DSDM Case Study

Improving Outcomes through Agile Project Management General Dynamics United Kingdom Limited D E & S Defence Equipment & Support

www.dsdm.org

Timothy Fadek/Polaris/eyevine

www.generaldynamics.uk.com

TRUSTED TO DELIVER

Application of theDynamic Systems Development Method in a Complex Project Environment

A General Dynamics United Kingdom LimitedWhite Paper

Helping clear the ‘fog of war’

Improving outcomes through agileProject Management

The Combat Identification Server (CIdS) Technology DemonstratorProject (TDP) has been delivered to time, quality and budget using theDynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM®).

This trial application of this methodby the Ministry of Defence (MoD)Defence Equipment and Support(DE&S) has:

l demonstrated the suitability ofthe application to a DE&S project

l provided lessons for the futureapplication of DSDM

l shown the effectiveness of themethod in achievement ofdelivery to time, quality andbudget.

The CIdS TDP has been funded bythe MoD DE&S Tactical DatalinksDelivery Team (TDL DT) anddelivered by an industry consortiumled by General Dynamics UnitedKingdom Limited. CIdS is a complexsystem/software project. Theobjective is to help clear ‘the fog ofwar’ by providing a picture in thecockpit of an aircraft of the positionof nearby friendly forces on theground.

Introduction

The deployment of CIdS will

reduce theprobability ofmistaken identity inthe heat of battle

The use of DSDM was a bold move,but the project has rapidly deliveredsuccessful outcomes for allinvolved. In the current economicenvironment, delivering solutionswithin budget is top priority. Couldthis approach be the future forproject management in the defencesector?

Traditional approach DSDM approach

Traditionally project management in the defence sector has focused onmeeting technical requirements, sometimes at the expense of projectduration and cost. In a DSDM project, the performance requirements areexpressed as Must, Should, Could and Won’t (this time) or ‘MoSCoW’. Inthe DSDM model trading out requirements provides the flexibility toensure on-time and on-cost delivery of an acceptable and fit for purposesolution rather than a perfect one.

In practice, the development of theCIdS capability was divided intoincrements. Dividing the CIdSproject into increments providedcheckpoints at which capabilitycould be demonstrated.

Each of these increments wasdivided into timeboxes. If, in thedelivery of any timebox, it wasapparent that there was risk to theachievement of the Mustrequirements, effort was expectedto be redeployed from the tradeableShould and Could requirements toassure delivery of Mustrequirements.

CIdS TDP – Applying DSDM

If it became apparent that the Mustrequirements were in jeopardy, thenthe timebox and potentially thewhole project could have beenstopped or re-planned; extension ofa timebox is not permissible. Thisdiscipline is key in the ‘fail early’principal of DSDM.

DSDM inverts the normal project management paradigm

FIXED

VARIABLE

Features

Features

Quality?

Quality

Time Cost

Time Cost

The effectiveness of DSDMhas been successfullytrialled and demonstratedin the CIdS TDP

Traditionally a financial contingencyis held, to be called upon ifdifficulties are encountered indelivering the required projectoutputs. DSDM renders financialcontingency redundant. Instead, theCIdS project requirements werecategorised using the MoSCoWapproach. Through a trading processduring project execution, thistechnique enabled a few Should andCould requirements to be removedfrom the project solution to prevent

potential cost and schedule overrun,without any customer penaltiesbeing incurred.

DSDM is typically applied tosoftware dominated internal changeprojects within the InformationTechnology sector. As such, theCIdS project was also seen asbreaking new ground commerciallythrough the application of DSDM ona project involving a consortium ofcompanies.

Business andCommercial

From a business perspective theuse of DSDM required asignificant change in approach tothe project.

Negotiation

As a result of the unique methodof delivering the CIDS project,negotiations had to overcome theimpacts of using DSDM.Thankfully we were all learningtogether!

