Agility can be seen as a method of managing risk. By delivering early and often, any leap of confidence taken before seeing empirical evidence of growth is reduced. Hence, agile methods change not only in the method in which increments of value are provided but in the way risk is measured.
Scrum, on the other hand, will limit work-in-progress to a Sprint time box of no longer than one month. The work being carried out is thus likely to encompass multiple items, but it allows a substantial goal for each time box to be framed and allows for more critical risks to be moderated on a constant cadence. This is the goal why Scrum is generally preferred for development projects, while Lean Kanban methods are more typical of operational support work once those projects have ended. If the threats of developing a complex software product have been talked, then a flow of support and maintenance tasks can be optimized.
What, though, does this mean for DevOps? When the Development and Operations gap is efficiently bridged, all of these capabilities become summarized within a DevOps team or studio. This can principal to the expectation that any risk can be controlled by a DevOps stream. However, a DevOps ensemble is still subject to the constraints that disturb any workgroup. If a request is not managed effectively, performance can be predictable to degrade along with the effective use of controls, with risk management.
Suggested Read: Amplify agile with DevOps
In this approach, it is first recognized that the point at which overall success is more likely than failure lies exactly halfway up the y-axis. This is known as the relative superiority line (R.S. line). Secondly, it is predictable that the area above and to the left of the plot-line signifies an area of vulnerability which must be minimized. Thirdly, it is acknowledged that it is most important to lessen the vulnerability below the R.S line — which is to say, the level of 50% risk — because that is the tipping point where achievement becomes likely. The y-axis is redefined in terms of percentage risk magnitude, 100% representing the point at which all risks have been mitigated and success is at hand.
Once we have a model, we can start to optimize it. For example, we might diminish the area of vulnerability by modifying the build and deployment characters after integration with the upgraded core. This would allow comparative superiority to be achieved more quickly, reducing the window of risk during which any frictions could take a consequence.
Read: DevOps key practices
Note that once a project manages its risks to the point that relative superiority is achieved, it does not mean that success is guaranteed; it just means that once that point is extended, watchful handling of each risk is likely to result in whole success. Thereafter, it is improbable that the initiative will have to be terminated.
Of course, this is just a projective model. A risk above the R.S. line might develop compounded in ways that were not predicted, such that it cannot be dealt with, and which might thereby still lead to total disappointment. For example, build and deployment may fail due to incorrectly modified scripts, a problem which might not be resolved in the time available. In other words, you can’t anticipate each and every eventuality. A projective risk burns up chart can certainly be useful for time box planning, but it’s still only a model of what you expect to happen in the real world.