Summary
|
 |
Motley: There is no harm shortcutting a few steps of development to meet a deadline. Some up-front check-in steps just take too much time. |
|
 |
Maven: Slow down to go fast. Obey check-in checklists or you will pay for it later in the development cycle. Pre-check-in tasks such as code reviews, unit testing, static analysis, and buddy builds of various flavors must not be avoided. |
______________________________
[Context: The code check-in deadline is approaching. Motley has code that is in progress and he is hurrying to get his change in prior to the build snap]
Maven: Hey, Mot. How's it-
Motley: Quiet! I have to get this code checked-in by the end of the day to meet the deadline. I don't have time to chat and need to rush to get this code in.
Maven: Whoa - maybe we should chat. Please just give me a few minutes here - it won't affect anything in the bigger scheme of things. What do you mean you have to "rush"?
Motley: The daily build starts at 6pm and it's 5:35pm. I only have 25 minutes to get the code checked-in so I have to take a few shortcuts.
Maven: I cannot stand the word "shortcut". Care to clarify?
Motley: It doesn't really matter what you can and cannot stand. But since you asked, I am going to skip writing unit tests for this last class, I am going to forgo code review because my code is always perfect anyway, and I am going to skip running FxCop just this once.
Maven: Have you ever heard the phrase, "Pay me now, or pay me more later"? What you are doing is akin to racking up credit card debt. On the outside it looks like a $5000 purchase, but in the long run it is going to cost you a lot more in interest if you do not pay off the debt as soon as the bill comes due.
Motley: Oh, no. More Maven analogies. I can do without those. And by the way, Boyz II Men called - they want their shirt back.
Maven: Always insulting my clothes! This blue and pink sweater combo isn't that bad, is it? Anyway, taking shortcuts now when the code is cheap to fix pays off in the long run and leads to quicker ship cycles and shorter bug-fix cycles later in the development cycle.
Motley: How so? Bugs are bugs, I need to fix them anyway.
Maven: It's much cheaper to fix bugs now than later. Fixing them later usually involves someone else creating and maintaining bugs in a bug database, fixing them when the code is no longer in context and fresh in your memory, and the tendency to bolt-on fixes and shortcut fixes. Additionally, if the test team does not find an issue, the cost of fixing it post-release is large due to the overhead in working with the customer, the bug getting back to the product group, deploying the fix, the negative press, and other factors. If you find an issue that modifies the design later, you may have to change a lot of code possibly destabilizing the product.
Motley: Yeah, yeah - the cost of change curve. I know it.
Maven: Then you know that you shouldn't rush your development. Would you rather fix bugs later when they are more expensive or now when they are cheap without the overhead of a post-check-in bug? Leaving bugs until later forces long "stabilization" periods on the team, which, in my opinion, are evil and can be avoided by a diligent team.
It is well worth pushing back on the deadline to ensure that you can adhere to the following code check-in checklist:
- Unit tests. We have talked about unit testing at length in other discussions. This is the number one quality-driven developer technique. You must have a set of unit tests in place that exercise all of your new code and you can check-in when all the tests pass. This items should be bolded on a checklist.
- Code coverage. Hand-in-hand with unit testing is code coverage. Aim for 70%+ code coverage for all of your code. More important than the coverage number is the feedback you receive from the coverage tool regarding source lines that were missed in testing so that you can add new tests.
- Debug and retail builds. A debug build is generally different than a retail build, particularly when you make use of debug-time primitives such as assertions. You need to build both flavors to ensure the build succeeds either way. Broken builds are not tolerable as they block the entire team. In fact, do a clean build (vs. incremental build) to be safe.
- Static analysis. A static analysis tool like FxCop finds bugs for you. Per the cost of change discussion, why not fix them now instead of later when it is more expensive? Why risk security defects escaping your defenses and being released into the wild where hackers and customers will find them?
- Reliability tools. Running a tool like AppVerifier is more relevant to C++ applications. Running this tool is a must prior to check-in as it will help identify heap corruptions, improper use of handles, and misuse of critical sections. Additionally, for native code it will point out memory leaks.
- Warning level. Crank up the compiler to generate warnings at level 4 (or whatever is highest for your compiler) to ensure that you have addressed all possible compiler-identified issues. Get into the habit of perpetually building at the highest warning level. Get clean and stay clean.
- Other tools. Run any other organization-wide tools such as a copyright header checker, XML documentation checker, or coding style checker (e.g. Source Analysis) prior to check-in. You don't want to be the grunt fixing a ton of these issues later. Trust me on this one.
- Code reviews. All code should be at least peer-reviewed, with larger changes (e.g. new features) being put through a code inspection. Having at least one other pair of eyes look at your code is likely to find many issues before even the test team gets their hands on the code.
- Change list description. Include complete descriptions for check-in change lists, including how you tested the code, why the change was made, how you built, possible regressions, and other risks.
- Buddy build. To ensure you did not forget to add a file to your change list and to protect against other bad assumptions, package up your change and pass it to a buddy for her to build. Most source control systems allow you to package up a change list for distribution. If you have a continuous integration system that builds changes before check-in, this is less necessary.
