This post is a follow-up to Comparing DAD to the Rational Unified Process (RUP) – Part 1. In that post I described in some detail why Disciplined Agile Delivery (DAD) is not “Agile RUP”. DAD is quite different in both approach and content. There are however some very good principles that the Unified Process (UP) incorporates that are not part of mainstream agile methods. This post describes what parts of the UP made it into the DA toolkit.
DAD suggests a full delivery lifecycle approach similar to RUP. DAD recognizes that despite some agile rhetoric projects do indeed go through specific phases. RUP explicitly has four phases for Inception, Elaboration, Construction, and Transition. For reasons that I described in the last post, DAD does not include an explicit Elaboration phase. However the milestone for Elaboration is still in DAD which I will describe shortly. As the DAD basic lifecycle diagram shows, DAD has three of the four RUP phases.
So in summary, DAD frames an agile project within the context of an end-to-end risk-value lifecycle with specific milestones to ensure that the project is progressing appropriately. These checkpoints give specific opportunities to change course, adapt, and progress into the next phases of the project. While the lifecycle is similar to that of RUP, as described in Part 1 of this post it is important to realize that the actual work performed within the iterations is quite different and far more agile than a typical RUP project.
At Scott Ambler + Associates we are getting a lot of inquiries from companies seeking help to move from RUP to the more agile yet disciplined approach that DAD provides.
Last week I was discussing DAD with a new client and he asked me “Is DAD just an Agile version of RUP?” In a word, no. DAD is a toolkit composed of a hybrid of methods and practices as shown in the diagram. It includes the best of Scrum, Extreme Programming (XP), Agile data and modeling, and yes, the Unified Process (UP). DAD also includes additional content such as agile governance that is not present in any of these methods. As the diagram indicates, probably the method that adds most to DAD is XP, not the UP.
DAD does not prescribe a use case-driven approach, or insist that OOAD be rigorously applied to build out services/components. A use case-driven approach is a potential practice to apply but there is a danger that this could lead to an exhaustive requirements specification which is not particularly agile. We would prefer to use a user story-driven approach if that makes sense within the context of your project. User stories might not be the right choice either. Perhaps you are in a regulatory environment that demands a traditional software requirements specification (SRS). The key point is that you will have to adapt to the situation that you find yourself in. This is why we prioritize the team’s work with a work item list comprised of work items, rather than Scrum’s backlog comprised of user stories. Using a work item list allows us the flexibility to put any type of work onto our backlog, extending the applicability of DAD to many types of projects beyond those for which RUP or Scrum would be ideally suited.
DAD is goal-driven, not artifact-driven. It does not prescribe practices or specific artifacts. Rather, it suggests alternative strategies than can be applied at certain parts of the lifecycle with the pros and cons for each, but which ones you choose is up to you.
In my next post I will describe which aspects of the Unified Process did make it into DAD and why.
As you can see from the above diagram, the DAD primary roles are similar to those of Scrum. In Scrum, the product owner decides what will be built and in what order. In DAD we recognize that architecture is a key source of project risk and someone needs to be responsible for ensuring the team mitigates this risk. As a result DAD explicitly includes Agile Modeling’s role of architecture owner. The architecture owner is the person who owns the architecture decisions for the team and who facilitates the creation and evolution of the overall solution design. The person in the role of team lead will often also be in the role of architecture owner. This isn’t always the case, particularly at scale, but it is very common for smaller agile teams.
The responsibilities of the architecture owner include:
One of the key reasons for having this role in DAD is that the architecture owner, like the product owner, has a say in work items that are added and prioritized in the work item list (backlog in Scrum parlance). While business value is certainly a prime determinant of priorities, completing work related to mitigating technical risks is also important. Additionally, a DAD goal is to deliver consumable solutions, not just working software. As such, sometimes it is necessary to add work items that are technical in nature, for example related to error logging/monitoring. Or perhaps work items need to be added to improve the continuous integration and deployment processes.
We have found that the concept of having both product and architecture owners ensures that the solution addresses both functional and quality requirements such as usability and supportability adequately. In fact, on my current project, I worked with the product and architecture owners to negotiate their priorities such that the iteration underway includes not only a selection of high priority stories, but also a set of technical work items related to hardening the solution in preparation for entering the Transition phase of delivering the solution to the stakeholders. Without a specific role of architecture owner, it can be difficult to escalate important technical work into the work item list. As a result it is often done subversively without the knowledge of the product owner which is not a healthy practice, or worse it never gets done resulting in a poor quality solution.
