Harvard Success with Agile Project Management in General Dynamics Case Paper Discipline:
– IT Management
Type of service:
Case Study
Spacing:
Double spacing
Paper format:
APA
Number of pages:
5 pages
Number of sources:
3 sources
Paper detalis:
Read the case study on General Dynamics, provided as a file.
The Combat Identification Server (CIdS) Technology Demonstrator Project
(TDP) has been delivered on time, with quality and budget parameters
using the Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM). CIdS is a complex
system and software project. The objective is to help clear “the fog of
war” by providing a picture in the cockpit of an aircraft of the
position of nearby friendly forces on the ground. The selection of DSDM
for the CIdS TDP was motivated by the Tactical Datalinks Delivery Team’s
(TDL DT) objective to demonstrate that complex military technologies
could be delivered without delay or cost overrun. The use of DSDM was a
bold move, but the CIdS project delivered successful outcomes for all
involved. In the current economic environment, delivering acceptable
solutions on time and at a fixed cost is surely a priority for the
Ministry of Defense (MoD). The success of the CIdS project has provided a
good example for the project management in the defense sector.
Write a five to six (5-6) page paper in which you:
Speculate on the prominent reasons General Dynamics selected the agile framework they did to use in this project.
Identify the major business problems the project team tried to solve.
Analyze the manner in which the project team applied the agile project
management techniques to ensure they delivered the project on time, on
budget with good quality.
Give your opinion if you agree with the approach(es) identified in Question 2. Justify your response.
Analyze the manner in which the project teams and coaches master the
agile methodology to solve business problems. Determine the approach
that you believe is the most effective. Provide a rationale for your
response.
Determine whether or not the agile approach produced more business
benefits than a traditional project management approach. Justify your
response.
Provide your opinion on the agile coach’s role in this case and
determine if the coach is critical to the success of the project.
Support your answer.
Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:
Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with
one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA
or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional
instructions.
Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the
student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date.
The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required
assignment page length. DSDM Case Study
Timothy Fadek/Polaris/eyevine
Improving Outcomes through
Agile Project Management
General Dynamics
United Kingdom Limited
DE&S
Defence Equipment & Support
www.dsdm.org
TRUSTED TO DELIVER
A General Dynamics United Kingdom Limited
White Paper
Application of the
Dynamic Systems Development Method
in a Complex Project Environment
Improving outcomes through agile
Project Management
Helping clear the ‘fog of war’
www.generaldynamics.uk.com
Introduction
The Combat Identification Server (CIdS) Technology Demonstrator
Project (TDP) has been delivered to time, quality and budget using the
Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM®).
This trial application of this method
by the Ministry of Defence (MoD)
Defence Equipment and Support
(DE&S) has:
l demonstrated the suitability of
the application to a DE&S project
l provided lessons for the future
application of DSDM
l shown the effectiveness of the
method in achievement of
delivery to time, quality and
budget.
The CIdS TDP has been funded by
the MoD DE&S Tactical Datalinks
Delivery Team (TDL DT) and
delivered by an industry consortium
led by General Dynamics United
Kingdom Limited. CIdS is a complex
system/software project. The
objective is to help clear ‘the fog of
war’ by providing a picture in the
cockpit of an aircraft of the position
of nearby friendly forces on the
ground.
The use of DSDM was a bold move,
but the project has rapidly delivered
successful outcomes for all
involved. In the current economic
environment, delivering solutions
within budget is top priority. Could
this approach be the future for
project management in the defence
sector?
The deployment
of CIdS will
reduce the
probability of
mistaken identity in
the heat of battle
CIdS TDP – Applying DSDM
Traditionally project management in the defence sector has focused on
meeting technical requirements, sometimes at the expense of project
duration and cost. In a DSDM project, the performance requirements are
expressed as Must, Should, Could and Won’t (this time) or ‘MoSCoW’. In
the DSDM model trading out requirements provides the flexibility to
ensure on-time and on-cost delivery of an acceptable and fit for purpose
solution rather than a perfect one.
FIXED
Time
Features
Cost
Quality
Quality?
Time
Cost
Traditional approach
Features
VARIABLE
DSDM approach
DSDM inverts the normal project management paradigm
In practice, the development of the
CIdS capability was divided into
increments. Dividing the CIdS
project into increments provided
checkpoints at which capability
could be demonstrated.
Each of these increments was
divided into timeboxes. If, in the
delivery of any timebox, it was
apparent that there was risk to the
achievement of the Must
requirements, effort was expected
to be redeployed from the tradeable
Should and Could requirements to
assure delivery of Must
requirements.
