In response, we have testified  and reported on lengthy federal IT projects that too frequently incur cost  overruns and schedule slippages while contributing little to mission- related outcomes. Agile software development supports the practice of shorter software  delivery. Effective Practices for Applying Agile

We identified 32 practices and approaches as effective for applying  Agile to software development projects, based on an analysis of practices  identified by experienced Agile users. Our analysis also found that the  identified practices generally align with five key project management  activities outlined in widely-accepted software development guidance:  strategic planning, organizational commitment and collaboration,  preparation, execution, and evaluation. Start with Agile guidance and an Agile adoption strategy. Empower small, cross-functional teams. Enhance migration to Agile concepts using Agile terms and  examples. Provide examples, such as one illustrating the  small scope of a user story to teams writing these stories. Include requirements related to security and progress  monitoring in your queue of unfinished work (backlog). Continuously improve Agile adoption at both the project level  and organization level. Seek to identify and address impediments at the organization  and project levels. Gain trust by demonstrating value at the end of each iteration. Track progress using tools and metrics. Track progress daily and visibly. Federal Use of Effective Practices

Officials who have used Agile on federal projects at five agencies  generally agreed that the practices identified by the experienced users  are effective in a federal setting. Specifically, each practice was used and  found effective by officials from at least one agency. Federal Challenges in Applying Agile

We identified 14 challenges with adapting to and applying Agile in the  federal environment based on an analysis of experiences collected from  five federal agencies that had applied Agile to a development effort. Teams had difficulty transitioning to self-directed work: Officials  at two agencies reported that staff had challenges in transitioning to  self-directed teams. Staff had difficulty committing to more timely and frequent input:  While Agile advocates frequent input and feedback from all  stakeholders, four agency officials noted challenges to commit to  meeting such input expectations. Timely adoption of new tools was difficult: As identified in the  effective practices, automated tools may be used to support project  planning and reporting. Compliance reviews were difficult to execute within an iteration  time frame: Iterations may incorporate compliance reviews to ensure,  for example, that agency legal and policy requirements are being met  within the iteration. Traditional artifact reviews do not align with Agile: Traditional  oversight requires detailed artifacts in the beginning of a project, such  as cost estimates and strategic plans, while Agile advocates  incremental analysis. Traditional status tracking does not align with Agile: Officials from  three agencies noted that project status tracking in Agile does not  align with traditional status tracking methods, creating challenges. Recommendation for Executive Action

To ensure that the experiences of those who have used Agile  development are shared broadly, we recommend that the Federal CIO  Council, working with its chair, the Office of Management and Budget’s  Deputy Director for Management, include practices such as those  discussed in this report in the Council’s ongoing effort to promote modular  development in the federal government. In oral comments on the draft, OMB’s E- government program manager said that the draft recommendation was  better addressed to the Federal CIO Council than to the OMB official who  is the chair of the Council. Accordingly, we revised the recommendation  to address it to the Council, working with its chair, the OMB Deputy  Director for Management. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to identify (1) effective practices in applying Agile for  software development solutions and (2) federal challenges in  implementing Agile development techniques. The questionnaire  asked whether these practices were used and found effective.
Why GAO Did This Study

Federal agencies depend on IT to support their missions and spent at least $76 billion on IT in fiscal year 2011. However, long-standing congressional interest has contributed to the identification of numerous examples of lengthy IT projects that incurred cost overruns and schedule delays while contributing little to mission-related outcomes. To reduce the risk of such problems, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recommends modular software delivery consistent with an approach known as Agile, which calls for producing software in small, short increments. Recently, several agencies have applied Agile practices to their software projects.
Accordingly, GAO was asked to identify (1) effective practices in applying Agile for software development solutions and (2) federal challenges in implementing Agile development techniques. To do so, GAO identified and interviewed ten experienced users and officials from five federal projects that used Agile methods and analyzed and categorized their responses.

What GAO Found

GAO identified 32 practices and approaches as effective for applying Agile software development methods to IT projects. The practices generally align with five key software development project management activities: strategic planning, organizational commitment and collaboration, preparation, execution, and evaluation. Officials who have used Agile methods on federal projects generally agreed that these practices are effective. Specifically, each practice was used and found effective by officials from at least one agency, and ten practices were used and found effective by officials from all five agencies. The ten practices are:
Start with Agile guidance and an Agile adoption strategy.
Enhance migration to Agile concepts using Agile terms, such as user stories (used to convey requirements), and Agile examples, such as demonstrating how to write a user story.
Continuously improve Agile adoption at both the project level and organization level.
Seek to identify and address impediments at the organization and project levels.
Obtain stakeholder/customer feedback frequently.
Empower small, cross-functional teams.
Include requirements related to security and progress monitoring in your queue of unfinished work (the backlog).
Gain trust by demonstrating value at the end of each iteration.
Track progress using tools and metrics.
Track progress daily and visibly.
GAO identified 14 challenges with adapting and applying Agile in the federal environment:
Teams had difficulty collaborating closely.
Procurement practices may not support Agile projects.
Teams had difficulty transitioning to self-directed work.
Customers did not trust iterative solutions.
Staff had difficulty committing to more timely and frequent input.
Teams had difficulty managing iterative requirements.
Agencies had trouble committing staff.
Compliance reviews were difficult to execute within an iteration time frame.
Timely adoption of new tools was difficult.
Federal reporting practices do not align with Agile.
Technical environments were difficult to establish and maintain.
Traditional artifact reviews do not align with Agile.
Agile guidance was not clear.
Traditional status tracking does not align with Agile.
Finally, officials described efforts to address challenges by clarifying previously unclear guidance on using Agile. In a related effort, the Federal Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council is developing guidance on modular development in the federal government, but it does not specifically address effective practices for Agile.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is recommending that the Federal CIO Council, working with its chair, OMBs Deputy Director for Management, include practices such as those discussed in this report in the Councils ongoing effort to promote modular development. After reviewing a draft of this report, OMB commented that the recommendation was better addressed to the Council than to its chair. GAO revised the recommendation to address it to the Council working with its chair.