Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Transforming software development across geographic locations in a large company is difficult. But Nationwide Insurance found a way to successfully implement more than forty agile teams in multiple locations around the United States using their internal Application Development Center. Sara McClintock explains what worked for Nationwide: using Scrum practices, including creating standard work, and lean techniques, using tools such as A3s. Sara provides insight into some of the challenges Nationwide faced and shares some things they should have avoided. With the continued success that Nationwide has experienced in the Application Development Center in the past three years, the company has decided to continue with an Enterprise Transformation that will move their IT organization into full agile software development as they plan, build, and run projects across the company. The goal is to increase productivity, quality, and speed to market using Scrum, XP, lean, and CMMI practices and techniques.
Citation preview
�
AW9 Concurrent�Session�11/13/2013�3:45�PM�
�����
"Transforming the Large Organization"
���
Presented by:
Sara McClintock Nationwide Insurance
��������
Brought�to�you�by:��
��
340�Corporate�Way,�Suite�300,�Orange�Park,�FL�32073�888Ͳ268Ͳ8770�ͼ�904Ͳ278Ͳ0524�ͼ�[email protected]�ͼ�www.sqe.com
Sara McClintock Nationwide
Sara McClintock, IT Director at Nationwide Insurance, has been specializing in transforming the ways development teams create and manage software for one of the largest insurance companies. Sara has helped to scale Agile across multiple locations, including the start up in their Des Moines Iowa location. Nationwide is leading the industry in Agile Transformation using Scrum, Extreme Programming, Lean and was one of the first companies to become CMMI Level 3 certified using Agile practices and techniques. She has over 20 years of experience in the IT industry and is very passionate about Agile development and loves to share the journey that Nationwide has been on.
How to scale in a large organization, across
multiple locations Sara McClintock
Director, IT Application Development
About Me
Sara McClintock [email protected]
! Director, IT Applications, Application Development Leader
(ADL) ! Certified Scrummaster (CSM) ! Leader in transformation for Nationwide Des Moines site ! Nationwide�s liaison for Iowa Lean Consortium and Agile
Iowa
About Nationwide
Grassroots Beginning Attacking the Problem with Agile
4
" Began in 2004
" Grassroots, practitioner led,
" Localized Agile processes " Lack of communication between
Agile teams
" Each saw success, but had limited impact on the overall enterprise
Ag
ile
Enterprise Agile
5
" Began in 2008
" Harvested Agile best practices
" Nationwide�s leading Agile �activists� together for first time
" Focused on Scrum and XP practices
" Created Nationwide�s �21 Agile Tea Leaves�
" Created a common understanding but still lacked the ability to move the entire organization in the same direction
Agile
6
Our Transformation Timeline
2010 Introduced 2nd location in Des Moines, IA
2011 Tech Con introduced
2012 reported 0 critical defects in 101 releases
2012 Des Moines location grew from 1 line to 6 lines
2013 32 lines in both locations with 232 Associates and 161 Contractors
Oct. 2013 opened 3rd location in AZ
Q4 2013 committed to total of 48 lines
2008 began ADC with 6 lines
WHAT
HOW?
HOW?
HOW?
9
Step 1 - Visual Workflow
Visual Management 10
Visual Management is the glue holding together the management and development systems. Visual controls
allow everyone to see the progress of the work and allow immediate feedback and corrective action into the
system. Why make things visual? " Encourages �go see� management " Prevents information hiding " Common understanding " Drives accountability " Focuses the organization on the important measures
11
Step 2 - Foundational
Educating our staff, changing our management philosophy, and setting the stage for continuous improvement
12
Standard Work # Standard work for
managers and staff # Innovation accelerator # Foundation for our
Continuous Improvement efforts
# Set the organization up to shift from fire fighting to fire prevention
13
Daily Accountability Tier 1
• Local Agile Teams • Daily Standup Meeting • Local Team Topics
Tier 2
• Director-Level • Daily Standup with Team Leads • Operational and Improvement Topics
Tier 3
• VP-Level • Daily Standup with Directors • Operational, Improvement, Trends
All meetings utilize a Visual Management System (VMS) to drive discussions and assignments. Each meeting also serves to ensure the VMS is updated and accurate.