If it became apparent that the Must
requirements were in jeopardy, then
the timebox and potentially the
whole project could have been
stopped or re-planned; extension of
a timebox is not permissible. This
discipline is key in the ‘fail early’
principal of DSDM.
The effectiveness of DSDM
has been successfully
trialled and demonstrated
in the CIdS TDP
Business and
Commercial
From a business perspective the
use of DSDM required a
significant change in approach to
the project.
Negotiation
As a result of the unique method
of delivering the CIDS project,
negotiations had to overcome the
impacts of using DSDM.
Thankfully we were all learning
together!
Planning the
strategy
The project delivery strategy
started with the TDL DT requiring
the use of DSDM as the project
delivery method. With theoretical,
but little practical experience of
DSDM, the consortium used an
external DSDM expert to guide us
through the bid phase.
Traditionally a financial contingency
is held, to be called upon if
difficulties are encountered in
delivering the required project
outputs. DSDM renders financial
contingency redundant. Instead, the
CIdS project requirements were
categorised using the MoSCoW
approach. Through a trading process
during project execution, this
technique enabled a few Should and
Could requirements to be removed
from the project solution to prevent
potential cost and schedule overrun,
without any customer penalties
being incurred.
The TDL DT had an initial concern
that the consortium would abandon
Should and Could requirements at
the first opportunity and an
incentivisation mechanism was
sought. However, this approach
contradicted DSDM principles
where cost – and hence price – is
fixed, with requirement trading
offering the project contingency.
During contract negotiation this
incentivisation position was relaxed
as the TDL DT recognised that the
consortium would aim to maximise
the delivered capability.
One aspect that required ongoing
negotiation through the project was
the payment plan. Once the project
started, it became apparent that the
detailed project schedule that was
developed during the initial stages
of the project no longer fitted the
payment plan that had been agreed
prior to contract award. By taking a
pragmatic and flexible approach, and
recognising that this is the nature of
DSDM, TDL DT and industry were
able to align programme and
payments.
Instead of including a detailed
schedule of the project delivery with
the bid submission, expert advice
was that this process should be
performed jointly with the TDL DT
after contract award as part of the
Foundation phase. This was not, it
was advised later, what the TDL DT
wanted to hear!
“Report blue force track
information to authorised
requesting entities on demand in
the Close Air Support (CAS)
mission.”
Before the team launched into detail
it needed to put the project into
context by focusing on the
fundamental project objectives. This
was achieved through the
collaborative development of a
Single Statement of User Need
which stated:
DSDM is typically applied to
software dominated internal change
projects within the Information
Technology sector. As such, the
CIdS project was also seen as
breaking new ground commercially
through the application of DSDM on
a project involving a consortium of
companies.
As the planning progressed, so did
the collective understanding of the
technique.
A key objective of the DSDM
approach is to progressively reduce
risk through incrementally delivering
a solution. As such, establishing
how the technical solution would be
elaborated within the DSDM
framework was also a key part of
the planning the overall strategy for
delivery of the CIdS project.
The initial stages of the project
required a fair degree of
tolerance to lack of clarity!
Techniques
The selection of DSDM for the
CIsS TDP was motivated by the
TDL DT’s objective to
demonstrate that complex
military technologies could be
delivered without delay or cost
overrun.
Using DSDM, the CIdS project
comprised three distinct phases.
The Foundation Phase developed
the requirements, technical design,
and also planned in detail the
subsequent Exploration/Engineering
Phase where the CIdS solution was
incrementally developed through a
series of timeboxes where
MoSCoW’d requirements were
logically grouped. These timeboxes
constrained the implementation to
time, cost and quality. The final
Deployment Phase demonstrated
the CIdS solution to end users.
Project success was built
on the outline planning
developed in the
Foundation Phase.
Throughout the CIdS project, focus
was maintained on control and
metrics regarding achivements
within each timebox. Whilst all
project timeboxes were planned
ahead in outline, as individual
timeboxes ended, the performance
within that timebox enabled the
detailed planning of the next
timebox.
This incremental and iterative
development approach where
achievement informs ongoing plans
was at the heart of the project.
Organisation
and Governance
Using a facilitated workshop as
part of the Foundation phase the
CIdS project organisation was
developed resulting in consensus
and buy in from the project
outset.