Motley: You cannot possibly be serious! If I do all that now there is no way I would ever make the deadline, let alone make a check-in.
Maven: All of the above is necessary, particularly in a large, quality-focused organization. We want to exterminate bugs before they are even checked-in. The checklist above helps with that.
Motley: Can you say "Sloooooooooooooowwwwww"? I knew you could.
Maven: Get in touch with your inner tortoise. I heard that in a TED talk on Slowing Down in a World Built for Speed by Carl Honore. Going a little slower up front will save time in the overall development cycle, and I would claim that you ship sooner as a result. Of course, that was not the specific theme of the talk, but the lesson can be applied here. Also, be pragmatic. Perhaps you avoid a step or two for small bug fixes.
Motley: One thing I do not quite buy is the lack of long stabilization periods at the end of the development cycle. We still need to put all the pieces together!
Maven: Ultimately we want to avoid long stabilization cycles and instead be stable when you check-in. A tail of the development cycle needs to be dedicated to integration and overall acceptance test validation, but is not the same thing as "stabilization". We talked about this before in our discussion on developer testing.
Motley: So you are telling me that I need to pay my boss a visit as soon as possible to tell him that I am going to miss the deadline? He is going to kill me.
Maven: Well, seeing as you only have 5 minutes to the build snap-
Motley: <POW>. You deserved that shot in the nose for wasting all my time and missing the build snap!
Maven: Ouch! Okay, I deserved that. But seriously, your boss is a reasonable person and will understand. Firstly, you are communicating bad news as soon as possible (well, not really, but let's pretend), which all managers appreciate. Secondly, present it such that you are focused on quality and want to avoid taking shortcuts, and that you feel this course of action is best for the product. I will bet you lunch that he understands.
Motley: There are some days where I wish I stayed in bed...
______________________________
James' Pointer: The checklist items I mention above are from a real team in at Microsoft in Windows Mobile. Quality is our #1 value as a team. We want solid check-ins that adhere to the checklist to ensure we don't have a long tail of bugs later. Yes, it is a lot of work but ultimately saves time in the long run. Slow down. Don't rush. Nail the checklist on every check-in. You will thank yourself later. Okay, maybe not, but you should.
James' Double Pointer Indirection: A good developer knows how much work goes into each and every check-in and factors these things into their estimates. These things take time.
James' Triple Pointer Indirection: "Slow down to go fast" is real advice in car racing circles. Intuitively it does not make a lot of sense. However, if I go into the corner too fast I have to brake to avoid the wall and then take a lot of time and gas to come back up to speed exiting the corner. If I slow down on entry, roll through the corner and smoothly apply the accelerator on exit, I actually go faster even though I slowed down entering the corner.
Maven's Resources:
Summary
| |
Motley: Build an application according to architectural layers, from the bottom-up. |
| |
Maven: Build an application using vertical slices. Build just enough UI coupled with underlying layers such as an object and data model, to satisfy a user scenario. Deliver customer and business value at the end of every sprint to ensure feedback early and often. |
[Context: Motley thought he was doing iterative development the right way, but his boss has been all over him for not delivering tangible results]
Motley: I'm telling you, I can't win! We have been doing iterative development with the Scrum agile development model and my boss is still screaming at me that he is not seeing anything tangible coming out of it. I keep telling him that it will take a few sprints for us to show real value.
Maven: Have you forgotten one of the key aspects of agile development? Working software sooner. Agile teams should concentrate on delivering customer and business value at the end of every sprint. Get something real into the customers' hands quickly so that they can provide feedback early and often.
Motley: It takes time to get something real! We have to do a bit of infrastructure work first, and then build on that.
Maven: Ah, have you heard of "vertical slices", my boy??
Motley: You call me "your boy" one more time, I'll turn your shirt inside out with you still in it. "Vertical Slices"? Sounds like something you do to salami. I'm not going to bother asking what you mean by this because I know you'll tell me anyway.
Maven: Correct, my- friend. Vertical slices help deliver customer and business value at the end of every development iteration. Instead of developing one large feature requiring multiple iterations to see results, we break the work into usable pieces. Take a typical, but simplified, architecture:
One approach to development would be to first build the data layer (the lowest level of infrastructure), then build the object model on top of it, and then finally end with the UI. This is pretty common practice.
Motley: What's wrong with that? I need the lowest levels to build the middle and upper tier. You HAVE to agree with that! And besides, I am delivering business and customer value if I build the data layer and deliver that piece of software in one iteration.
Maven: Does the customer really care that you have a "data layer"? I think not. There is nothing for the customer to tangibly see until you have built the UI in later iterations. Additionally, once the customer does see the UI a couple months later and they can provide feedback, you risk having to do a lot of rework in the infrastructure if the customer wants changes. Even a small UI change can render various APIs in lower layers useless.
Motley: But I still need a data layer (in this architecture) to build the entire application.
Maven: Yes, but chunk up the work. Avoid building from the ground up starting from data to object model to UI. Instead take a vertical slice of the overall architecture and deliver a user scenario (user story). You build "just enough" of the data layer, object model, and UI to satisfy the user scenario. You get real working software sooner upon which the user is capable of delivering feedback. The focus switches from delivering technology to delivering real user value.
