HP Software Performance Tour 2014 - Velocity and quality in the age of the customer

Velocity and Quality In The Age Of The CustomerContinuous Delivery and the Race For Better Business Performance

Riccardo Sanna, HP ADM Practice Manager

Research by Kurt Bittner, Principal Analyst

© 2013 Forrester Research, Inc. Reproduction Prohibited 2

Mainframe

Packaged

Mobile

Web

Multi-tier/Composite

4%

7%

8%

2%

8%

19%

27%

46%

47%

46%

41%

38%

20%

34%

34%

35%

28%

26%

17%

12%

Traditional Hybrid Agile Don't know

Base: 186 European IT decision makers involved in application development and delivery Source: A commissioned study conducted by Forrester Consulting on behalf of HP

Methodologies Vary By Application Type


Agile Adoption Is Widespread

› Organizations reported similar levels of adoption of approaches:

› 54% reported widespread use of traditional/waterfall approaches

› 47% reported widespread use of Hybrid traditional/agile approaches

› 45% reported widespread use of Agile approaches

“Sprinting” is not just a Track & Field event


But We’ve Simply Moved The Bottleneck

Business satisfaction and applica-tion quality have improved sub-

stantially

We produce code faster, but create bottlenecks in other parts

of the SDLC

IT staff are on board with Agile, but the business has been slow to

adopt an Agile culture

80%

80%

65%

91%

82%

67%

Europe (n=186) Total (n=286)


“What is the distribution of release frequency across initiatives?

12 months or greater

6 to 12 months

3 to 5 months

1 to 2 months

1 to 4 weeks

Less than 1 week

27%

16%

15%

10%

8%

3%

27%

41%

28%

25%

19%

13%

20%

26%

35%

38%

33%

24%

15%

9%

12%

18%

26%

39%

11%

8%

9%

10%

15%

21%

100+ 10-99 5-9 1-4 None


Most Initiatives Take A Long Time To Deliver

www.eyeonspain.com


“What portion of initiatives you currently deliver at the rate below would your business sponsors want you to deliver at a faster rate?”

12 months or greater

6 to 12 months

3 to 5 months

1 to 2 months

1 to 4 weeks

Less than 1 week

34%

25%

31%

29%

26%

22%

56%

62%

51%

52%

48%

43%

7%

11%

14%

15%

23%

32%

3%

2%

5%

4%

4%

3%

All Some None Don't know


And Business Sponsors Want Faster Delivery


What Factors Stand In The Way Of Delivering Faster?

Base: 286 North American and European IT decision makers involved in application development and delivery Source: A commissioned study conducted by Forrester Consulting on behalf of HP

None of the above

Deployment bottlenecks

Testing bottlenecks

Cultural barriers prevent breaking work into smaller

increments

Continuous integration bar-riers

Development and/or test-ing environments are not

available in time

Application ecosystem complexity

1%

24%

39%

41%

45%

52%

53%

htt

p://

the

dre

am

ing

cafe

.co

m/d

on

t-le

t-o

bsta

cle

s-ro

ad

blo

cks-

sto

p/


Business Value Delivery Improvement Model

6+ months

Quarterly

Monthly

Weekly

Daily or faster

Occasional

Intermittent

Periodic

Frequent

Continuous

Level Cadence



6+ months

Quarterly

Monthly

Weekly

Daily or faster

Occasional

Intermittent

Periodic

Frequent

Continuous

Level Cadence


Provisioning of adequate devel-opment / test environments is

problematic

Applications are monolithic / tightly coupled

Test processes are manual and ef-fort-laden

Business sponsors can’t make themselves available more

frequently

Deployment to production is manual / labor intensive

We lack application or technical expertise, and fear unintended

impact of change

55%

38%

49%

38%

36%

37%

33%

52%

43%

52%

52%

50%

10%

8%

4%

5%

10%

11%

2%

2%

4%

4%

1%

2%

Large impact Small impact No impact2 Don't know

Base: 166 European IT decision makers involved in application development and delivery who deliver at 12 month+ intervals Source: A commissioned study conducted by Forrester Consulting on behalf of HP

Barriers To Releasing At Faster Than 12 Months Cycles


Techniques Needed To Deliver at 6 Month Cycles

› Loose coupling of applications (47%)› Continuous Integration (32%)› ⬆️ Test Automation (32%)› ⬆️ Deployment Automation (32%)› Automated Environment Provisioning (29%)› Lean & Agile Practices (28%)

blog.crisp.se

› Mobile/Cloud Apps› Automating Builds› Unit Tests› Automating Dev to Test› Environments quickly› “small batches of work”

http://blog.crisp.se/2013/02/05/yassalsundman/continuous-delivery-vs-continuous-deployment


Complex Application Dependencies Prevent Moving Faster“What application ecosystem complexity factors prevent you from moving faster?”

None of the above

Other (please specify)

Lack of application expertise

Lack of technical expertise

Coordination with external teams introduced delays

Monolithic applications

Application code complexity or fragility

Application coupling complex-ity

1%

1%

33%

41%

41%

47%

59%

71%

1%

0%

30%

46%

32%

39%

53%

68%

Europe (n=101) Total (n=152)

Base: 152 North American and European IT decision makers involved in application development and delivery

Source: A commissioned study conducted by Forrester Consulting on behalf of HP

ww

w.h

isto

ire-in

form

atiq

ue.o

rg

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&docid=JujKw76WeHYryM&tbnid=lTIvcFWljpdgcM:&ved=0CAQQjB0&url=http://www.histoire-informatique.org/musee/2_3_6_2.html&ei=wSOWUtjYK4PhoATG24HIBg&bvm=bv.57155469,d.cGU&psig=AFQjCNGFr9qjlJW9zABBnmLj1HcOl4qdwQ&ust=1385657586982528


Testing Environment Factors Slow Progress“What development and testing environment factors prevent you from moving faster?”

