Simple Planning

What is necessary when you need to plan the next sprint/iteration ?

The picture above is the result of a chat with Lasse in my current project, and it was enough to set the expectations for the two weeks of work we had to plan.

Each post it is a story and time goes from left to right. Stories that are in the same vertical line can be played at the same time, and that big pile on the right means that those stories are dependent on each other, but can still be played simultaneously if developers are careful and communicate enough with each other.

This wasn’t anything planned, but it was simple enough for what we needed, and since we were working in a distributed team, taking a picture and sending it around was they way we had to share it with everyone. Worked just fine : )

What’s the Tech Lead Doing Anyway ?

Some days ago when having a discussion at work about the responsibility of the tech lead in an agile team, I’ve realized that this is not a so simple subject as I thought it was. Therefore, good subject for a post : )

But before being dictatorial and just writing my opinion, I ran a small twitter poll asking about this subject. Fortunately, most of the answers matched what I think in some level, so hopefully I will be able to cover it all here.

Before starting, a last note. I was reminded that the term tech lead might not be so used and known as I think it is, so if you don’t use this term at all, sorry : ). You can replace tech lead for architect, technical manager, master jedi, whatever you feel like…

Giving an introduction, the tech lead (TL)  term is defined here as a person who has the technical overview over a specific project. Some people disagree about the need for a tech lead at all, but that’s the topic for another post, and here we will assume that the tech lead exists and is a single person. Ok, that was the easy part.

Now the more subtle (and polemic) part comes here, so I will give my opinion on it (with the help from @dtsato and @flessa).

What a tech lead should be doing:

Have a technical overview over the whole project – As a developer doing everyday work, it is easy to lose the long term perspective about where the project is going and make decisions that will be better in the short term, but harm the project in the long way. It’s the job of the TL to keep that in the mind of the development team.

Make sure the project has a common face – Standards are important IMO, and making sure the project still makes sense as a whole, avoiding knowledge silos it’s the job of the TL. He shouldn’t have to enforce standards or ways to develop code, but facilitate the discussion within the team.

Remove technical impediments – As the most experienced person in the project, its natural that sometimes the TL will be the person in the best position to remove technical blockages that the team might have.

Bring people to a good technical level – If the team has different levels of experience, the TL should work to help people achieve a good work quality by sharing his knowledge and incentive others to do the same.

Write code. Write a lot of code – The TL is not a superior being that gives directions from the top of a mountain. Don’t know about your opinion, but if I can’t rely on the TL to sit down and pair with me when I have a problem I can’t solve, it’s no good to me.

I think that is enough for now. Now, for what the tech lead should not be doing:

Be the person responsible for the code – Being the tech lead doesn’t mean being the owner of the code, or the team’s boss. It’s everyone’s job to create high quality software, and the TL should only expose problems to the team and lead them in the right direction (emphasis on lead, not mandate).

Making all the difficult decisions alone - During a project, the team will be exposed to different technical decisions that will have to be made. Allowing the TL to take them alone just expose the team to more risk, since they won’t understand/care about what was decided. What we want to achieve is that Paulo exemplified here.

Impose his opinion – This is probably the most important point. Remember collective code ownership ? It is still very important. No matter how brilliant a TL can be, if he can’t share his knowledge/decisions and specially the responsability with the rest of the team, things will go bad.

Dev Complete? No!

Recently we’ve had a discussion in a project I was working on about the concepts behind dev complete and qa complete stories, which are normally in a lot of agile wall’s swim lanes, and how they affect the project’s flow.

The point here is not to discuss how to measure your goals, since this was discussed in previous posts, but what I wanted to explain is how (what I’ve realized during that discussion) I don’t like the term dev complete, and why it can affect your team.

First of all, development complete implies the idea that we don’t need any more development in one specific story, and as anyone who has been in an agile project might have noticed, this is less true than we wanted it to be.

What frequently happens is that stories which are in the dev complete lane come back to development when they don’t meet the QA criteria, and suddenly development has to be done again for something that didn’t need any more development.

And what I find most annoying is that development complete has the word complete on it, which has an underlying meaning that someone (the devs, in this case) have completed their job, and that they could feel good about it at this point.

What goes away when this assumption enters someone’s mind is the fact that the objective (for all the team, including those devs), is after the qa complete stage, when the story is actually delivered. And this situation just gives another motive to the always disturbing separation between developers and qa’s.

So if you believe in how measures affect the results of a team as I do (more info on that here, here, here, here, here, here and here), change all your dev complete stories to qa ready, or something similar, and enjoy a little bit more peace of mind.

What is Your Goal?

One of the best things about Agile is the introduction of software development as a system. Software stopped being treated as a sequence of separated steps to be seen as people with different competences working together to achieve one goal: deliver software.