14
Step 3 – Move Forward
Title: Improve the Accuracy of Quality Center Incident Recording
Problem Statement
Countermeasures
Implementation
Follow Up and Outcomes
Analysis
Prior State
Goals
Submitter: Sandra BowmanCIO (or SVP): Mark GaetanoTeam Members: Julia Ashley, Lara Bush, Ralph Caldwell, Tim Gensure,
Elaine Heim, and Dwight Steward
WorkRequests
EscapedFirst TimeFinals46%
6%
6%16%
IncorrectlyPrioritized
3%
Defect Free23%
77% of Work Stream Defective
� Over half of work stream are requestsfor new work� Multiple defects possible on same
incident
100% Improvement in Work Stream Accuracy
9 Goal Exceeded
� 155% actual improvement� 48% variation reduction� Final process is stable� Results statistically verified
at 95% confidence level
22.40%
57.14%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
1-M
ay
1-Ju
n
1-Ju
l
1-A
ug
1-Se
p
1-O
ct
1-N
ov
1-D
ec
1-Ja
n
1-Fe
b
1-M
ar
Before After
The Quality Center Support Team receives over 3.5 times the volume of incidents, compared to the rest of its Business Solution Area. This work stream includes incidents that:
� Are requests for new work (not actually incidents)� Should have been resolved by front-line support (“Escaped First Time Finals”)� Are incorrectly prioritized
The estimated cost for handling the inaccurate incidents tickets is $192 K to $240 K annually.Indirect costs include a negative impact on providing effective customer service and, so,reduced customer satisfaction (Customer Love).
Root Cause of Problem:
� Inadequate training of front-linestaff
exasperated by:
� Absence of direct feedback loop� Defective Knowledge Base� Lack of routine performance
monitoring
� Conducted formal calibration of front-line staff� Provided direct feedback, coaching, and training to front-line staff� Rerouted defective work stream components back to originator� Reviewed/revised Knowledge Base entries
� Continuing monthly team meetings to ensureon-going process compliance
� Process improvements verified and reported-outmonthly by Quality Leadership representative� Front-line staff calibration continuing quarterly� Actual savings audited ($22 K confirmed - since
initiative completed)
Generated formalImplementation Plan to define approach, identifyroles and responsibilities,and track progress
Analysis: 2011 Incident & Defect Data
Solution Overview:
• Identified quality checkpoints for release implementation – Scope, Code and Release Freeze.
• Implemented a “4-2-1” release governance process.
• Enabled Exception Reporting to give BSA’s better decision making tools.
• Upgraded Release Management Enterprise Tool (Webster) to automate the solution.
Title: Release Management “4-2-1”
Problem Statement: Application Releases were causing unacceptable levels of adverse customer impact
as measured in Release related incidents (PO’s, P1’s) and Defects.
Implementation: Phased Approach (process and tool upgrade) started with January 2011 Application
Release thru March 2011. Metrics were collected with the roll out and were utilized to create a rolling 13
month trend beginning with 2011 Release data.
Goals / Objective: Improve the success of the NI & ACS Application Releases by reducing Release related
incidents (PO’s, P1’s) and Defects.
Submitter: Ravi TanejaCIO (or SVP): James KorcykoskiTeam Members: Amber Barker, Terry Buckendahl, Joel Esplana, Matt Forschner, Amy Gould, Gary Holloway, Mandy McNutt, Bob Meikle, Rachel Reeder, Kathy Weatherman
Code FreezeInside of 2 weeks • User Acceptance Testing• Individual & Mixed
Performance Testing• RFC Processing• Release Readiness
Checkpoint is held• App Event Monitors are
modified or created
4 Weeks 2 Weeks 1 Week
Scope LockInside of 4 weeks • RFC’s targeted for Release
are due• App Dev and Testing
continues• Code/Config Change to
resolve defects• Ind. Performance Testing
Release FreezeInside of 1 week • Go / No-Go meeting
with Cabinets• RFC’s are approved• QPIR meeting is held• AES RMT audits code
moves and release data• Implementations begin
Prior State: Application Release Planning, Building, Packaging, and Deployment of software into
Production was inconsistent across multiple offices and Business Solution Areas (BSA).