Motley: Flaw. Should I say it louder? FLAW. Putting software together in a piecewise fashion is going to lead to a bunch of spaghetti without a real architecture. This will never work.
Maven: Don't be such a pessimist! Or is it a cynic? I can never keep those two words straight. Anyway, you still need to have a vision for the product architecture. This agile type of approach does not preclude planning the entire system. It says that you plan the architecture at a high-level (components, interactions) and then build it in vertical pieces that span all layers. I still want a holistic architecture plan in place to guide development across several iterations. I just don't go into tremendous detail around exactly what the specific component APIs will look like (for example).
Additionally, I avoid building a full horizontal layer that may contain a bunch of code that will not ever get used, or get thrown away, once I get feedback.
Motley: Well, I may have to take some shortcuts to implement scenario #1 and then redo some work in the first slice to implement scenario #2. I just wasted effort! As we all know, eliminating waste is a key agile principle.
Maven: Well, it's actually a lean-
Motley: Yeah, yeah - a lean principle. Don't nitpick and respond to my comment.
Maven: It is true that sometimes you may have to refactor some code in the first slice to start adding to it in the second slice. That's fine - you have good unit tests in place that make refactoring easier. You may also have rework based on user feedback. This is all fine in that the rework for one small iteration is typically far less than major changes that could be forced by late feedback. Additionally, developing in vertical slices does not preclude you from using proven design principles. Design to accommodate change so that making changes later is easier. Although you don't want to anticipate future changes in successive slices and build functionality that may never get used later, you want to make your design easy to change and extend.
Motley: So I build a small snippet of the UI and just enough infrastructure to make that UI go. I am going to be left with some incomplete functionality by the end of the sprint.
Maven: Yes, but that's okay. It is usually enough to get going with feedback and validate your overall direction and approach. The customer can much more easily grasp a demo of working software than pictures in documents. Give them something they can touch.
Motley: And from the engineering side, we have some fairly incomplete layers at the end of every sprint.
Maven: Yes, sort of. You have layers of minimal complexity that support only the core scenarios. This helps keep the design and code simple. Think of this as adhering to YAGNI, or "You Ain't Gonna Need It". The gist of that principle is that you avoid implementing stuff until you actually need it, and you never try to anticipate future change. You avoid wasting time creating that functionality, testing it, debugging it, supporting it, and you keep things simple. You build enough to support the scenario. Over time your layers emerge.
Motley: I guess that makes sense. We end up incrementally building the product over time with tangible functionality and integrating features piecewise. I would have to try it before being convinced.
Maven: Absolutely. It takes some practice to chunk up the work into vertical slices, but if you focus on user scenarios/user stories instead of building technology, you'll end up on the right side of the fence.
______________________________
Maven's Pointer: A good way to help yourself think in vertical slices is to formulate your product backlog in terms of user stories. The basic way to think of a user story is to phrase your product backlog item as "As a <user type>, I want to do <task> to accomplish <goal>". We'll talk about this more later.
Maven's Double Pointer Indirection: On my team at Microsoft, we try to break up work into vertical slices as much as possible. Take an address bar in a web browser. Instead of building the data providers that provide auto-suggest functionality and then tacking the UI on top of it, we try to build a basic UI with one suggestion (maybe even hard-coded) and then incrementally tack on from there. Okay - it doesn't always work out that way in terms of work chunks, but that's our goal.
Maven's Resources:
Summary
|
|
Motley: Branches are too complicated. The last thing we need is a copy of the code that has to be maintained in two or more places! |
|
|
Maven: Branches are source code copies with a tie back to a mainline set of code that allow for easy integration between copy and original set (and vice versa). Branches bring a level of isolation from mainline as well as keep the quality of mainline (and the daily builds) high. |
______________________________
[Context: The company has been having lots of trouble with build breaks in mainline of late. General quality of the product mid-way through the development cycle is lower than expected]
Motley: Somebody is going to get crazy glue stuck to their cup! The quality of our daily builds has been crap lately. Too many people checking in lousy code. Too may conflicts. Not enough time to get our mainline build stable and of high quality before the next check-in goes in. Something has to be done.
Maven: Crazy glue? Ouch. If some moron did that to me I would pay them back big time - when they least expect it. Anyway, I agree with you - having a daily build of poor quality slows down everyone. The key is to isolate all the feature teams from one another giving them freedom to check-in yet keep the main build high quality.
Motley: Thanks for stating the obvious, Mave. Your haircut sucks. Now I stated the obvious too.
Maven: I thought I fixed that crooked sideburn! Ugh. There is a good way to accomplish this isolation. If you have a good source control system (like we do) such as Perforce or CVS, you can leverage a branch.
Motley: Branches are for trees. What do they have to do with source code? Should I start working outside in the shade?
Maven: Think of a branch as a more-involved copy of a collection of source code.
Motley: Why would I want to make a copy? Copies are fraught with problems, such as keeping multiple copies synchronized. And to think, I was expecting a good idea from you. Although pigs don't fly quite yet.