The TDL DT had an initial concernthat the consortium would abandonShould and Could requirements atthe first opportunity and anincentivisation mechanism wassought. However, this approachcontradicted DSDM principleswhere cost – and hence price – isfixed, with requirement tradingoffering the project contingency.During contract negotiation thisincentivisation position was relaxedas the TDL DT recognised that theconsortium would aim to maximisethe delivered capability.

One aspect that required ongoingnegotiation through the project wasthe payment plan. Once the projectstarted, it became apparent that thedetailed project schedule that wasdeveloped during the initial stagesof the project no longer fitted thepayment plan that had been agreedprior to contract award. By taking apragmatic and flexible approach, andrecognising that this is the nature ofDSDM, TDL DT and industry wereable to align programme andpayments.

Instead of including a detailedschedule of the project delivery withthe bid submission, expert advicewas that this process should beperformed jointly with the TDL DTafter contract award as part of theFoundation phase. This was not, itwas advised later, what the TDL DTwanted to hear!

Before the team launched into detailit needed to put the project intocontext by focusing on thefundamental project objectives. Thiswas achieved through thecollaborative development of aSingle Statement of User Needwhich stated:

“Report blue force trackinformation to authorisedrequesting entities on demand inthe Close Air Support (CAS)mission.”

As the planning progressed, so didthe collective understanding of thetechnique.

A key objective of the DSDMapproach is to progressively reducerisk through incrementally deliveringa solution. As such, establishinghow the technical solution would beelaborated within the DSDMframework was also a key part ofthe planning the overall strategy fordelivery of the CIdS project.

Planning thestrategy

The project delivery strategystarted with the TDL DT requiringthe use of DSDM as the projectdelivery method. With theoretical,but little practical experience ofDSDM, the consortium used anexternal DSDM expert to guide usthrough the bid phase.

The initial stages of the projectrequired a fair degree oftolerance to lack of clarity!

Techniques

The selection of DSDM for theCIsS TDP was motivated by theTDL DT’s objective todemonstrate that complexmilitary technologies could bedelivered without delay or costoverrun.

Using DSDM, the CIdS projectcomprised three distinct phases.The Foundation Phase developedthe requirements, technical design,and also planned in detail thesubsequent Exploration/EngineeringPhase where the CIdS solution wasincrementally developed through a

series of timeboxes whereMoSCoW’d requirements werelogically grouped. These timeboxesconstrained the implementation totime, cost and quality. The finalDeployment Phase demonstratedthe CIdS solution to end users.

Project success was builton the outline planningdeveloped in theFoundation Phase.

Throughout the CIdS project, focuswas maintained on control andmetrics regarding achivementswithin each timebox. Whilst allproject timeboxes were plannedahead in outline, as individualtimeboxes ended, the performancewithin that timebox enabled thedetailed planning of the nexttimebox.

This incremental and iterativedevelopment approach whereachievement informs ongoing planswas at the heart of the project.

Organisationand Governance

Using a facilitated workshop aspart of the Foundation phase theCIdS project organisation wasdeveloped resulting in consensusand buy in from the projectoutset.

Nominated individuals wereassigned to the roles detailed in thestructure which have definedresponsibilities. The CIdS projectteam comprised individuals fromTDL DT, General Dynamics UK(industry consortium lead),consortium partners RockwellCollins UK and Qinetiq as well as

3SDL, the TDL DT’s specialisttechnical advisor. One clear andhighly beneficial outcome of usingthe DSDM ‘Space Alien’ structurewas that it removed any hierarchyassociated with the contractualrelationships, resulting in a trulyintegrated team.

Empowerment of theindividuals allocated to theroles was a pre-requisite

Reviewing structures were put inplace to ensure appropriategovernance of the project,comprising monthly project reviewswith the General Dynamics UK

Programme Director and gatereviews at the end of each phaseand increment with representationfrom both industry and the TDL DT.

CIdS TDP DSDM Organisation Chart – The ‘Space Alien’

PersonnelManagement

Requiring the implementation ofa new project managementmethod required people with apragmatic, flexible and openminded approach. For all involvedthe project offered a greatpersonal developmentopportunity.