• Code changes, testing, and scope modifications continued late into release cycles which added risk to the
success of a release.
• Code freezes were not tracked for all applications.
• Request For Change (RFC ) details were either late or incomplete. Less than 10% of RFC’s were in n ‘Ready
to Approve’ status prior to the implementation of a Release.
• Project schedules planned for testing and defect fixes to continue thru the week of a Release.
• No awareness into late changes or coordination of cross-project or cross-solution area risks and issues.
January 2011February 2011March 2011
Follow Up:
• Conducted Feedback Sessions with BSA Release Teams in 4th Qtr 2011.
• Completed Phase 1 (Voice of the Customer) Lean/Six Sigma Continuous Improvement Project (4/12).
• Implement recommendations from Phase 1 in 2nd half of 2012.
2011 Average 1.0-12 2.0-12 3.0-12 2012
AverageRelease Related P0s 3.4 3 4 2 3.0Release Related P1s 23.8 5 23 34 20.7Release Related Defects (All) 92.6 86 137 41 88.0
1.0-11 2.0-11 3.0-11 4.0-11 5.0-11 6.0-11 Jan-Jun 2011 7.0-11 8.0-11 9.0-11 10.0-11 11.0-11 12.0-11 Jul-Dec 2011
Release Related P0s 7 2 1 3 8 1 4 1 6 2 3 5 2 3Release Related P1s 14 35 14 53 15 35 28 14 13 32 10 18 33 20Release Related Defects (All) 64 112 86 119 72 134 98 78 70 67 108 84 117 87
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
NWIT 1.0-11
NWIT 2.0-11
NWIT 3.0-11
NWIT 4.0-11
NWIT 5.0-11
NWIT 6.0-11
NWIT 7.0-11
NWIT 8.0-11
NWIT 9.0-11
NWIT 10.0-11
NWIT 11.0-11
NWIT 12.0-11
Release Related P0s Release Related P1s Release Related Defects (All)
Creating a Culture of Continuous Improvement !# Focused on Problem Solving # Empowerment of Staff # A3s as our Improvement Currency
15
Visual Controls and Metrics Visually represent information for consumption at the source
Roll up metrics to support continuous improvement – not evaluate staff
16
Step 4 – Integration
17
Results High and critical defects in a 4-year positive trend…
Sep$ Oct$ Nov$ Dec$ Jan$ Feb$ Mar$ Apr$ May$ Jun$ Jul$ Aug$ Sep$ Oct$ Nov$ Dec$ Jan$ Feb$ Mar$ Apr$ May$
2010$ 2011$ 2012$
Down%Time%by%Month%With%Linear%Trend%
Contributing to a positive downward trend for End User Down Time
Critical and High Defects
2010 2012 2011 2009
18
A story about what�s possible when instead of managing people you empower them to define and continuously improve their work every day.
The Culture
Key Success Factors and Opportunities
! Executive and Leader support ! A plan…. ! Embedded culture for training and
education ! Resources with the �right� mindset ! Change the culture
WHAT�S NEXT….
ADC%Roadmap%
Delivery%Effec=veness%
Leadership%%
BSA%Engagement%
Technology%Domain%Prac=ces%
Workforce%Strategy%&%Logis=cs%
ADC Projected Growth 21
Committed Lines
forecasted to grow from
32 to 48 lines by Q4
2014
# of Lines
Net 13 Line increase in less than a year
0 5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Q3 2013 Q4 2013 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014
22
Let�s Go to Gemba!