› Environment provisioning delays (59%)› Lack of standard configurations› Lack of provisioning automation

› Shared environment conflicts (53%)› Not enough test environments, or lack of service virtualization

› Creating test data takes too long (54%)› Test data creation is often manual and ad hoc

› Dev & Test environments don’t mirror Production (54%)› Lack of standard configurations & automation

› Lack of skills and supporting tools are lesser factors



6+ months

Quarterly

Monthly

Weekly

Daily or faster

Occasional

Intermittent

Periodic

Frequent

Continuous

Level Cadence


What Techniques Contribute Most to Quarterly Releases?

Base: 263 North American and European IT decision makers involved in app development and delivery who deliver at 3-5 month intervals



None of the above

Automated deployment processes

Continuous integration prac-tices

On-demand provisioning of test environments

Applications are modular and loosely coupled

On-demand provisioning of development environments

High levels of test-automation and test-data-creation

Lean/Agile processes and development techniques

2%

2%

33%

37%

40%

42%

42%

43%

48%

Total (n=263)

www.agilebuddha.com

http://www.agilebuddha.com/trainings-workshops/scrum-training-workshop/


Cultural Barriers Impede Agile Adoption

Governance model mismatch (big up-front

planning, waterfall mile-stones)

Inflexible job roles

Management participa-tion and support

Business willingness or availability to engage

50%

54%

61%

63%

Total (n=116)



on

line

.wsj

.co

m

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704476104575439723695579664

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704476104575439723695579664


Testing Obstacles To Faster Releases

None of the above

Lack of skills

Ineffective automated unit testing

Ineffective load testing and performance validations

Testing resources were not available when needed

Manual testing was too slow

Ineffective integration test-ing

Ineffective automated regression testing

1%

16%

46%

46%

51%

61%

61%

62%

Total (n=112)



ww

w.b

bc.

co.u

kco

rpor

ate.

ford

.com

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19586066

http://corporate.ford.com/our-company/heritage/heritage-news-detail/ford-celebrates-100-years-of-moving-assembly-line



6+ months

Quarterly

Monthly

Weekly

Daily or faster

Occasional

Intermittent

Periodic

Frequent

Continuous

Level Cadence


Techniques Needed To Deliver Monthly Releases

Base: 253 North American and European IT decision makers involved in app development and delivery who deliver at 1-2 month intervals



None of the above




Continuous integration practices


On-demand provisioning of test envi-ronments


1%

4%

31%

32%

36%

36%

41%

41%

47%

Total (n=263)› On-demand Environments

› Agile WIP Management

› API-driven Test Automation

› Loosely Coupled Applications

› Automated Deployment


Continuous Integration Barriers Prevent Faster Releases

None of the above

Lack of skills

Inadequate environment support for CI (including lack

of supporting tools)

Developers resistance to CI

Developers frequently “broke the build”

Complex code merging

Lack of effective automated unit testing as part of CI

2%

24%

45%

46%

48%

56%

58%

Total (n=128)



› New practices:› Unit testing› Short branches/trunk-

based development› Supporting tools:

› CI› Test Automation› Code Analysis



6+ months

Quarterly

Monthly

Weekly

Daily or faster

Occasional

Intermittent

Periodic

Frequent

Continuous

Level Cadence


Techniques Needed to Deliver Weekly Releases

Base: 226 North American and European IT decision makers involved in app development and delivery who deliver at 1-4 week intervals Source: A commissioned study conducted by Forrester Consulting on behalf of HP


None of the above


On-demand provisioning of de-velopment environments

Lean/Agile processes and de-velopment techniques





1%

4%

24%

30%

33%

33%

34%

36%

38%

Total (n=226)

ww

w.k

iinte

a.c

om

http://www.kiintea.com/soluciones/automatizacion-industrial


Deployment Obstacles Prevent Faster Releases

None of the above


Lack of skills

Appropriate staging environments were not available when needed

Manual deployment process speed

Release decision process delays

Staffing resource constraints

Post-deployment problems

Complex deployment dependencies

1%

3%

26%

40%

51%

53%

54%

63%

69%

Total (n=70)



neom

atix

.com

http://neomatix.com/blog/



6+ months

Quarterly

Monthly

Weekly

Daily or faster

Occasional

Intermittent

Periodic

Frequent

Continuous

Level Cadence


Techniques to deliver at less than 1 week


None of the above








1%

8%

20%

25%

28%

28%

29%

32%

36%

Total (n=191)

Base: 191 North American and European IT decision makers involved in app development and delivery who deliver at < 1 week intervals Source: A commissioned study conducted by Forrester Consulting on behalf of HP

26

How To Get Started

›Work in small batches›Apply Agile techniques when necessary

›Modularize your applications›Or work on Modern Apps with modular architectures

›Implement Continuous Integration practices›Small branches›API-driven test automation

›Streamline your environments›Standardize and automate provisioning

›Automate deployment›Continually Improve!

Thank youKurt [email protected]@ksbittner

Riccardo [email protected]@kirrysan

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

HP Software Performance Tour 2014 - Velocity and quality in the age of the customer

Technology

forrester research

forrester consulting

application development

faster delivery

delivery source

application quality

lack of application

application type