Nominated individuals were
assigned to the roles detailed in the
structure which have defined
responsibilities. The CIdS project
team comprised individuals from
TDL DT, General Dynamics UK
(industry consortium lead),
consortium partners Rockwell
Collins UK and Qinetiq as well as
3SDL, the TDL DT’s specialist
technical advisor. One clear and
highly beneficial outcome of using
the DSDM ‘Space Alien’ structure
was that it removed any hierarchy
associated with the contractual
relationships, resulting in a truly
integrated team.
CIdS TDP DSDM Organisation Chart – The ‘Space Alien’
Reviewing structures were put in
place to ensure appropriate
governance of the project,
comprising monthly project reviews
with the General Dynamics UK
Programme Director and gate
reviews at the end of each phase
and increment with representation
from both industry and the TDL DT.
Empowerment of the
individuals allocated to the
roles was a pre-requisite
Personnel
Management
Requiring the implementation of
a new project management
method required people with a
pragmatic, flexible and open
minded approach. For all involved
the project offered a great
personal development
opportunity.
Selection of the right personnel to
lead and work on the project was
critical. DSDM requires people with
the ability to work effectively within
collaborative teams and a tolerance
of ambiguity. This was not a project
for task focused left-brained project
managers!
Equally the assignment of the
technical co-ordinator role was
pivotal. The role has required a
combination of technical domain
knowledge, foresight and leadership
to ensure the technical solution
achieved its requirements.
The CIdS project, with its ground
breaking use of DSDM provided
excellent personal, as well as
organisation, learning experience.
Personally, the CIdS project
was a great development
experience
Gavin Green – CIdS Technical Coordinator
Communication
Continuous, clear and effective
communication has been a
mantra for the CIdS project.
Traditionally there is reticence to
share ‘warts and all’ information
between partners and/or customer.
As the team relationship developed,
aided by significant periods of colocated working, an open and no
surprises culture of communication
developed. A clear no blame
mandate was established to
promote open and honest
communication. Where frustrations
between groups did develop they
were effectively addressed to
prevent any damage to the day to
day working relationships.
Other communication aids were
also developed by the team.
Through timebox management
worksheets, clear communication of
requirements to be implemented,
associated estimates and the
allocated of resource were provided.
Daily progress of timeboxes was
reviewed by team leads such that
exceptions were managed as they
arose instead of later.
A key facilitator of effective
communication was an electronic
Shared Working Environment,
supported by email, and
telephone/video conferencing.
Executing the
Strategy
From the outset, the CIdS project
sought to differentiate itself by
reshaping the traditional MoD –
Industry relationship.
CIdS project success was
underpinned by the Foundation
phase outputs and the associated
facilitated workshops. Through the
foundation phase the project
developed the plans collaboratively
ensuring consensus. Strong
leadership however ensured that
there was no management by
committee that could have resulted
in indecision and deviation from the
project objectives. Establishing the
detailed technical requirement and
partitioning these into a logical
development strategy was
challenging but the detailing of the
timeboxes was eventually achieved.
Emphasis through the Exploration
and Engineering phase was to
ensure that the project objectives
were delivered. Managing schedule
adherence was relatively
straightforward since it was bound
by the timeboxing. However metrics
were devised to monitor
performance against technical
outcomes to help inform the
planning of subsequent timeboxes.
These also addressed concerns that
incomplete timeboxed requirements
could be deferred into later
timeboxes, potentially resulting in a
bow wave resulting in a technical
solution only meeting the ‘Must’
requirements.
The detailing of the increments
and timeboxes caused some
nervousness, but once completed
resulted in what the TDL DT called
‘the Eureka moment!’
CIDS TDP – Success Factors
Coaching and
Mentoring
DSDM as project delivery
technique was new to everybody
and meant that we all learnt
together.
Teamwork
Successful delivery of the CIdS
project was achieved through the
behaviours and motivations of
the people involved – the
teamwork.
Expert DSDM input during the
project bid phase brought
confidence that the planned
approach to the delivery of CIdS
was the right one. As a result, the
industry consortium was able to
contribute from an informed
perspective during the crucial
Foundation Phase workshops.
A new project delivery method
required key personnel with a
pragmatic, flexible and open minded
approach, coupled with a tolerance
for ambiguity and excellent
teambuilding skills.
The teamwork has come about
through the desire to collaborate, to
learn together, communicate and
build the necessary relationships to
successfully deliver the CIdS
project.
Any stresses in the team dynamic
have been recognised and dealt
with early, and before they become
issues.
Conflict
Management
As in most projects there have been
stress points during the project, but
because of the team relationships,
these have been anticipated and
quickly resolved.