Maven: The digs keep coming! A branch is more than a copy. When you branch a source tree, you still maintain the tie to the original source code. Think of it like the trunk that a tree branch is connected to. You can bring forward changes in mainline to your branch, and bring back changes in your branch to mainline relatively easily. You can even work on the same source files in both places and merge the changes together in either direction.
Motley: And how would I do that? Keep them tied together, I mean.
Maven: You bring code forward to your branch from mainline and back to mainline from your branch through an integration, or more specifically, a forward integration (FI) and reverse integration (RI) respectively. Here is an example of a tree structure I used in a previous role.
Mainline: The main source code depot where daily builds take place from
Feature Branches: As many of these as necessary to support isolated feature teams
Feature Sub-branches: Use only as necessary (e.g. a developer making major changes as part of a feature team)
Motley: That looks more complicated your morning routine! Do the benefits of a structure like that really outweigh the costs of doing all those integrations?
Maven: As the consultant always says, "it depends". For a small overall team where not too many people are checking in to mainline, perhaps the structure is too much overhead. However, for larger teams, branches bring a level of isolation allowing features teams the freedom to do what they need to get the job done. In addition, a central build team could maintain mainline and have a very high quality bar for check-ins to mainline. Teams are only allowed to reverse integrate into mainline when they meet that bar.
Motley: And what does that bar typically involve?
Maven: It depends on the team. For us, we may have a quality gate in place that mandates the following when an RI is done:
- All changes must have been code reviewed
- All changes must have been gone through a test pass
- Test automation is in place for new features (if applicable)
- New features have been stress and performance tested
- No memory leaks have been detected by our tools
- FxCop has been run and is violation-free on all changed code
- Unit tests have been executed and pass at 100%
You can basically go as thorough as you like. As you move up the branch hierarchy, the criteria to check-in gets lighter and lighter so as not to slow down the team. RI operations get stricter and stricter as you get closer to mainline.
Motley: Should every team have its own branch?
Maven: Teams making changes to an isolated part of the code base with relatively few check-ins may not need a branch. Teams working on radical and risky changes or in common parts of the code base would likely benefit from a branch. Keep in mind, though, that the more levels of branching you have, the more overhead there is for integration operations. I recommend trying to stick to 1-2 levels of branching at most.
Motley: What about builds? We lose the advantage of having a central build team generate a daily build?
Maven: Yes, that can be true. Hopefully you can take their infrastructure on a couple of machines that your feature team owns and duplicate the build there so that you have your own daily build and verification going for your feature. For small features, this may not be necessary. For large features, it is a huge benefit as you nail down problems quicker. If a build break happens due to a bad check-in, you catch it long before you hit mainline. As a result, you block fewer people. Everyone wins!
Motley: Ok, Einstein. I have a you now. What if feature team A is working on some changes that feature team B needs to make further progress? You cannot go across branches. Hah!
Maven: You have several options:
- Feature team A can pack up the changes and pass them to Feature team B. Most source control systems support packing up a change list for distribution.
- You can do what's called a baseless merge. I don't recommend doing this as it loses your source history. Essentially you do an integration across branches but lose the tie to mainline. Yuck.
- You can RI the changes of note to mainline with a test pass and then FI them up into Feature team B's branch. This doesn't work as well if the changes are in progress and not fully baked.
Motley: I can think of another problem - my work in my branch can get out-of-date with what is going on with other teams. That may cause problems later.
Maven: True. The onus is on the feature team to ensure it FIs on a regular basis to keep up. Additionally, teams should not "go dark" from mainline for too long. Regular RIs to mainline should be happening, say, at the end of each sprint. For feature teams practicing Scrum, the code at the end of each sprint should be of shippable quality and can be RId back to mainline.
Motley: Also, merging in conflicting changes could be a real pain!
Maven: Yes, but not if you have the right tools. A good merge tool automatically merges isolated changes in the same file (the majority case), and allows you to easily resolve conflicting changes.
Motley: You seem to have an answer for everything. Let me see if I understand this branching thing:
- Branching helps keep mainline quality high
- A feature teams considers a branch to isolate its changes
- Branching provides more freedom for check-ins
- Quality gates are more strict the closer your branch is to mainline
- Branching ensures you don't lose ties to the original source code via integrations
- A good tool makes integrations and merges relatively painless
Maven: Nice summary. Why don't you go approach our beloved development manager and propose that our team undertake a branching model?
Motley: I think I'll do just that.
______________________________
James' Pointer: I am always amazed at how little discussion there is around source code branching. Branches are an incredibly useful software tool employed all over Microsoft for the reasons discussed above. Branches are particularly useful when you are an agile team in a large waterfall-based organization. They give you that level of isolation needed to follow your own effective processes yet still merge your changes in with mainline on a regular basis. Our team would be much less efficient without branches.
Maven's Resources:
Thanks to the brilliant work of a coworker and friend, Fred Chao, Maven and Motley now have faces! You can see them in the title bar of the blog and in the about page. Thanks, Fred!
Motley:
Maven:
Summary
Motley: Tell like it is. We have a business to run and getting straight to the point is most efficient.
