Enterprise Implementation of a Software-As-A-Service Solution: An Experience Report

1. Enterprise Implementation of a Software-As-A-Service Solution: An Experience Report Bryan Campbell MBA, PMP, ITIL Senior Program Manager BMC Software, Inc. Alan Birchenough BSc, CSM, ITIL Consultant Object Information Services

2. Agenda • Introduce SaaS • Introduce our Project • Describe Retrospective Approach • Apply Approach to Project • Summarize Findings • Invite Discussion

3. Software-as-a-Service – What is it? • A “new” approach to providing software solutions • Multi-tenant solution, many companies use the same infrastructure • Focus on configuration over customization • Intent is to ‘free’ companies from managing the costs of hardware and underlying software requirements (operating systems, databases etc.) • Subscription model versus license/maintenance model • One benefit of this model is a faster implementation model and less operational server/software management • Another is the introduction of a ‘service’ philosophy, subscriptions service don’t have the same ‘lock-in’ as in-house license solutions

4. SaaS: Coming soon to a project near you • SaaS is having a major impact on technology projects • 17% growth for cloud computing and SaaS firms vs. 4.8% for on-premises software for 2010 (Gartner) • Rapidly growing in every major software segment • Gartner has forecast the worldwide SaaS market to double from $8 billion in 2009 to $16 billion by the end of 2013 • 17% growth for cloud computing and SaaS firms vs. 4.8% for on-premises software for 2010. • IDC reported SaaS growth surged by more than 40 percent in 2009 despite the global IT down • Not all SaaS solutions are equal • Gold rush mentality still at play which can impact your project

5. SaaS Projects: What’s the Difference? SaaS solutions are good candidates for more Agile Delivery techniques SaaS models require effective Procurement Management to establish contracts and Service Level Agreements It’s a brave new world but not everything is different:

6. SaaS Professional Services AutomationCase Study • Goals • Improve global resource utilization • Implement standard global processes and governance • Increase field productivity • Product: • Audience: Global solution, 1000 Users including partners • Duration: 10 months • Budget: $2.3M • Scope: See graphic

7. Overall Project View

8. Project Demographics • Project Teams • Core Team • PS Business: 11 roles • IT: 14 roles • Extended Team: 32 roles • Target Population: 850 active users • PMs, Consultants, Contractors • Managers • Operations • Accountants • Global: Americas, EMEA, AP

9. Retrospective by Discipline We still find the Rational Unified Process (RUP) Disciplines and Phase model useful for large initiatives:

10. Retrospective "Template" • What We Did • Main points of the implementation strategy per discipline • Retrospective

11. Business Modeling - What We Did • Initially cataloged processes • Started with focus on requirements and configuration • Used Scenario-based Demos to Establish Process & Configuration • Built Processes “Bottom Up" Towards the End of Release 2 • Appointed Process Coordinators • Used a Lean Team Process

12. Business Modeling - Retrospective Questions • f

13. Requirements - What We Did • Stakeholder Identification • Vision • Product Alignment Workshop • Breakout Sessions • Extensive Meeting Records • Use Cases • Some Domain (Type / Class) Modeling • Thorough Application Logical Data Model (LDM) and Dictionary Onboard Partner Find Resource Resource Mgr Approve Resource Request (Typical Use Case Diagram)

14. Requirements - Retrospective

15. Analysis / Design: Integrations

16. Analysis / Design - What We Did • Configuration • Based on Alignment, Breakout Sessions and Demos • Integration • Conceptual and Physical Design for each of ~ 13 Integrations (Typical Integration Sequence Diagram) • Reports • Some Sessions Led by Business Intelligence Analyst • Artifacts • Report Inventory • Measure and Dimension Matrix • Extensive Business Analyst input into Warehouse Model and Extract / Transform / Load (ETL) Design

17. Analysis / Design - Retrospective

18. Implementation - What We Did • No Customization • All Integrations and Data Warehousing implemented via “traditional“ lifecycle • Integrations • New Subscriber Components • New Polling Components • Staging • Data Warehousing • ETL • Warehouse Implementation

19. Implementation - Retrospective

20. Test - What We Did • Conference Room Pilots (CRP) • Emphasized Testing "Intra" the Application • Obtained Valuable Feedback for Refining Config • System Integration Tests (SIT) • Emphasized Testing "Between" the Application and Other Systems • User Acceptance Tests (UAT) • End-to-end Process Scenarios • Some Scripting, Some Exploratory Testing • Early Training Collateral Used to Drive Test Activities • Not All Converted Data Available

21. Test - Retrospective

22. Project Management - What We Did • Communication-Enabled Structure • Multiple Work Streams • Critical Path Reviews • "Agile in Parts" Pattern • Agile • Scenario-based Iterations with Demos • Data Conversion for Phase 1 • Waterfall • Integrations • Reporting • Data Conversion for Phase 2 • Started with Formal Artifacts • Then Switched to Demos a.s.a.p. • Introduced a Release 1 • Defined "Just enough" Scope for Release 2

23. "Agile in Parts" Planning Process

24. Project Management - Retrospective • More Agility for: • Config • Application Reporting • Data Conversion

25. Project Management Characteristics of SaaS • SaaS is Agile • Working software all the time • Rapid turn-around of requirements • Configuration not customization • With multi-tenant model • YAGNI-enabled * • Feature-driven • Scenario-oriented • SaaS Can Be "Heavyweight" • According to Scaling Factors and Risks that Apply * YaAin’tGonna Need It

26. Agile Scaling Factors (Ambler)

27. Conclusion / Recommendations • Emphasize the PMP Process Areas with focus on Procurement and enabling the Timing using Agile techniques • Plan to do "Agile in Parts“ • Make at least Two Releases unless your Project is Tiny • Focus on Business Process Scenarios • Ensure the Business has Process Ownership / Oversight • Rightsize your Project Approach • Communicate, communicate, communicate...

28. Q&A ?

29. Speaker Bios • Bryan Campbell, MBA, PMP, CSM, ITIL • Senior Program Manager at BMC Software • Keen interest in program management and agile transformations. • Actively engaged in applying, mentoring and teaching Agile and Lean techniques on large scale projects. • Alan Birchenough, • BSc, CSM, ITIL • Currently Senior Business Analyst at Object Information Services • Consultant on: • SaaS Implementations • Agile Project Management • Agile Requirements Mgt • Software Process Management • Enterprise Business Architecture. • Recent work has included leading the analysis team on a $2.3M ‘post-agile’ SaaS deployment at BMC Software • Previously introduced and directed Executable Agile Requirements on a fixed price $15M custom software development project • Continuously evaluates and learns from, experience with agile, lean, and domain-driven analysis / design • More information is available at www.alanbirchenough.com. • Previously, as the Vice-President of Delivery Services for Valtech Technologies Inc., an Agile and Lean Transformation consulting company, responsible for directing more than 150 consultants applying agile and lean software development techniques. • Frequent speaker at various local conferences and professional organizations, recently presented at the 2009 PMO Symposium, and the APLN Leadership Summit 2009. • Profile is available at www.linkedin.com/in/bryancampbell.

30. Contact Information Bryan Campbell BMC Software http://www.bryancampbell.com (281) 620-3038 bryan@bryancampbell.com Alan Birchenough Object Information Services http://www.alanbirchenough.com (713) 992-2758 alan@alanbirchenough.com