This is not new in any sense, and it was exemplified by Deming on one of his books:

I could do a much better job (fewer mistakes) if I knew what the program is to be used for. The specifications don’t tell me what I need to know.

Despite this advance, most software development teams fail in really understanding this concept, and still normally don’t see the power of using one unique measure to manage the project, not getting the idea that the effort of the system should be only measured once, in what is its goal.

You must be asking what is the problem of having different measures to verify the sanity of the project. And that is what Peter Drucker explains in his Post-Capitalist Society book:

In knowledge work… the task is not given, it has to be determined. ‘What are the expected results from this work?’ is the key question in making knowledge workers productive. And it is a question that demands risky decisions. There is usually no right answer; there are choices instead. And results have to be clearly specified, if productivity is to be achieved.

What it means is that tasks cannot be fully specified anymore, the workers have to make decisions every time about how to proceed in certain situations, and they can just do it correctly if they have a clear vision of what is to be obtained, and what is the final goal of the work they are doing.

This concept is also illustrated in the draft version of Mary and Tom Poppendieck’s latest book (still in the draft version), when they are explaining the case of Southwest Airlines, which has as main advantage against the competition, the fact that its planes stay less time in the ground, thus generating more revenue.

Southwest maintains a systems perspective; it doesn’t let individual department measurements or increased revenue opportunities distract it from the primary objective of maintaining profitability. Southwest makes it clear to every employee – from the agent closing the gate to the baggage handler transferring luggage – what is important from an overall perspective. Everyone at Southwest knows the mantra: “Airplanes don’t make money sitting on the ground.” So everyone works together to get each plane in the air as fast as possible.

The important here is that we have one measure. One variable that everyone can rely on to make decisions during their work, and the ability to do it makes a whole difference in the overall performance of a team,  fact that often not considered in software development, where different measures distract people from the main goal.

As an example, a common situation I’ve seen in project is to track bugs within the iteration, and use it as a measure of code quality. Well, the goal of a software team is to deliver software without bugs, but it doesn’t matter at all if in the process of creating software bugs are found and solved prior to the software being released. If that is the way the team works best, so be it.

Another example is a case where a project had a problem with bugs creeping (this time, after iteration was finished and software delivered), and when discussing the fact we’ve realized that because of the pressure to deliver, we were delivering development complete, and not QA complete stories, so QA was actually done after the iteration finished, and yes, the team’s velocity was based on development complete points.

Well… if the goal you set to the team is to deliver dev complete stories, guess what you’re receiving in the end… dev complete stories!, it doesn’t matter how many times you repeat “Let’s focus on delivering quality software“. As Goldratt said, “Tell me how you measure me and I will tell you how I will behave.”

So, what is your goal?

Lean Lego Game @XP 2009

Next month, Me and Danilo Sato will be presenting the Lego Lean Game ate XP 2009, which will be held in Sardinia.

So, what is it?

The Lego Lean Game is an activity developed to teach people about the basic concepts of Lean thinking in a dynamic and fun way, demonstrating Lean practices in an imaginary production line to build Lego houses.

Why?

The idea came from the fact that Lean is becoming a common term in software development, but many people haven’t been introduced to the concepts that made it successful. This workshop aims at introducing this concepts to the participants, making them understand where Lean comes from, and why apply them in the software world.

Should I Come?

If you are interested in Lean, but haven’t had time to study about it, this is the perfect place for you. More experienced people are also welcome, since the hands-on activity makes you discover many aspects that might have been missed before.

If you want to have a better idea of how it is, you can check this video (sorry for the shaky camera : ) ), from the presentation we made at Agiles 2008.

Hope to see you there!

More!

Since the advent of the industrial age, we have had a terrific word: “more.” It really worked for everything. When our roads became crowded, we built more roads. When our cities became unsafe, we hired more police officers, ordered more police cars, and built more prisons.

This is the introduction for one of the chapters of the book I’m currently reading, Information Anxiety, which talks about how to live in a world where we don’t have time to retain all the data that is thrown at us.

What I’ve found interesting about this sentence is how it can be applied in different areas, from police officers, like stated above, to software development.

It is surprising to see how many people that work in the area believe that a software project running behind schedule can be solved with a simple measure: throw more people in the team.

It is so appealing that nobody thinks it can go wrong, and they often forget to consider some minor points, like:

• time it takes for newcomers to understand the project and its domain
• time it takes for newcomers to know the people in the project
• the decrease of communication levels brought by the addition of new nodes

and more than often, the same persons that believe in this measure forget to take a look at their team in order to really try to understand the root causes of what is happening, in a totally anti-genchi-genbutsu way of solving problems.

In a recent project I’ve participated, 4 persons were added to a 3 pairs team in order to try to increase velocity the team was delivering. Needless to say that in the first week we had a 5-pair team with 4 newcomers, and if you looked at the team room, you could see that in each pair there was one person trying to explain to the other how the system worked.

