"Right-sized Architecture: Integrity for Emerging Designs" - - PDF document
AW7 Concurrent Session 11/7/2012 2:15 PM "Right-sized Architecture: Integrity for Emerging Designs" Presented by: Ken Kubo Northrop Grumman Corporation Brought to you by: 340 Corporate Way, Suite 300, Orange Park, FL 32073 888 268
Concurrent Session 11/7/2012 2:15 PM
Presented by: Ken Kubo Northrop Grumman Corporation
Brought to you by:
340 Corporate Way, Suite 300, Orange Park, FL 32073 888‐268‐8770 ∙ 904‐278‐0524 ∙ sqeinfo@sqe.com ∙ www.sqe.com
Ken Kubo Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems
Ken Kubo is director of software engineering with twenty years of service at Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Targeting Systems Division, Azusa campus. His work has focused on the development of satellite ground systems, building the bigger picture from individual bits of data. Information radiators are Ken’s natural focus in agile development. A certified Lean-Agile ScrumMaster and Certified ICAgile Professional, he developed and teaches a Lean-Agile Development overview course for NGES. Ken firmly believes that lean-agile and government acquisition processes are not completely incompatible.
AW7 - 7 November 2012 – 2:15 PM
Integrity for Emerging Designs
Ken Kubo, James Yoshimori, Jason Liu
Agenda
Right Sized Architecture
Acknowledgements
Sensor Exploitation Systems/SAIG business area leadership.
3
But First…A Word From Our Sponsor
company providing innovative systems, products and solutions in aerospace, electronics, information systems, and technical services to government and commercial customers worldwide The company has government and commercial customers worldwide. The company has
world.
areas, such as unmanned systems, cyber-security, C4ISR, and logistics that are critical to the defense of the nation and its allies.
y , g , electronic countermeasures, precision weapons, airspace management, space payloads, marine and naval systems, communications, biodefense, and government systems.
The Need for Agility
Increase in Software in DoD Systems
Software Content of Sample Major DoD Weapon Systems 1960 - 2020
6 8 10 12 14 16 18
DDX Virginia SSN FCS ESLOC in Millions F-35 Aircraft and Ground
5
2 4 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Sea Systems Missiles/Space Ground Systems Aircraft
Patriot PAC-3 Virginia SSN Polaris A3 Aegis System
Sources: CARD Data, SEI, CSIS Analysis
ACS SBIRS F-22
The Need for Agility
(March 2009)
“A new acquisition process for information
(Became Public Law No: 111-84 October 2009)
ew acqu s t o p ocess o
technology should be developed—modeled on successful commercial practices, for the rapid acquisition and continuous upgrade and improvement of IT capabilities. The process should be agile and geared to delivering
Recommended (Among Other Things):
“Institute continuous, iterative, development, test, and certification processes that drive the
6
meaningful increments of capability in approximately 18 months or less—increments that are prioritized based on need and technical readiness.”
test, and certification processes that drive the commercial IT state of the art to deliver more trusted, standard, off-the-shelf building blocks”
Software Engineering (and other oxymorons)
– Software: a set of instructions which define and enable the operation of a computer system to perform a desired task y p – Engineering: the discipline and profession of applying technical, scientific, and mathematical knowledge to practical problems
– 1968 NATO Software Engineering Conference – Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) (IEEE, 2004)
7
Software Engineering Practices
design, development, testing, deployment, maintenance)
– Lessons learned – Design patterns
– Certified Software Development Associate/Professional (CSDA/P) – PMI-ACP, ICAgile Certified Agile Professional, role certification etc.
8
The Agile Transition
Predictive
RA HLD DD Develop FS A I&T V&V PDS Develop FS B
FS A,B,C
RA HLD RA HLD DD I&T V&V PDS Develop FS B Develop FS C
Adaptive
9
RA HLD
FS A FS B FS D FS C
PDS
Agile Execution
A hit t
Analysis “Desirement Analysis” with iteration planning and backlog (work queue) grooming. Also
Architecture Design Development I & T
and backlog (work queue) grooming. Also used for risk identification/mitigation. Traditional engineering activities all still occur, but note that they (mostly) happen collaboratively, not sequentially.