Selection of the right personnel tolead and work on the project wascritical. DSDM requires people withthe ability to work effectively withincollaborative teams and a toleranceof ambiguity. This was not a projectfor task focused left-brained projectmanagers!

Equally the assignment of thetechnical co-ordinator role waspivotal. The role has required acombination of technical domainknowledge, foresight and leadershipto ensure the technical solutionachieved its requirements.

The CIdS project, with its groundbreaking use of DSDM providedexcellent personal, as well asorganisation, learning experience.

Traditionally there is reticence toshare ‘warts and all’ informationbetween partners and/or customer.As the team relationship developed,aided by significant periods of co-located working, an open and nosurprises culture of communicationdeveloped. A clear no blamemandate was established topromote open and honestcommunication. Where frustrationsbetween groups did develop theywere effectively addressed toprevent any damage to the day today working relationships.

Other communication aids werealso developed by the team.Through timebox managementworksheets, clear communication ofrequirements to be implemented,associated estimates and theallocated of resource were provided.Daily progress of timeboxes wasreviewed by team leads such thatexceptions were managed as theyarose instead of later.

A key facilitator of effectivecommunication was an electronicShared Working Environment,supported by email, andtelephone/video conferencing.

Communication

Continuous, clear and effectivecommunication has been amantra for the CIdS project.

Personally, the CIdS projectwas a great developmentexperience

Gavin Green – CIdS Technical Coordinator

CIdS project success wasunderpinned by the Foundationphase outputs and the associatedfacilitated workshops. Through thefoundation phase the projectdeveloped the plans collaborativelyensuring consensus. Strongleadership however ensured thatthere was no management bycommittee that could have resultedin indecision and deviation from theproject objectives. Establishing thedetailed technical requirement andpartitioning these into a logicaldevelopment strategy waschallenging but the detailing of thetimeboxes was eventually achieved.

Emphasis through the Explorationand Engineering phase was toensure that the project objectiveswere delivered. Managing scheduleadherence was relativelystraightforward since it was boundby the timeboxing. However metricswere devised to monitorperformance against technicaloutcomes to help inform theplanning of subsequent timeboxes.These also addressed concerns thatincomplete timeboxed requirementscould be deferred into latertimeboxes, potentially resulting in abow wave resulting in a technicalsolution only meeting the ‘Must’requirements.

Executing theStrategy

From the outset, the CIdS projectsought to differentiate itself byreshaping the traditional MoD –Industry relationship.

The detailing of the incrementsand timeboxes caused somenervousness, but once completedresulted in what the TDL DT called‘the Eureka moment!’

CIDS TDP – Success Factors

Coaching andMentoring

DSDM as project deliverytechnique was new to everybodyand meant that we all learnttogether.

Expert DSDM input during theproject bid phase broughtconfidence that the plannedapproach to the delivery of CIdSwas the right one. As a result, theindustry consortium was able tocontribute from an informedperspective during the crucialFoundation Phase workshops.

Throughout it was important toensure that all involved maintainedthe same common view of whatDSDM meant for the CIdS project.Whilst there was early confusionthat DSDM was a substitute forengineering process, through teammentoring a common understandingwas soon established.

Teamwork

Successful delivery of the CIdSproject was achieved through thebehaviours and motivations ofthe people involved – theteamwork.

A new project delivery methodrequired key personnel with apragmatic, flexible and open mindedapproach, coupled with a tolerancefor ambiguity and excellentteambuilding skills.

The teamwork has come aboutthrough the desire to collaborate, tolearn together, communicate andbuild the necessary relationships tosuccessfully deliver the CIdSproject.

Any stresses in the team dynamichave been recognised and dealtwith early, and before they becomeissues.

Teamwork onCIdS has beenunderpinned byhaving the rightpersonalities inthe key projectroles

ConflictManagement

Through the highly collaborativeand open team approach, with ano surprises culture, conflict hasbeen kept to a minimum.

As in most projects there have beenstress points during the project, butbecause of the team relationships,these have been anticipated andquickly resolved.

