Dave Farley - The Rationale of Continuous Delivery - DevDay 2016

Transcript

1. Dave Farley http://www.davefarley.net @davefarley77 http://www.continuous-delivery.co.uk The Rationale for Continuous Delivery Or What Does ‘Good’ Look Like?
2. The State of Software Development
3. The State of Software Development Source: KPMG (New Zealand) Date: 2010 In a study of project management practices: 1) 70% of organizations have suffered at least one project failure in the last 12 months 2) 50% of respondents indicated that their projects consistently failed to achieve what they set out to achieve.
4. The State of Software Development Source: KPMG (New Zealand) Date: 2010 In a study of project management practices: 1) 70% of organizations have suffered at least one project failure in the last 12 months 2) 50% of respondents indicated that their projects consistently failed to achieve what they set out to achieve. Source: KPMG – Global IT Management Survey Date: 2005 In a survey of 600 projects worldwide: 1) 49% of organisations had suffered a project failure in the past 12 months 2) 2% of organisations reported that all of their projects achieved their desired benefits.
5. The State of Software Development Source: KPMG (New Zealand) Date: 2010 In a study of project management practices: 1) 70% of organizations have suffered at least one project failure in the last 12 months 2) 50% of respondents indicated that their projects consistently failed to achieve what they set out to achieve. Source: KPMG – Global IT Management Survey Date: 2005 In a survey of 600 projects worldwide: 1) 49% of organisations had suffered a project failure in the past 12 months 2) 2% of organisations reported that all of their projects achieved their desired benefits. Source: Logica Management Consulting Date: 2008 In a survey of 380 senior execs in Western Europe: 1) 35% of organisations abandoned a major project in the last 3years 2) 37% of business change programmes fail to deliver benefits.
6. The State of Software Development Source: KPMG (New Zealand) Date: 2010 In a study of project management practices: 1) 70% of organizations have suffered at least one project failure in the last 12 months 2) 50% of respondents indicated that their projects consistently failed to achieve what they set out to achieve. Source: KPMG – Global IT Management Survey Date: 2005 In a survey of 600 projects worldwide: 1) 49% of organisations had suffered a project failure in the past 12 months 2) 2% of organisations reported that all of their projects achieved their desired benefits. Source: Logica Management Consulting Date: 2008 In a survey of 380 senior execs in Western Europe: 1) 35% of organisations abandoned a major project in the last 3years 2) 37% of business change programmes fail to deliver benefits. Source: The McKinsey Group with Oxford University Date: 2012 In a study of 5,400 large scale projects (> $15m): 1) 17% of projects go so badly that they threaten the existence of the company performing them. 2) On average large projects run 45% over budget and 7% over time while delivering 56% less value than predicted.
7. If Software Projects Worked…
8. If Software Projects Worked…
9. Failure Success If Software Projects Worked…
10. Failure Success If Software Projects Worked…
11. The State of Software Development Has Been Err…. Sub-Optimal
12. The State of Software Development Has Been Err…. Sub-Optimal
13. The State of Software Development Has Been Err…. Sub-Optimal But there are signs of change…
14. What Have We Tried?
15. What Have We Tried?
16. What Have We Tried?
17. What Have We Tried?
18. What Have We Tried?
19. What Have We Tried?
20. What Have We Tried?
21. What Have We Tried?
22. What Have We Tried?
23. What Have We Tried?
24. What Have We Tried?
25. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015
26. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Waterfall - Precisely Where We Went Wrong Managing The Development of Large Software Systems - Dr Winston W. Royce (1970)
27. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Waterfall - Precisely Where We Went Wrong Managing The Development of Large Software Systems - Dr Winston W. Royce (1970) The IEEE has a lot to answer for!
28. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Waterfall - Precisely Where We Went Wrong Managing The Development of Large Software Systems - Dr Winston W. Royce (1970)
29. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Waterfall - Precisely Where We Went Wrong Managing The Development of Large Software Systems - Dr Winston W. Royce (1970)
30. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Waterfall - Precisely Where We Went Wrong Managing The Development of Large Software Systems - Dr Winston W. Royce (1970)
31. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 “…the implementation described above is risky and invites failure.” <snip> “The testing phase which occurs at the end of the development cycle is the first event for which timing, storage, input/output transfers, etc., are experienced as distinguished from analysed. These phenomena are not precisely analysable.” Waterfall - Precisely Where We Went Wrong Managing The Development of Large Software Systems - Dr Winston W. Royce (1970)
32. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Waterfall - Precisely Where We Went Wrong Managing The Development of Large Software Systems - Dr Winston W. Royce (1970)
33. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Waterfall - Precisely Where We Went Wrong Managing The Development of Large Software Systems - Dr Winston W. Royce (1970)
34. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Waterfall - Precisely Where We Went Wrong Managing The Development of Large Software Systems - Dr Winston W. Royce (1970)
35. Learning From Our Mistakes
36. Learning From Our Mistakes “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Albert Einstein
37. What Do We Really Want? Customer Feedback Business Idea
38. What Do We Really Want? Customer Feedback Business Idea Quickly Cheaply Reliably
39. A Question….
40. A Question…. What is the most successful invention in human history?
41. A Question…. SCIENCE
42. The Scientific Method Characterisation Make a guess based on experience and observation. Hypothesis Propose an explanation. Deduction Make a prediction from the hypothesis. Experiment Test the prediction. Repeat!
43. What Works? 57% 14% 29% Challenged Successful Failed 49% 42% 9% Source: The CHAOS Manifesto, The Standish Group 2012 Agile Waterfall
44. What Works? - More Data 30% 64% 6% 21% 72% 7% 28% 65% 7% 35% 50% 15% 32% 49% 18% Source: Scott Ambler, Dr. Dobbs Journal, Feb 2014 (http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/the-non-existent-software-crisis-debunki/240165910) Agile Lean Iterative Ad-Hoc Traditional
45. What Works? - More Data 30% 64% 6% 21% 72% 7% 28% 65% 7% 35% 50% 15% 32% 49% 18% Source: Scott Ambler, Dr. Dobbs Journal, Feb 2014 (http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/the-non-existent-software-crisis-debunki/240165910) Agile Lean Iterative Ad-Hoc Traditional Lean Thinking … • Deliver Fast • Build Quality In • Optimise the Whole • Eliminate Waste • Unnecessary Variations (Mura) • Overburden (Muri) • Wasteful activities (Muda) • Amplify Learning • Decide Late • Empower the Team
46. Smart Automation - a repeatable, reliable process for releasing software Unit Test Code Idea Executable spec. Build Release What Really Works?
47. Smart Automation - a repeatable, reliable process for releasing software Unit Test Code Idea Executable spec. Build Release What Really Works?
48. Smart Automation - a repeatable, reliable process for releasing software Unit Test Code Idea Executable spec. Build Release “It doesn’t matter how intelligent you are, if you guess and that guess cannot be backed up by experimental evidence – then it is still a guess!” - Richard Feynman What Really Works?
49. Being Experimental - The Goal
50. Being Experimental - The Goal “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth” - John F. Kennedy (1961)
51. Being Experimental - The Goal
52. Being Experimental - The Challenge
53. Being Experimental - The Challenge
54. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - Purpose
55. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - Purpose
56. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - Purpose
57. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - Small Steps (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015
58. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - Small Steps (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015
59. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - Giant Leaps
60. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - Giant Leaps
61. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - The Reality Inspired By: Russ Olsen’s Presentation “The Moon” at QCon London 2015
62. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - The Reality The Ranger Programme Inspired By: Russ Olsen’s Presentation “The Moon” at QCon London 2015
63. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - The Reality The Ranger Programme ‣ Ranger 1 - Launch Failure Inspired By: Russ Olsen’s Presentation “The Moon” at QCon London 2015
64. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - The Reality The Ranger Programme ‣ Ranger 1 - Launch Failure ‣ Ranger 2 - Launch Failure Inspired By: Russ Olsen’s Presentation “The Moon” at QCon London 2015
65. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - The Reality The Ranger Programme ‣ Ranger 1 - Launch Failure ‣ Ranger 2 - Launch Failure ‣ Ranger 3 - Missed! Inspired By: Russ Olsen’s Presentation “The Moon” at QCon London 2015
66. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - The Reality The Ranger Programme ‣ Ranger 1 - Launch Failure ‣ Ranger 2 - Launch Failure ‣ Ranger 3 - Missed! ‣ Ranger 4 - Impact, systems failed Inspired By: Russ Olsen’s Presentation “The Moon” at QCon London 2015
67. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - The Reality The Ranger Programme ‣ Ranger 1 - Launch Failure ‣ Ranger 2 - Launch Failure ‣ Ranger 3 - Missed! ‣ Ranger 4 - Impact, systems failed ‣ Ranger 5 - Missed! Inspired By: Russ Olsen’s Presentation “The Moon” at QCon London 2015
68. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - The Reality The Ranger Programme ‣ Ranger 1 - Launch Failure ‣ Ranger 2 - Launch Failure ‣ Ranger 3 - Missed! ‣ Ranger 4 - Impact, systems failed ‣ Ranger 5 - Missed! ‣ Ranger 6 - Impact, cameras failed Inspired By: Russ Olsen’s Presentation “The Moon” at QCon London 2015
69. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - The Reality The Ranger Programme ‣ Ranger 1 - Launch Failure ‣ Ranger 2 - Launch Failure ‣ Ranger 3 - Missed! ‣ Ranger 4 - Impact, systems failed ‣ Ranger 5 - Missed! ‣ Ranger 6 - Impact, cameras failed ‣ Ranger 7 - Success! Inspired By: Russ Olsen’s Presentation “The Moon” at QCon London 2015
70. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - The Reality The Ranger Programme ‣ Ranger 1 - Launch Failure ‣ Ranger 2 - Launch Failure ‣ Ranger 3 - Missed! ‣ Ranger 4 - Impact, systems failed ‣ Ranger 5 - Missed! ‣ Ranger 6 - Impact, cameras failed ‣ Ranger 7 - Success! ‣ Ranger 8 - Success! Inspired By: Russ Olsen’s Presentation “The Moon” at QCon London 2015
71. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - The Reality The Ranger Programme ‣ Ranger 1 - Launch Failure ‣ Ranger 2 - Launch Failure ‣ Ranger 3 - Missed! ‣ Ranger 4 - Impact, systems failed ‣ Ranger 5 - Missed! ‣ Ranger 6 - Impact, cameras failed ‣ Ranger 7 - Success! ‣ Ranger 8 - Success! ‣ Ranger 9 - Success! Inspired By: Russ Olsen’s Presentation “The Moon” at QCon London 2015
72. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - Works!
73. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - Works! Build the tallest free-standing tower you can, that will support a marshmallow, with just spaghetti, tape and string
74. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - Works! Source: Tom Wujec (http://marshmallowchallenge.com)
75. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - Works! Source: Tom Wujec (http://marshmallowchallenge.com)
76. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - Works! Source: Tom Wujec (http://marshmallowchallenge.com)
77. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental
78. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental
79. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental
80. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental
81. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - Fast & Slow Thinking
82. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - Fast & Slow Thinking 2 + 2
83. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - Fast & Slow Thinking 2 + 2 17 x 24
84. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - Fast & Slow Thinking
85. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - Fast & Slow Thinking
86. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - Fast & Slow Thinking Source: fMRI Brain-scans by Dr. Gerald Huther, Presented at ‘Production Systems 2009 Conference’ via Mike Rother
87. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - Fast & Slow Thinking System 1 Thinking - Fast System 2 Thinking - Slow Source: fMRI Brain-scans by Dr. Gerald Huther, Presented at ‘Production Systems 2009 Conference’ via Mike Rother
88. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental • Is Hard Work - Literally! • We are Programmed to avoid it • We Will Jump to Conclusions • We Can Only Combat this Through a Deliberate Act of Will and Practice
89. (C)opyright Dave Farley 2015 Being Experimental - Solves These Problems • Confirmation Bias • Biased Search for Information • Biased Interpretation • Biased Memory • Polarisation of Opinion • Persistence of Discredited Beliefs • Preference for Early Information • Illusory Association Between Events
90. Cycle-Time 103 days Typical Traditional Cycle Time 10 days 64 days
91. Cycle-Time Commit Stage Compile Unit test Analysis Build Installers Automated acceptance testing Automated performance testing Manual testing Release 57 mins 3 mins 20 mins 20 mins 30 mins 4 mins Typical CD Cycle Time 103 days Typical Traditional Cycle Time 10 days 64 days
92. What Is Continuous Delivery? “Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software.” The first principle of the agile manifesto. The logical extension of continuous integration. A holistic approach to development. Every commit creates a release candidate. Finished means released into production!