Scott has written a good article that describes the architecture owner role in more depth. You can view it here.
Why does DAD not have an explicit role for an Analyst? This is a hot topic for those in this profession, and a subject that I have been asked to talk on, notably for the IIBA. Without question classically trained analysts bring much needed soft skills and a structured approach to requirements elicitation and negotiation which may not be present in the other roles such as a product owner or a developer. However, having these skills alone is not enough in an agile and lean world.
Unfortunately, professional organizations such as the Project Management Institute (PMI) and the International Institute of Business Analysts (IIBA) tend to encourage us to seek specialization and certifications over being cross-functional team members, which will be far more effective and valuable in the future. This is not to say that these organizations do not deliver value in developing and maintaining standards of professional conduct and capability. Attaining certifications (that require some degree of commitment and experience beyond a 2-day workshop) demonstrate commitment to a professional specialty. This is admirable but I would suggest that this base of knowledge is just the start of being an effective team member on an agile project. We should look outside our area of specialty to learn all we can about other aspects of software development.
It is my belief that in the near future, analysts will need to be competent testers if they intend to prosper in their profession. An increasingly important skill is the ability to write requirements as executable tests. My advice to analysts is to learn as much as you can about agile testing and seek opportunities to write your requirements as tests wherever possible.
For Business Analysts that are not interested in moving more toward the testing end of the spectrum there is another way to go. Analysts can be good Product Owners, representing the customer on the project and by managing the scope and priorities. In this role they can use their elicitation and facilitation skills to gain a clear understanding of what the customer needs (vs. wants).
Another potential career path is for the BA to move more into the area of traditional management consulting. The IIBA is positioning the Business Analyst profession to be more strategic, identifying the need to have them present at the management table when key decisions are made regarding how the business and its architecture should evolve. Our book on Disciplined Agile Delivery is about agile software development. But not all business issues are solved by software. Often it is the business process that needs to be fixed, and this is where traditional Business Analysis skills will always be needed.
In my opinion, one career path for analysts is going the way of the dinosaur though. And unfortunately this career path is often the status quo. Traditional projects expect Business Analysts to document business processes and requirements in batch up-front in a linear, waterfall fashion. They then must obtain sign-offs before actually proceeding with implementing any of the requirements. Subsequent changes to those requirements are discouraged, unless through a formal, time consuming and wasteful Change Request process. This model clearly is flawed, and eventually most companies will change their approach. High ceremony and bureaucratic organizations such as government will be the slowest to adapt, but private companies in a competitive environment will adapt their requirements capture approach to a more agile alternative or risk being left behind by their competitors that will be more “agile” in adapting both their business processes and the solutions that support them.
I’m writing this from the Agile Business Conference in London where I did a talk on DAD yesterday. Unfortunately I didn’t have much time to go into DAD in depth. A gentleman approached me today, saying that he is very interested in learning more about DAD but is not sure why it is needed with all the other methods out there,
This is a very good question, and I guess I should have been more clear in my talk. First of all, DAD is not a new method, but rather a general framework from which you can pick some “good ideas” which might makes sense for your organization or project. It also adds some structure that is missing from most agile methods. Here are some reasons that we think that the toolkit is worthwhile:
DAD is meant to help promote and simplify proven agile practices, not replace them. Rather than having to say “our shop does Scrum, with some XP practices, a bit of Kanban, etc…”, why not say that you are using DAD? You can choose from any of the techniques from these methods without some agilist criticizing you that “you are not doing Scrum actually because it doesn’t believe in the XYZ practice that you are using from ABC method”
If you are doing Scrum now, for instance, you could currently say that you are using DAD, as its guidance is a subset of practices you could use in DAD, As you add agile capability, and want accelerate your projects and increase quality, or add some required scaling techniques, you could draw additional ideas from DAD. BUT only if required and makes sense for you.
In summary, DAD provides a breadth of non-prescriptive guidance (good ideas that MIGHT make sense for you) with non-branded ideas that go beyond traditional agile methods to help deal with enterprise considerations that are a reality on most non-trivial projects.