Maven: Interpersonal skills help you ascend the career ladder. Don't be a jerk. Some tips include avoid interruption, ask questions, use more "I" vs. "You" statements, understand the person you are speaking to, use the right tone, and be constructive with a focus on principles.
______________________________
[Context: Motley has been sitting at his desk working in silence all morning with a long look on his face]
Maven: Why are you so quiet today, Mot? Here it is noon and I haven't heard from you. Everything okay?
Motley: Mind your own business.
Maven: Ah, come on. Maybe I can help! I promise to keep our conversation confidential if it is something private.
Motley: Fine. I need someone to scream at. I got a stern talking to from my boss this morning about how I treated Marvin on the setup team. We were in a code review and he was doing some really stupid things, so I told it like it is and let him have it. He should have known better. I am not sorry I reamed him out.
Maven: Ouch. What did your boss say?
Motley: Not much, other than that he heard about the incident and didn't want it happening again. I don't think I would have done anything different, though. Marvin needed to be taught a lesson. Sloppy code is inexcusable.
Maven: Perhaps you didn't deliver the message in the right way.
Motley: Take off, Mave. It needed to be done.
Maven: Sounds like it was a good opportunity for teaching, but you don't want to leave bodies in your wake. Technical skills are very important for software developers, but don't overlook the importance of soft skills, particularly interpersonal skills. If the rest of the company doesn't want to work with you, I guarantee that you are destined for failure no matter how smart or technical you are.
Motley: When are you going to stop talking?
Maven: You just made my case for me. I just happen to be more tolerant of others than many other people are. Not everyone is going to be as forgiving, however.
Motley: So I see, based on my manager having a word with me this morning. What do you propose?
Maven: The number 1 tip I ever received from a previous (extraordinary) manager was "Don't be a jerk." This tip is pretty generic, but it sure does ring true. There are various behaviors associated with jerks-
Motley: Like making fun of that hideous shirt you are wearing?
Maven: Yes, that would be one. Interrupting people mid-sentence is another one. Let your teammates finish their thoughts before you interject. Sounds easy, but I worked at a previous company where this was a rampant problem. I have worked with many jerks in the past, and it stunts career growth. It is not always a fixable problem, but I have faith in you, Mot. You are smarter than the average bear - errr… I mean developer.
Motley: True. You just buttered me up, so I presume that is the opposite of being a jerk, yes?
Maven: Not if I was lying because I had another motive, but I digress. Are you interested in a few more tips that will help you graduate from "jerkdom"?
Motley: You little- I am. Yes, I am interesting in improving.
Maven: Very good. Here are a few good tips that I have learned throughout my career. Firstly, instead of making direct statements like "Marvin, there is a race condition in this code. Fix it.", ask a question like "Marvin, is there a race condition here?" Asking questions is far less confrontational, like we talked about in a previous discussion on code reviews. This technique is good to use in reviews, conversations with teammates, general e-mails and various other types of communication. Plus, you may not be correct in your statement and asking a question covers your own butt too.
Motley: Sounds like a reasonable tip. You mean I should ask questions instead of making direct statements?
Maven: Hehe. Way to throw that in that question. You even practiced active listening, or repeating back what you were told to help with understanding and absorption. Kudos, Mot! Another big tip I learned was to use more "I" statements instead of "You" statements. For example, which one would you rather hear:
- Motley, you messed up there and forgot to check the incoming pointer for null.
- Motley, I think the incoming pointer needs to be checked for null.
Motley: The second one of course. The first statement made it personal and accused me of making a mistake. The second one was less harsh and concentrated on sound coding principles instead of making it about my screw-up.
Maven: Exactly. You are a quick learner! Of course, I just complemented you, so "you" in that case is a good thing.
Motley: Spare me the compliments. Any more tips?
Maven: Using "we" statements also help pass credit and convey a team style of thinking. Another tip: remember a while back when we talked about interacting with other personality types? Understand the personality type of the person you are speaking to - the other person's motivations and trigger points. If you are dealing with a red personality type, then you can likely get straight to the point and not worry about feelings. With a green personality type, however, I encourage you to use some of the techniques we are talking about and apply them more strongly to this type of person.
Motley: But I don't always know the type of personality the other person possesses!
Maven: True, but understanding the color wheel will help you make a pretty good guess, particularly for the co-workers you work closest with. Using the right tone and body language can also help. If you take the advice I have given but apply it with a sarcastic tone, apathetic tone and/or body language that makes it look like you really don't care (e.g. waving off the other person), then you have undone all that you have worked for in the interaction. Maintain a positive tone whenever possible.
Motley: Hmmm… I guess I should avoid insulting your chin cleft under my breath then, right?
Maven: Yes, that would help. I have already heard quite a few of those insults, but I am sure that does not surprise you. As a quick summary, a best practice is to be constructive and focus on principles vs. personalizing the problem.
Motley: I guess I should also ask for feedback occasionally to ensure I am doing a good job with these new found best practices? How am I doing?
Maven: I have seen a quick improvement in the last few minutes. Let's see how you do over the next few weeks and we'll have another feedback session then. In the meantime, do not hesitate to ask your manager and your peers for feedback as well. Your boss seems to be tuned in to interpersonal issues, so I am sure she will notice your forward progress.
