AGILE ACQUISITION
FIGURE 5 Proj. KESLOC Actual KESLOC Cum. Proj. KESLOC Month
Mar '14
10 12 14 16 18
0 2 4 6 8
Apr '14
May '14
Jun '14 Jul '14
Aug '14
Sep '14
Oct '14
Nov '14
Dec '14
Jan '15
Feb '15
Mar '15
Apr '15
May '15
Jun '15 Jul '15
Aug '15
Sep '15
Oct '15
Nov '15
Dec '15
Jan '16
Feb '16
Mar '16
ER 1 0R 1..0 Projection Re-planned Bui d 1.uild 1.0 ER 1 1R 1..1
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Sprint
(Source: CMDS Project Office, Ranjit Mann, Laura Brezinski - Graphic Designer) CHARTING PROGRESS
IFPC Inc 2-I development teams use historical data to make projections about the later stages of the software build. Data for the early phases of the project are used to develop completion dates for later phases, and after the completion of engineering release 1.1, later projections will be revised using actual data instead of forecasted numbers. (SOURCE: Ranjit Mann and Laura Brezinski, CMDS Project Office)
Cum. Actual KESLOC
hazard mitigations are implemented in the code. Te Software Safety Working Group identifies software safety issues, which are then resolved by the SWIPT early in the following sprint, thereby ensuring a safer software product for the warfighter. Each MEI software developer implements safety features in the soft- ware based on issue resolution provided by the SWIPT and tags the code file as “safety critical” during every sprint.
Te MEI code with safety impact (safety-significant,
safety-related and
safety-critical) is assessed for every sprint in the IFPC Inc 2-I SoSIL with a focus on specific safety-critical functionality. Tis ensures compliance with Military Standard 882 and Aviation and Missile Command Safety Regulation 385-17.
EFFECTIVE METRICS AND MEASURES Peter Drucker, the management consul- tant and author, once stated, “What gets measured gets done.” Te IFPC Inc 2-I product office uses this as a fundamen- tal principle for software acquisition to measure progress from the MEI devel- opment teams. To apply this principle, the SWIPT, in consultation with James Wessel, a staff member at the Software Engineering Institute (SEI), created a dashboard to provide leadership with a single view of the software status. Tis dashboard lists metrics on the left and measures performance on those met- rics on the right; metrics include story points completed, number of software risks placed on a watch list, number of software risks dealt with, and “effective software lines of code” (ESLOC) written.
SENTINEL STANDING WATCH This Sentinel sensor is part of the IFPC Inc 2-I, designed to fill a critical capability gap in Soldiers’ ability to defend against UAS and cruise missiles—and thus is being rolled out on a very aggres- sive timeline. The Agile methodology’s emphasis on meeting milestones of not just lines of code written, but actual user needs addressed, is a good fit for the project’s aggressive schedule and critical importance. (Photo courtesy of PEO MS)
Traditionally, software lines of code (SLOC) are used to track progress of software development. But the SLOC measurement alone does not provide an adequate measure of development
64
Army AL&T Magazine October-December 2015
Cumulative KESLOC
Sprint KESLOC
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208
