Sample Deployment Pipeline Diagram

Deployment Pipeline

In the diagram above you can clearly see that the IT organization created a rich and robust set of approval processes and committees to improve the quality of every change that goes into production. When this team needs to react quickly, they skip some of the manual review processes. This is a top-down driven solution to the problem since the executive leaders manage the risk with the business partners directly.

The table below is the best case scenario, without an executive override.

Stage Time Estimate
Prioritization Review Twice a week
Supporting data request 1 day
Estimation process & approval 1 day
Solution Design & architectural approval 1 day
Solution Development 1 day – offshore team
COE Review and approval 1 day – Automated static analysis for .Net and some Java
Functional testing 1 day of spot testing manually in parallel4 hours for automation suite
Functional test review Same day
Operational Readiness 1 day for deployment + 1 day for testing
Deployment to production 1 day
Total 8-10 days

However the default process for high priority items takes 4-6 weeks and normal workflow is 3-6 months if a change fits within a pre-approved and funded project. The resources required to manage the flow of work through the process is over 10% of the overall solution cost. The queues are always at maximum so variability in the workload is minimized.

This is a very sharp contrast to Agile solution development.

 

David Guimbellot, Area Vice President of Test Data Management & Continuous Delivery at Orasi Software

By Jim Azar

James (Jim) Azar, Orasi Senior VP and Chief Technology Officer A 29-year veteran of the software and services industry, Jim Azar is charged with oversight of service delivery, technology evaluation, and strategic planning at Orasi. Among his many professional credits, Azar was a co-founder of Technology Builders, Inc. (TBI), where he built the original CaliberRM requirements management tool. Azar earned a B.S. in Computer Science from the University of Alabama, College of Engineering, where he was named to the Deans’ Leadership Board. He furthered his education with advanced and continuing studies at Stanford University, Carnegie Mellon, and Auburn University at Montgomery. Azar has been published in both IEEE and ACM.

Leave a comment