency tree, the proficiency of an private in a given competency area tin can exist ranked using a fix of evaluation criteria. Here is a suitable scale of five levels:

•

Level 1. Express knowledge, basic awareness.

•

Level 2. Trained, conceptual knowledge, some educational background.

•

Level three. Applied noesis; is able to pattern and optimize a solution arroyo under supervision.

•

Level 4. In-depth knowledge; masters the current state of fine art and is able to blueprint and optimize a solution approach independently; can guide project teams; acts as an advisor to others.

•

Level 5. Adept; advances the land of the fine art; industry recognition; international publications; speaker at conferences (maybe fifty-fifty delivering keynotes); panel member in standards bodies.

Tabular array three-vi shows an illustrative enterprise architect skill profile for Ian Miller, enterprise builder at Bank4Us.

Table 3-6. Ian Miller'due south Bank4Us Enterprise Architect Skill Profile (Every bit an Analogy of the Concept)

Name Ian Miller Reports to Chief Architect
Position Enterprise architect Interfaces with Program managers
Projection managers
Project architects
Business architects
Business organization experts
IT management
IT infrastructure team
IT platform vendors
Education PhD (mathematics) IT feel 24 years
Mission To provide the all-time possible IT solution for a concern problem within the enterprise context
Skill Area L1 L2 L3 L4 L5
Business organisation Acumen
Business domain noesis X
Business process modeling X
Business and Information technology trend assay 10
Business solution envisioning and opportunity creation X
Value articulation and cost/benefit assay X
Technology Expertise
System assay and modeling Ten
Data analysis and modeling X
Software endeavour and price interpretation model 10
Technology assessment and prototyping X
Software and hardware sizing and capacity planning X
Performance Assurance, Testing, and Usability
Reuse and automation X
Software industry standards and best practices X
Emerging software trends and technologies X
Architecture frameworks, tools, and techniques Ten
Process Excellence
Software development life-cycle process X
Software maintenance and support process X
Software infrastructure management process X
IT program and portfolio management process 10
Architecture validation and conformance process X
Organizational Leadership and Behavioral Qualities
Broad vision and deep sense for the big picture 10
Innovation and thought leadership Ten
Analytical reasoning and problem solving X
Learnability: Proactive and fast learner Ten
Multitasking and fourth dimension management Ten
Face-to-face, verbal, and written two-way communication 10
Communicate at technical/nontechnical levels X
Conflict resolution and negotiation X
Fluent; convincing rather than argumentative X
Flexible in mind; staying calm under pressure X
Collaborative influence; multicultural workforce X
Full life-wheel project team leadership X

1 practical question remains: How should i measure and assess an individual'due south proficiencies in each of the stated skill areas? A proprietary profile definition, as shown in Table iii-6, tin can be replaced or extended by adopting the Open up Certified Builder (Open up CA) plan every bit a standard machinery to benchmark an individual for her architectural competencies. Open up CA is an builder certification offered by The Open Group. It qualifies an individual to be a practitioner builder based on a stringent evaluation of that person's skills and feel in the role of an architect. The certification is offered at iii office levels or positions:

•

Level one. Technical architect, typically architects working at project level.

•

Level ii. Principal architect, for architects normally working at program level.

•

Level 3. Distinguished builder, ordinarily architects focusing at enterprise level.

In essence, the Open CA certification programme offers a yardstick to qualify an architect using fairly precise and measurable criteria. It is certainly non 100% foolproof, nonetheless it is worth a serious attempt.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scientific discipline/commodity/pii/B9780124159341000030

DevOps and Continuous Delivery

Rick Sturm , ... Julie Craig , in Awarding Performance Direction (APM) in the Digital Enterprise, 2017

Implementation

Although there are every bit many proposed approaches to DevOps as at that place are DevOps practitioners, Enterprise Management Associates (EMA) experts believe that the best approach is to utilise cross-functional practices across the application lifecycle, if at all possible. It is too the case that automation is a key enabler for cross-functional support. Automating across the lifecycle while supporting automation with cross-functional skills and practices enables It organizations to prefer a more nimble and iterative approach to application design, evolution, delivery, and back up.

This view of DevOps also actively involves business stakeholders merely every bit agile development practices practice. Line of business (LOB) involvement helps ensure that the product delivered meets the needs of the business and that any requirements and modifications are incorporated into the software at the earliest possible stage in the lifecycle. Inquiry demonstrates that software is far easier and cheaper to prepare at earlier stages of the lifecycle than information technology is at later stages.

There are other factors driving the expansion of DevOps practices to a more lifecycle–centric approach. They include the following:

i.

Iterative development impacting the unabridged lifecycle (not just deployment): The broad adoption of agile methodologies in the enterprise means that the deployment stage transitioned from being a bespeak-in-time turnover of responsibilities to an ongoing procedure. Both Development and Operations are feeling the impact of this transition. Evolution must find means to build and test lawmaking incrementally and iteratively, and Operations must find means to engineer product environments capable of arresting high rates of change. Neither group tin practise this without the skills of the other.

2.

Abstraction of applications from hardware impedes manageability: Cloud, mobile, sensor systems, virtualization, and containers are freeing applications from the bonds of the physical data heart. While moving applications and/or application components to the cloud and to consumers, retail facilities, and fifty-fifty train tracks can provide meaning concern benefits, the brainchild introduced by off-premise hosting of any sort makes applications more complex to manage, govern, and troubleshoot. When applications or their components are externally hosted, IT loses the visibility and control necessary to finer monitor and manage the ecosystem. At the aforementioned fourth dimension, Information technology still has responsibility for all aspects of application delivery including performance, availability, and troubleshooting. This means that performance management must oftentimes be done at the network level, since the network is the i mutual factor across these diverse components.

3.

Application heterogeneity: From multibrand server farms to server clusters, load balancers, web servers, and heterogeneous databases, even applications hosted 100% on premise are and so complex that supporting them requires a wide arsenal of skills. This is true beyond the entire vi-stage application lifecycle, making it imperative that DevOps is approached as a lifecycle versus a betoken-in-time handoff.

4.

Automated deployment: With the growth of highly virtualized environments deployed as both individual cloud and public infrastructure as a service, software deployment is becoming increasingly automated and metadata-driven. However, equally functionality previously supported past runbooks and manual job submissions is automated, the primary role of IT—to deliver quality applications to the business—remains the same. Many CIOs are seeking new and better ways to deliver on this mandate, and DevOps supported by automation is a proven approach for doing so.

5.

Increased focus on LOB every bit function of the application lifecycle: A key element of agile methodologies is the interest of LOB throughout the application lifecycle. From requirements to iterative checkpoints to acceptance testing, business organisation stakeholders are more involved than ever before. Traditional evolution practices nigh ignore this group, which is becoming increasingly indispensable to customer satisfaction and project success. The DevOps lifecycle, shown in Fig. 10.one, includes LOB every bit a 3rd stakeholder that assumes key leadership roles at given stages of the lifecycle.

Figure 10.1. DevOps beyond the application lifecycle.

Read full affiliate

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scientific discipline/article/pii/B9780128040188000103