Why does optimising for MTBF leave organisations in a state of Discontinuous Delivery, and vulnerable to failure? How does optimising for MTTR improve reliability, and how can it encourage the adoption of Continuous Delivery?
In this article Steve Smith explains why Discontinuous Delivery is part of the tradition of optimising for robustness in IT, and how optimising for resilience can power Continuous Delivery adoption.
What does it mean to optimise for resilience? Why is resilience so valuable to an organisation, and how can operability contribute towards it?
In this article Steve Smith explains what optimising for resilience is, and why it is so valuable to IT delivery.
Why is it wrong to assume failures are preventable in IT? Why does optimising for robustness leave organisations ill-equipped to deal with failure, and what are the usual outcomes?
In this article Steve Smith explains why a production environment is always in a state of failure, why optimising for robustness results in a brittle failure response process, and why Dual Value Streams are a common countermeasure to failure.
Why do so many organisations optimise their delivery of IT services for robustness? What risk management practices are normally involved, and do their risk reduction capabilities outweigh their costs?
In this article Steve Smith explains what optimising for robustness is, and why it is inadequate for IT service delivery. This is part of the Resilience As A Continuous Delivery Enabler series.
Projects kill teams and flow Given the No Projects definition of a project as “a fixed amount of time and money assigned to deliver a large batch of value add“, it is not surprising that for many organisations a new project heralds the creation of a Project Team: A project team is a temporary organisational unit responsible…
Projects kill flow and teams. Focus on products, not projects Since the Dawn of Computer Time, enormous sums of money and embarrassing amounts of time have been squandered upon software projects that have delivered little or no return on investment, with projects floundering between segregated Business and IT divisions squabbling over overestimated value-add and underestimated delivery dates. Given…
Building Continuous Delivery into an organisation requires radical change While Continuous Delivery has a well-defined value proposition and a seminal book on how to implement a deployment pipeline, there is a dearth of information on how to transform an organisation for Continuous Delivery. Despite its culture-focussed principles and an adoption process described by Jez Humble as “organisational-architecture-process not tools-code-infrastructure“,…
Optimise accessible cycle time constraints, radiate the inaccessible The goal of Continuous Delivery is to optimise for cycle time, so that we can reduce lost opportunity costs and improve our time-to-market. However, how do we construct a cycle time strategy, and how might it be implemented without a comprehensive change mandate? A study of Continuous Delivery experience reports and Lean Thinking suggests some common…
Continuous Delivery unaccompanied by organisational change will not reduce cycle time Our Continuous Delivery value proposition describes a goal of reducing cycle time – the average time for a software release to propagate through to Production – in order to improve our time-to-market, saving time and money that can be invested back into product development and growing revenues….