It is pretty straightforward to understand that the team was in reality less than half strong, and that in the first iteration we delivered…. guess what? Half the points.

So if you are thinking about ramping up, think again, and again, and again, and spend some time just looking at how your team works before you make any decision.

Does it Really Work?

Last week during TW London Last Thursday event, I had the pleasure to see this presentation from Dave Robertson and John Johnston (or at least part of it), about how Agile and User Centered design are more a match, sharing goals and values, than different approaches to software development.

If you have some time you should really watch it, it is worth the time.

The overall presentation is really good, but the reason I’m posting here is one specific point that was mentioned, which I believe really hit the spot, and that’s when they say we should rethink the word work in the “the simplest thing that could possibly work” sentence.

This point goes back to the Agile Vs Usability discussion and it is very correct IMO, because it reiterates that development teams should not deliver any code just because it was quick to develop it and the client is happy (although he shouldn’t be at all) since it didn’t cost a fortune.

And what is interesting about this subject is how agile teams don’t usually accept low quality code standards (code without tests, lots of hacks, etc..), but easily accept low usability standards, not understanding that is also their responsibility to define what a good user experience is.

What I’m NOT trying to say is that the user should be left outside from the application design. He should definitely have his opinion (and a strong one), but should also receive advice in UX standards as much as he should in code quality, making sure that he understands what he loses when is trying to save money on each particular feature.

The Forces of Destruction

This post came to my mind while reading this post in Sarah‘s blog .It is not my intention to discuss pair programming (or flying a plane) here, but one thing that got my attention was the mention that there is a culture bias towards single programming, more specifically:

…Gladwell has lead me to start believing that there is a cultural bias towards single programming. Take universities for example – you can be expelled for working collaboratively; individual results count, team work in assignments is often discouraged.

And I definitely agree with it. Actually, that is exactly what Deming says in one of his books. According to him, everyone is born with a power of intrinsic motivation, dignity, cooperation, curiosity and joy in learning, but all these characteristics are consumed by the “forces of destruction” that our present style of rewards brings with it, like grades in school, competition between people and payment for individual performance.

And if we analyze it, that is kind of the funny part (not to say sad…): We teach everyone since primary school how not to collaborate with anyone. Students cannot share their knowledge in exams, are always competing for better grades, and when these same persons start they work life, one of the most requested skills is what? working with teams…

But like this isn’t enough, the same companies that hire employees “who can work in teams” still have individual performance reviews, blame cultures, give individual bonuses and promote managers because of the good performances of his subordinates. And when cooperation is not easy, everyone still wonders why is so difficult for people to work collaboratively.

And coming back to the world of agile software development, this doesn’t stop being a reality. It is not unusual to see teams where only the most experienced people are valued, where project managers have an authority position against the rest of the team and less experienced developers don’t have a say when discussing with more experience ones (and here comes pair programming….)

So, if you really want your team to work collaboratively, think about all the times where you are measuring and rewarding them individually, and stop doing it!

Speaking About Agile 2008

For the portuguese speaking crowd, the video from the presentation me and Danilo did last year at Falando em Agile 2008 is now available.

If anyone is interested, the slides can be downloaded at the presentations tab of this site.

Focus on the Right Point

This post came from a pub discussion with Liz, and actually originated from this thought I’ve been having for some time, an came back in one of my recent readings (not to say also in one of my recent projects)…

I participate in some agile mailing lists, and one question that frequently happens is what I should do about people not showing up/showing up late for the stand-ups in the morning. And normally this comes with statements like: “I’ve tried it all already: waiting, not waiting, punishing late arrivers, making them buy ice cream, etc… and nothing works”

And this situation came again to me mind while reading Ricardo Semler‘s book, Voce Esta Louco! (not published in english so far, but it means You Are Crazy!), when he describes how flexible time was introduced in his company.

To give some context, Ricardo runs Semco, a brazilian company which has business units in a lot of different areas, from shipbuilding to hotel management, but is best known for the industrial democracy that its owner has been implementing since the 80′s.

This particular situation he describes occurred when Semco, in the 80′s, was going to allow production line employees to have flexible work hours, and as expected, most of the top managers were totally against the idea, since it violated a basic principle: for a production line to work, everybody has to be there at the same time.

And ricardo’s answer for that was (free translation):

It’s obvious: if the employees are not working at the same time, the production line stops. We know it, but the adults that work in the production line also know it. And why would they put their productivity and their jobs at risk? If they are not worried about how the production line is, producing or not, then we have a much bigger problem, and the sooner we know it, the better.

And that’s what happened, one day before the program started, the employees gathered and decided what time they would start to work.

But what does this have to do with daily standups? Well, the whole example was to indtroduce the same answer I always give to these questions: if your team doesn’t show up for the standups, you shouldn’t worry about why they are late, but ask yourself why they don’t care. That’s your problem.