93. The Principles of Continuous Delivery Create a repeatable, reliable process for releasing software. Automate almost everything. Keep everything under version control. If it hurts, do it more often – bring the pain forward. Build quality in. Done means released. Everybody is responsible for the release process. Improve continuously.
94. The Principles of Continuous Delivery Create a repeatable, reliable process for releasing software. Automate almost everything. Keep everything under version control. If it hurts, do it more often – bring the pain forward. Build quality in. Done means released. Everybody is responsible for the release process. Improve continuously. “If Agile software development was the opening act to a great performance, Continuous Delivery is the headliner.” Forrester Research 2013
95. Example Continuous Delivery Process Local Dev. Env. Source Repository
96. Example Continuous Delivery Process Local Dev. Env. Source Repository
97. Example Continuous Delivery Process Local Dev. Env. Commit Source Repository
98. Example Continuous Delivery Process Local Dev. Env. Commit Source Repository
99. Example Continuous Delivery Process Artifact Repository Local Dev. Env. Commit Source Repository
100. Example Continuous Delivery Process Artifact Repository Local Dev. Env. Commit Commit Source Repository
101. Example Continuous Delivery Process Artifact Repository Local Dev. Env. Acceptance Commit Commit Source Repository
102. Example Continuous Delivery Process Artifact Repository Local Dev. Env. Acceptance Commit Commit Source Repository
103. Example Continuous Delivery Process Artifact Repository Local Dev. Env. Acceptance Commit Commit Acceptance Source Repository
104. Example Continuous Delivery Process Artifact Repository Local Dev. Env. Acceptance Commit Commit Acceptance Source Repository Manual Test Env. Deployment App.
105. Example Continuous Delivery Process Artifact Repository Local Dev. Env. Acceptance Commit Commit Acceptance Source Repository Manual Test Env. Deployment App.
106. Example Continuous Delivery Process Artifact Repository Local Dev. Env. Acceptance Commit Commit Acceptance Manual Source Repository Manual Test Env. Deployment App.
107. Example Continuous Delivery Process Artifact Repository Local Dev. Env. Acceptance Commit Component Performance Commit Acceptance Manual Source Repository Manual Test Env. Deployment App.
108. Example Continuous Delivery Process Artifact Repository Local Dev. Env. Acceptance Commit Component Performance Commit Acceptance Manual Source Repository Manual Test Env. Deployment App.
109. Example Continuous Delivery Process Artifact Repository Local Dev. Env. Acceptance Commit Component Performance Commit Acceptance Manual Perf1 Source Repository Manual Test Env. Deployment App.
110. Example Continuous Delivery Process Artifact Repository Local Dev. Env. Acceptance Commit Component Performance System Performance Commit Acceptance Manual Perf1 Source Repository Manual Test Env. Deployment App.
111. Example Continuous Delivery Process Artifact Repository Local Dev. Env. Acceptance Commit Component Performance System Performance Commit Acceptance Manual Perf1 Source Repository Manual Test Env. Deployment App.
112. Example Continuous Delivery Process Artifact Repository Local Dev. Env. Acceptance Commit Component Performance System Performance Commit Acceptance Manual Perf1 Perf2 Source Repository Manual Test Env. Deployment App.