Motley: Thanks, Mave! It was a pleasure speaking with you today.
Maven: Um, remember what I said about body language? Your sincerity was in the toilet with that statement. You will do better though...
______________________________
Maven's Pointer: Although this topic is not specifically a "software developer" technical topic, it is important nonetheless. I have seen people drive their careers into the ground due to their lack of interpersonal skills. These skills are almost as important as technical skills in most companies. I say "almost" because you are not going to hire a software developer just because he is a nice guy. Training in the technical field and knowledge of your company's chosen programming language are obviously important. A jerk, however, is not going to move up the career ladder nearly as fast as someone that the rest of the team loves to work with, and is more likely to lose his job.
Maven's Resources:
Summary
Motley: To be a lead developer, technical skills are absolutely the most important. Everything else is secondary, tertiary, and whatever word comes next.
Maven: A lead developer must lead from several different perspectives, including people, process, and technology. To properly balance technology and people, build a great team, learn to delegate, and break up your responsibilities.
______________________________
[Context: Maven and Motley are hanging out at lunch debating on what it takes to be a good lead developer]
Motley: No, no, no - you're wrong. The absolute most important skill that a lead developer possesses is technical skills. Everything else is far down the priority list. If I cannot make technical decisions then I am worthless.
Maven: Well, I partially agree-
Motley: You can't agree! You just said technical skills were not most important!
Maven: Let me finish, please. Remember to practice "seek first to understand, then to be understood" instead of "listening to respond", but I digress.
Motley: Blah, blah, blah. Get on with it.
Maven: The phrase "lead developer" means different things to different people. If you are leading a small team of 3-4 developers, then I agree with you, a lead can focus more on the technical aspects of the job, although not completely at the expense of some other areas. However, if you lead a team of 10 developers, that typically does not leave much time for technical stuff and you will spend more time managing people. Note that I am using the term "lead" and "manager" here together - my definition of a "lead developer" assumes that you have direct reports in the organizational structure, and thus, have management duties.
Motley: I can see job responsibilities varying by size of team, but I still think technical stuff is the most important. The phrase "lead developer" still has the term "developer" in it after all.
Maven: True, and you are still expected to be solid technically, but there are other aspects to development, as you know. A lead developer must lead from several different perspectives, including people, process, and, of course, technology. You are a key decision maker in your role and you represent the business, but not at the expense of the people. People issues often have to come first. You are the one expected to grow their careers after all.
Motley: I admit I have other responsibilities than technology. But my team of 10 people is doing pretty well. I don't have to focus on managing a whole lot. I can concentrate on writing code.
Maven: Who mentors your people? Who grows their careers? Who manages the dependencies of your team? Can you possibly attend all technical meetings? Who handles recruiting new people? Who attends upper management meetings? Who reviews all the designs? Who triages the bugs? Perhaps you could do all of that, but you would work a very long day and probably a do a half-ass job at everything.
Motley: I just find that a lot of that stuff takes care of itself. My boss, however, has been screaming at me a bit more lately, I must admit. But I just love the technical stuff and would rather spend time on that!
Maven: Loving technology is great, but you have to balance your tasks on technology lead vs. management. You have a job to do that involves both axes of leading and management. If you don't enjoy both pieces, then why are you a lead? Companies these days have growth paths for individual contributor developers so as not to force them into management.
Motley: I do like the other stuff, but I like the technical stuff more.
Maven: That's fine. You just have to balance technology and people. In order to do that, there are a few keys:
- Delegate: You cannot do everything. Delegate tasks when necessary and fully trust the person you are delegating to. Additionally, do not just delegate the work associated with the task - you should delegate ownership of that task. Make the person completely accountable for finishing it.
- Build a great team: Surround yourself with highly diversified good people. As a lead with a reasonable-sized team, you likely need to give up some of the technical stuff. To compensate, ensure you have one or two senior technical gurus on your team to delegate decisions to.
- Break up your responsibilities. Perhaps ask for another lead at your level of the organization so that you can have a smaller team allowing you to focus on technology more.
Motley: Not bad, Mave. Good suggestions overall. Perhaps what I can do is concentrate on making the key decisions, focus more on design, and give myself some smaller development tasks that are off the critical path of the project to keep my skills fresh.
Maven: Now you're talking! That will free up some of your time for managing careers in addition to the product, mentoring, reviewing the work of the team, refining and enhancing team processes, managing relationships between your team and other teams in the company, and overall making the team a well oiled machine. Of course, we have been mostly talking about management here and less about leading. We should follow up this conversations one of these days and expand on that. We could also talk a lot more about being a good manager.
Motley: I will be a better dev lead tomorrow. Glad I came up with some refinements to my working style.
Maven: Do you think I had something to do with your refinements in this conversation?
Motley: Not a chance.
Maven: Figures.
______________________________
Maven's Pointer: As a lead developer at Microsoft, I spend far less time in the source code than I have in the past. Let me clarify - I am in the source code quite a bit, just not contributing new code. Instead, I have chosen to focus more on design issues and code reviews when I find the time. However, if I had far fewer than 10 reports, that would allow me to be closer to the code and even be a contributing developer, although not at the expense of the people I need to help grow. Different people have differing opinions on exactly what the role of a lead developer is, and truthfully, it really depends on the specific situation. However, most "leads" are also managers, and caring about your people and removing distractions from their everyday work is a high priority. Let me know if you want to discuss leading and managing more, in the context of developers of course.