In traditional projects with theirfixation on the achievement of alltechnical requirements, a defensive

We left conflict tothose better qualified!

posture can often arise if problemsin achieving those requirementsemerge. The CIdS project, throughthe highly collaborative approach,and safety net of requirementscontingency resulted in a far moreopen environment where good andbad issues were openly discussed.

RiskManagement

CIdS benefitted from a riskmanagement strategy that usedan incremental developmentapproach in which high riskrequirements were tackled early,with requirements flexibilityprotecting on-cost, on-schedule, to quality delivery.

A joint risk register was establishedto inform timebox management andongoing engineering development,but not to identify any requiredfinancial contingency. Instead ofholding financial contingency, anyadditional funds that were requiredto ensure delivery of ‘must have’requirements were drawn from thebudget associated with delivery oflesser priority tradablerequirements.

Key benefits that resulted from theway in which the CIdS project wasmanaged include:

l More believable plans, schedulesand budgets, and likelihood ofadherence were a fundamentaloutcome as a result of the DSDMapproach with its fixed cost andtime approach.

l Using DSDM led to a contractwhich eliminated financialcontingency, delivery maximumpossible capability for the fundsavailable.

l The timeboxing approach resultedin multiple decision points at theend of each timebox, and eachincrement, at which alternativeways forward were compared.

l The cost base for the project wasreduced as no financialcontingency was needed.

l Through the Single Statement ofUser Need a common vision ofthe project objectives wascollaboratively developed.

l With short timebox spans, riskassessment has been aided bythe increased focus that resulted.

l Greater risk taking was enabledas by principle the project couldnot go over budget, or slipschedule. This allowed desirablebut higher risk requirements tobe included as Should or Couldrequirements without fear ofpenalty to the project. As a resultgreater capability has beendelivered to the end-user for thesame money than wouldotherwise have been possible.

With MoD funds under continualpressure, successfullydemonstrating incrementalcapability was also way of reducingthe risk of project cancellation bykeeping stakeholders engaged andsupportive of the CIdS project.

The net effect was that

100 per cent of theproject budget wasdedicated to thedelivery ofcapability

CIDS TDP – Summary

The CIdS project has been a learning experience for all involved, and hasdemonstrated that the MoD and industry can employ radical projectmanagement techniques to successfully deliver a technically complexproject.

Through using DSDM on theproject, the traditionalcustomer/supplier and primecontractor/subcontractor divideshave been bridged to form whattruly has been an integrated projectteam. The one for all, all for oneethos has prevailed throughout,resulting in a team that focused ondelivering on the project objectivesrather than what is best forindividual organisations.

Whilst DSDM has been central tothe delivery of the project, it is not apanacea. The CIdS project hasultimately been successful becauseof the team – their professionalism,their technical capabilities and theircommitment to the principles ofDSDM.

The use of DSDM was a bold move,but the CIDS project has deliveredsuccessful outcomes for allinvolved. In the current economicenvironment, delivering acceptablesolutions on time and at a fixed costis surely a priority for the MoD. Thesuccess of the CIdS project mayhave provided pointers for the futureof project management in thedefence sector.

The use of the Dynamic SystemsDevelopment Method has been key to the success of the CombatIdentification Server TDP: agile projectmanagement techniques, the closeinvolvement of stakeholdersthroughout, including interimdemonstrations, and a constant focuson the deliverables have ensured thatthe final product will truly hit themark. This methodology has clearlyworked extremely well and I wouldhope to see lessons from this projectapplied to future projects.

Major Fiona Galbraith, MoD sponsor.

Commendation

DSDM is a registered trademark ofDynamics Systems DevelopmentMethod Limited

www.generaldynamics.uk.com

GDUK878 06/10

© October 2010 General Dynamics United Kingdom Limited

The information contained in this publication is supplied by General Dynamics UKLimited (GDUK). It does not form part of any contract for the purchase of any productor service described in this publication. Although GDUK makes every effort to verifythe accuracy of the information contained in this publication, the company accepts noresponsibility 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 uponsuch information.