10
I & T
When Engineering Goes Bad…
Traditional predictive practices and “ilities” can commit too early
Lock down architecture at the beginning of the project (Big Design Up Front)
requests, enhancements, and expandability
11
Wide focus can be uninformed
When Agile Goes Bad…
Agile methodology focus can incur technical debt
Agile methodology impacts
– Iteration focus can emphasize coding activity – de-emphasizing others – “Just in time” design can devalue architecture
– Neglecting the “big picture” – Decoupling architecture – Losing sight of system design integrity
12
Tight focus can prove short-sighted
Agile as a Philosophy
– Avoid waste Creating shared knowledge > creating documentation – Creating shared knowledge > creating documentation
– Use a common “information radiator”
– Build a social environment for development p
– Establish common understanding of artifacts being constructed
13
Shared understanding drives efficiency
Implementing Agile Architecture
“You‘ll be smarter later”
– Avoid big design up front (BDUF) – Decide on the vision for your framework – Pick your focal points (risk and ignorance) – Make design a convenient part of the workflow – Emphasize creating knowledge, not creating diagrams
enough information to code – Prefer the collaboration dynamic to automation tools – Don’t force documentation of design sessions – Be disciplined but not rigid
14
Just Enough Architecture A Little Before Its Time
Roles and Responsibilities
Objective: identify interfaces, processing partitions/components, general system sketch, build the framework for the developers – Architect: maintains big picture, helps identify and define interfaces, keeps focus of the meeting, controls documentation – Product Owner: clarifies objectives and done-ness, fills in unstated (“wasn’t that
– Technical Lead(s): identify where development activity has to occur, help define interfaces
Objective: sanity check and impact analysis (not the search for the perfect design) Objective: sanity check and impact analysis (not the search for the perfect design) – Developer(s): present (proposed) solution, highlight any changes/detailing to architecture – Architect: helps perform impact analysis, verifies design integrity, controls documentation – Technical Lead(s): help perform impact analysis
15
Eyes on the Big Picture
– Understanding > documentation
– Using my Agile eyes …
– CRC: class, responsibilities & collaborators (Ward Cunningham)
16
Color Map Affinity Diagrams
use self-adhesive notes
have (more details to follow)
17
Example
data, substantial legacy code
18
Issues with Database to Display Interfaces
– Intermingled with smaller data packets
– Anticipating load to increase by 4 times current loading in a year – Load may increase by more than 18 times in 5 years
– Display is just one executable so performance degradation is not unexpected
19
New capabilities have outgrown old paradigm
Just Enough Architecture
Focus on data stores and display
– Do not directly attach to principal data stores – Get away from single executable for display – Create an infrastructure that supports “drop-in” views
network
20
Prioritize what to rearchitect/refactor
Color Assignments
not matter just be consistent
that perform I/O
consistent
need
stack of colored index cards have 5 l
that perform I/O
components
component
component
5 colors
21
component
High Level Tracking Architecture
Signal Processing Data Ingest Tracking Event Detection g Events Wideband Track Points
Pipeline
22
Display Simple approach has issues
Current Display Architecture
Track Events Point View View View View Data Service
23
Wide- band View
Initial Update to Display Architecture
Track Track Points Events Events Service Point Points Service View View View
24
Wide- band Wide- band Service View
Updated Display Architecture
Track Track Points
Blade Workstation
Events Events Service Points Points Service View View View View
25
Wide- band Wide- band Service View We use blue painters tape to identify boundaries
Updated Display Architecture
Blade Workstation
Track Track Track Points Events Events Service Track Point Points Service View View View View Events Controller Points Controller
26
Wide- band Wide- band Service View Wide- band Controller
Display Architecture
Blade Workstation
Track Track Track Events Events Service Track Point Points Service Events Controller Points Controller Exec View View View
27
Wide- band Wide- band Service Wide- band Controller Setup View View
Display Architecture
Blade Workstation
Track Track Track Events Events Service Track Point Points Service Events Controller Points Controller Wide- Cache View App View App View App Exec
28
Wide- band Wide- band Service Wide band Controller View App View App Setup
Display Architecture
Blade Workstation
Track Track Track Events Events Service Track Point Points Service Events Controller Points Controller Wide- View App View App View App View App View App
29
Wide- band Wide- band Service Wide band Controller Setup Exec Track Point Events Wide- band Cache
Display Architecture
Blade Workstation
Track P i t
Vi A Track Points Service Event Service
Points Controller Events Controller Wideband Controller
View App View App View App Track Points Events View App
30
Wideband Service Exec View App
Config File
Wide- band
Wide- band Event Track Points
And Now For Something Different
display that shows wideband data from the satellite point of view
and line of sight is good.
“boxed” with the others which just provides a wideband data display.
31
Display Architecture
Blade Workstation
Track P i t
Vi A Track Points Service Event Service
Points Controller Events Controller Wideband Controller
View App View App View App Track Points Events View App
32
Wideband Service Exec View App
Config File
Wide- band
Wide- band Event Track Points
View App
Information Radiator
50 100 150 200 250 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Ideal ETC 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Committed Completed33
Information Radiator
Process/workflow team rules and standards
Build shared knowledge and team direction
Extending the Metaphor
Visual design patterns
standards
35
Team evolves “design language”
The Working System
must own the performance of the system as a p y whole
does not mean “Don’t Plan”
36
Retrospective
Agile (and predictive!) methodologies
– Focus on goals
– Right-sized = Do the minimum – Create a variant or use another technique – find what works better for your team
37
Keep an Agile eye on design
Useful References
Professional Software Development (Addison-Wesley, 2008)
Oriented Thinking” (OOPSLA 1989)
Approach (Marshall & Brainerd, 2010)
38
Abstract
Lean-Agile development methodologies provide increased flexibility to deliver a more rapid return on customer investment in the form of working software. In Agile projects, system architecture ideally emerges over the course of development. However, if teams primarily focus on independent user stories, they risk losing sight of the Big Picture – the product’s vision and the integrity of well-thought-out
chances that a product’s design will emerge into a cohesive and coherent architecture that will support customer needs now and in the
techniques as part of “A Little Before Its Time (ALBeIT) Design” maintains a focus on architectural integrity You can adopt these maintains a focus on architectural integrity. You can adopt these practices into your Agile workflow to maintain a shared team understanding of your product’s vision and the system’s emerging design.
40
Author Biography
Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Targeting Systems Division, Azusa campus with twenty years of service with NGES. His development work has focused on the development of satellite ground systems, building the bigger picture from individual bits of data Information radiators are thus his natural focus in Agile development He bits of data. Information radiators are thus his natural focus in Agile development. He holds an MS in Management Science from Cal State Fullerton and a BS in Engineering/English from Harvey Mudd College. He is also a certified Lean-Agile Scrum Master and a Certified ICAgile Professional.
has ranged from small embedded signal processing systems to very large radar imaging and infrared processing systems. He has served in various roles from software engineer to architect to program management. He currently serves as architect, team lead and Agile process maven for the Situational Awareness and Global Exploitation (SAGE)
Engineering from the University of Hawaii Manoa Engineering from the University of Hawaii, Manoa.
been with NGES at the Azusa campus since 2009. Jason holds an MS in Computer Science from UCLA and a BS in Information Computer Science from the University of California, Irvine.
41