Maven's Resources:
Summary
Motley: I admit it - Wideband Delphi works! It helped us generate fairly accurate estimates for longer-term planning and the documentation of our assumptions kept everyone on the same page and provided rationale for our numbers.
Maven: Um, what Motley said.
______________________________
[Context: For the past few months, Motley and his team have been using the Wideband Delphi process for their estimates. Over the winter holidays, Motley got curious about the effectiveness of the technique]
Maven: Hey, Mot. Happy New Year, and welcome back to the office! Did you have a good holiday season?
Motley: Yeah, it was a good break. Although most of the time was spent with family and friends, I did do a bit of an analysis of some previous estimation data.
Maven: You have me curious - what's up?
Motley: A few months ago you gave the team some pretty good advice, I must admit. We used Wideband Delphi Estimation as you talked about before to estimate some key features for the product. The team used Scrum and gathered a bunch of data on how long it actually took us to implement the features, and I thought I would show it to you.
Maven: Sweet! Glad you were able to put it to use and see some positive results. Don't keep me in suspense!
Motley: Hold your horses, Mr. Impatient. First, a bit of background. This feature team was responsible for developing a feature with a bunch of subcomponents. We used Wideband Delphi to estimate all of the subcomponents early on in the project when we really did not know a whole lot about what we were estimating. Wideband Delphi was perfect for this exercise due to the large amount of project variability at the beginning.
Maven: How many people were involved with the feature team?
Motley: There was one program manager (PM), two developers, and two testers for the majority of the project to this point. That's not relevant for this analysis, however, as all work was estimated for one developer and computed the hours across all developers.
Maven: Makes sense. Any more background?
Motley: Yeah. One thing I would recommend to everyone is to have whoever is responsible for the initial high-level requirements put together a short 2-3 page document that describes the feature at a basic level, including some mock screenshots if necessary. It doesn't have to be highly detailed but should provide a high-level idea of what we will be building. Think of user stories, but to a slightly lower level of detail (but not much). Then distribute the doc to everyone involved in the estimation session to prepare. Have the author of the short document give an overview just prior to following the Wideband Delphi process to set context.
Maven: Great suggestion. Who did you invite to the session?
Motley: We invited the PM, the two developers, one tester and one senior developer from another team. One thing that worked really well was having that expert external to the feature team to help bring another perspective.
Maven: Okay - let's see the data already!
Motley: Hmmm… maybe I should make you wait a little longer. I love seeing you squirm.
Maven: You really are a mean person.
Motley: Just the way I like it! Fine. Fine. Here are a couple of graphs of the data I gathered:
Maven: Not bad data, Mot! Looks like many of your estimates were fairly close to the actual work on inspection. How do you explain the estimate for feature 6, which was quite far off?
Motley: That's easy - what we thought we were going to build at the beginning of the iteration actually turned out to be quite different. We did the estimate fairly early in the project and made some key assumptions, but later we discovered a couple of those assumptions were not valid. As a result, when we planned the iteration, we revisited our assumptions and realized we had more work than we thought we did. Don't forget - I am comparing our original estimates at the start of the project to our actual numbers. Secondarily, a dependency that we relied upon for that feature was late on their deliverable, so we did a bit of extra work to mitigate that.
Maven: Sounds reasonable. What about intuition - do you feel that Wideband Delphi gave you increased accuracy in your estimates.
Motley: Overall, gut feel is that Wideband Delphi gave us greater accuracy than we would have gotten had we left the estimate up to one developer. Everyone was happy with the process and has committed to keep using it.
Maven: As we talked about in the past, Wideband Delphi helps the team get on the same page at the start of the project. Did you observe that?
Motley: Wideband Delphi really helped us get on the same page with assumptions and come up with an initial direction people were happy with. Even though some of our assumptions changed later in the project, for long-term planning purposes at the start of the project, the data was accurate enough for the release management team to make reasonable predictions.
Maven: So you would use Wideband Delphi again?
Motley: Absolutely. You hit a home run with that one, Mave.
______________________________
Maven's Pointer: Our team at Microsoft uses Wideband Delphi consistently for early-project planning. When the management team forces us to come up with estimates that help define the milestone plan for the next 3 months, we use Wideband Delphi to generate not only fairly accurate numbers but also document the rationale behind the numbers. Even though detailed planning and scheduling for the next 3-6 months is fraught with peril - a realization agile teams come to - to be an agile team in a waterfall organization you must periodically give in to the will of the release management team.
Maven's Resources:
- Agile Estimating and Planning, by Mike Cohn, Prentice Hall PTR, ISBN: 0131479415, November 2005.
Hello all,
Happy New Year! Hope you had an enjoyable and restful holiday season with your friends and family.
Maven and Motley are back from their extended hibernation. I was out of town for the majority of November and a good chunk of December, so that left little time for spying and reporting on the antics of these two characters. 2009 should bring them back to life.