113. Example Continuous Delivery Process Artifact Repository Local Dev. Env. Acceptance Commit Component Performance System Performance Commit Acceptance Manual Perf1 Perf2 Source Repository Manual Test Env. Deployment App. Data Migration
114. Example Continuous Delivery Process Artifact Repository Local Dev. Env. Acceptance Commit Component Performance System Performance Commit Acceptance Manual Perf1 Perf2 Source Repository Manual Test Env. Deployment App. Data Migration
115. Example Continuous Delivery Process Artifact Repository Local Dev. Env. Acceptance Commit Component Performance System Performance Commit Acceptance Manual Perf1 Perf2 Staged Source Repository Manual Test Env. Deployment App. Data Migration
116. Example Continuous Delivery Process Artifact Repository Local Dev. Env. Acceptance Commit Component Performance System Performance Production Env. Deployment App. Commit Acceptance Manual Perf1 Perf2 Staged Source Repository Manual Test Env. Deployment App. Data Migration
117. Example Continuous Delivery Process Artifact Repository Local Dev. Env. Acceptance Commit Component Performance System Performance Production Env. Deployment App. Commit Acceptance Manual Perf1 Perf2 Staged Source Repository Manual Test Env. Deployment App. Data Migration
118. Example Continuous Delivery Process Artifact Repository Local Dev. Env. Acceptance Commit Component Performance System Performance Production Env. Deployment App. Commit Acceptance Manual Perf1 Perf2 Staged Production Source Repository Manual Test Env. Deployment App. Data Migration
119. Example Continuous Delivery Process Artifact Repository Local Dev. Env. Deployment Pipeline Acceptance Commit Component Performance System Performance Production Env. Deployment App. Commit Acceptance Manual Perf1 Perf2 Staged Production Source Repository Manual Test Env. Deployment App. Data Migration
120. “This may work for small projects but can’t possibly scale”
121. “This may work for small projects but can’t possibly scale” The Google Build Process • Single Monolithic Repository • Continuous Build & Test on Commit For: • > 60 Million builds per year and growing exponentially. • > 100 Million lines of code. • All tests are run on every commit, (>20 commits per minute). • > 100 Million test cases executed per day.
122. “This is too risky, releasing all the time is a recipe for disaster”
123. “This is too risky, releasing all the time is a recipe for disaster” The Amazon Build Process • Mean time between deployment - 11.6 seconds • Mean hosts simultaneously receiving a deployment - 10,000 • 75% reduction in outages triggered by deployment between 2006 and 2011 • 90% reduction in outage minutes triggered by deployment • ~0.001% of deployments cause an outage • Instantaneous rollback • Reduction in complexity
124. “This may work for simple web sites but my technology is too complex”
125. “This may work for simple web sites but my technology is too complex” • Transformation of Development Approach for all LaserJet Firmware Products • Large Complex Project • Multiple Products • Four Year Timeframe • 10x Developer Productivity Increase HP Laserjet Firmware Team Experience
126. HP LaserJet Firmware Team 10% Code Integration 20% Detailed Planning 25% Porting Code 25% Product Support 15% Manual Testing ~5% Innovation 2% Continuous Integration 5% Agile Planning 15% Architectural Integrity 10% Unified Support 5% Automated Testing 3% Improving Tools 10% Writing Tests ~40% Innovation 2008 2011
127. The Results A Practical Approach to Large scale Agile Development (Gruver, Young and Fulgrhum) • Overall development costs reduced by ~40% • Programs under development increased by ~140% • Development cost per program down by 70% • Resources now driving innovation increased by 5x
128. The Effect on Business - Part 1 • Continuous Delivery changes the economics of software delivery. • 87% of companies whose development & operations functions were rated as “excellent” saw revenue growth > 10% in 20131 • In contrast, 13% of companies whose development & operations functions were rated “average” or worse saw similar growth. • 8x more frequent production deployments • 8000x faster deployment lead times (i.e., time required from “code committed” to “successfully running in production”) • 50% lower change failure rates Source: 1"DevOps and Continuous Delivery: Ten Factors Shaping the Future of Application Delivery.”, Enterprise Management Associates’ Report (2014)
129. The Effect on Business - Part 2 • “Firms with high-performing IT organizations were twice as likely to exceed their profitability, market share and productivity goals”2 • Higher throughput2 • Higher reliability2 • 12x faster service restoration times when something went wrong (i.e., MTTR) • “Organizational culture is one of the strongest predictors of both IT performance and overall performance of the organization”2 • “We can now assert with confidence that high IT performance correlates with strong business performance, helping to boost productivity, profitability and market share.”2 Source: 2“2014 State of DevOps report”, Jez Humble, Gene Kim, Nicole Forsgren Velasquez, Puppet Labs (2014)
130. Who Practices CD?
131. Who Practices CD?
132. Who Practices CD?
133. Q&A http://www.continuous-delivery.co.uk Dave Farley http://www.davefarley.net @davefarley77