Through the highly collaborative
and open team approach, with a
no surprises culture, conflict has
been kept to a minimum.
In traditional projects with their
fixation on the achievement of all
technical requirements, a defensive
We left conflict to
those better qualified!
Throughout it was important to
ensure that all involved maintained
the same common view of what
DSDM meant for the CIdS project.
Whilst there was early confusion
that DSDM was a substitute for
engineering process, through team
mentoring a common understanding
was soon established.
Teamwork on
CIdS has been
underpinned by
having the right
personalities in
the key project
roles
posture can often arise if problems
in achieving those requirements
emerge. The CIdS project, through
the highly collaborative approach,
and safety net of requirements
contingency resulted in a far more
open environment where good and
bad issues were openly discussed.
Risk
Management
CIdS benefitted from a risk
management strategy that used
an incremental development
approach in which high risk
requirements were tackled early,
with requirements flexibility
protecting on-cost,
on-schedule, to quality delivery.
A joint risk register was established
to inform timebox management and
ongoing engineering development,
but not to identify any required
financial contingency. Instead of
holding financial contingency, any
additional funds that were required
to ensure delivery of ‘must have’
requirements were drawn from the
budget associated with delivery of
lesser priority tradable
requirements.
Key benefits that resulted from the
way in which the CIdS project was
managed include:
The net effect
was that
100 per cent of the
project budget was
dedicated to the
delivery of
capability
l More believable plans, schedules
and budgets, and likelihood of
adherence were a fundamental
outcome as a result of the DSDM
approach with its fixed cost and
time approach.
l Using DSDM led to a contract
which eliminated financial
contingency, delivery maximum
possible capability for the funds
available.
l The timeboxing approach resulted
in multiple decision points at the
end of each timebox, and each
increment, at which alternative
ways forward were compared.
l The cost base for the project was
reduced as no financial
contingency was needed.
l Through the Single Statement of
User Need a common vision of
the project objectives was
collaboratively developed.
l With short timebox spans, risk
assessment has been aided by
the increased focus that resulted.
l Greater risk taking was enabled
as by principle the project could
not go over budget, or slip
schedule. This allowed desirable
but higher risk requirements to
be included as Should or Could
requirements without fear of
penalty to the project. As a result
greater capability has been
delivered to the end-user for the
same money than would
otherwise have been possible.
With MoD funds under continual
pressure, successfully
demonstrating incremental
capability was also way of reducing
the risk of project cancellation by
keeping stakeholders engaged and
supportive of the CIdS project.
CIDS TDP – Summary
The CIdS project has been a learning experience for all involved, and has
demonstrated that the MoD and industry can employ radical project
management techniques to successfully deliver a technically complex
project.
Through using DSDM on the
project, the traditional
customer/supplier and prime
contractor/subcontractor divides
have been bridged to form what
truly has been an integrated project
team. The one for all, all for one
ethos has prevailed throughout,
resulting in a team that focused on
delivering on the project objectives
rather than what is best for
individual organisations.
Whilst DSDM has been central to
the delivery of the project, it is not a
panacea. The CIdS project has
ultimately been successful because
of the team – their professionalism,
their technical capabilities and their
commitment to the principles of
DSDM.
The use of DSDM was a bold move,
but the CIDS project has delivered
successful outcomes for all
involved. In the current economic
environment, delivering acceptable
solutions on time and at a fixed cost
is surely a priority for the MoD. The
success of the CIdS project may
have provided pointers for the future
of project management in the
defence sector.
Commendation
The use of the Dynamic Systems
Development Method has been
key to the success of the Combat
Identification Server TDP: agile project
management techniques, the close
involvement of stakeholders
throughout, including interim
demonstrations, and a constant focus
on the deliverables have ensured that
the final product will truly hit the
mark. This methodology has clearly
worked extremely well and I would
hope to see lessons from this project
applied to future projects.
Major Fiona Galbraith, MoD sponsor.
DSDM is a registered trademark of
Dynamics Systems Development
Method Limited
© October 2010 General Dynamics United Kingdom Limited
The information contained in this publication is supplied by General Dynamics UK
Limited (GDUK). It does not form part of any contract for the purchase of any product
or service described in this publication. Although GDUK makes every effort to verify
the accuracy of the information contained in this publication, the company accepts no
responsibility for any defect or error in this publication, or in the information supplied;
nor shall GDUK be liable for any change or loss caused as a result of reliance upon
such information.
www.generaldynamics.uk.com
GDUK878 06/10
Purchase answer to see full
attachment