With other projects on-the-go and my day job being busy, I likely won't keep up a regular publishing schedule with the blog, and will instead just post as I write articles. Publication frequency will likely be lower than previously, but we'll see what happens.
In the meantime, if you get a chance, drop me a line via the comments (to start) and let me know:
- Your development goals for 2009. I am curious to know how my fellow software engineers are moving their careers forward. Perhaps I may be able to help or suggest a place to look for info.
- A hot topic that you have been debating with someone. Perhaps we turn it into a Progressive Development blog post!
- Any other suggested topics you may have
Thanks, and all the best in 2009!
James.
Hello faithful readers!
I just wanted to say that Maven and Motley will be on hiatus through the month of November 2008. I will be on vacation and Maven and Motley will be coming with me :-). I'll try and get one more post in before I leave, but no promises.
In the meantime, please let me know if there are any topics you'd like to see these two characters cover in upcoming episodes.
All the best, and thanks again for reading!
James.
Summary
Motley: All developers have the same personality type - introverted and logically-minded. A personality test for a developer would be a waste of time.
Maven: Build a diversified team with different personality types; learn what type of personality each person has as everyone is different, and break down communication barriers with this knowledge. A great test is the Insights Discovery profile, which breaks people into cool blue, earth green, sunshine yellow, and fiery red personality types.
______________________________
[Context: Motley hired 3 new developers on the team a few weeks ago and is concerned with the behavior of the new hires in relation to the rest of the team]
Motley: I feel our team is in disarray with 3 new developers that just started on the team. Of course, there is the usual transition period for new team members and an expected time period for the team to get to know the new people, but these guys are a little different than the rest of the team members. I'm not sure what to do about it. Perhaps we made a mistake in our hiring.
Maven: It's tough for a team to take on that many new people in a short time period. However, it may not be so easy to chalk up the difficulties to team transition. How are the new people different?
Motley: Well, the bulk of the team is your stereotypical software developer - very introverted, very logical, do as their told, rely on data to back up an argument, and really doesn't express feelings - characteristics like that. For the new people, we have:
- Morris: Morris is a more senior industry hire who likes to mentor people. Even though he is new to the company, he has jumped right in and started to improve the team. Some of the team members are put off by this, as they feel they know more than he does, at least about how the company works. Additionally, he seems to get upset easier than most. One thing that people do like is that he is taking the time to get to know everyone one-on-one.
- Maverick: Maverick is absolutely take-charge kind of person. He doesn't take "no" for an answer and gets stuff done as soon as possible. He is unusually extroverted for a software developer, and the other people on the team don't know how to deal with him. He makes decisions without hesitation and keeps pushing people to be as productive as possible, sometimes excessively.
- Mavis: One word describes Mavis - "fun". She is already playing jokes on the rest of the team and injecting fun. I love it. However, the rest of the team is a bit taken aback by it and is having a hard time dealing. I've complemented her a couple of times on her work and she seems to eat it up whereas the others on the team dislike public recognition.
Pasted from http://www.insights.com/Files/210_LS_enGB.pdf
Maven: My first observation is that you likely did extremely well with your new hires.
Motley: What gives you that idea? I only gave you a really brief description of each of them. I know you like to pretend your smart - is this another trek into your alternate reality you seem to love so much?
Maven: Always got a dig for me, eh Mot? Your descriptions are enough to know that you have a very diversified team in terms of personalities. The best teams are made up of a wide mix of people - not just your stereotypical developer. In fact, a team of people with all the same personalities likely is not going to optimize their creativity and have as much fun. The trick is for each team member to learn what kind of personality each person has, and cater to their strengths.
Motley: Ok, wise guy. I know you have an answer for everything. Regurgitate all that logic that fills that head of yours and tell me how we can get to know each other very quickly. I do not want to lose years of productivity and morale while everyone learns about each others' habits!
Maven: Well, I just so happen to have a suggestion, as surprising as that may sound. Get everyone on the team to take a personality test.
Motley: I suppose you want us all to go see a psychologist too! Jee whiz, Mave, isn't that a little too "touchy-feely" for a team of developers? They are going to laugh themselves crazy if I suggest that.
Maven: Well, I am totally serious. Sell it to them as a fun couple of hours that they will spend making the overall team more effective. Ask them to humor you and if they do not find it enlightening, you'll buy them drinks after work.
Motley: Great. I am going to go broke.
Maven: Maintain a positive attitude! You have many options with personality tests. My personal favorite is called "Insights Discovery". The test presents you with a set of questions that you will likely feel are completely irrelevant to judging a personality. At least, that is the way I felt. The results, however, astounded me. The personal profile I received nailed my personality, helped me learn about myself, helped me understand others, and helped me manage my interactions with others. By sharing the results with the rest of the team, they now have some strategies with how to more effectively interact with you.
Motley: I have already learned those strategies - humor you by pretending to listen to your banter, give you false complements once in a while to ensure your ego stays high, and make you feel like you are making a difference around here instead of being a useless investment to the company.
Maven: You need to visit "Dr. Feelgood" and take your positive pills. Anyway, I'll ignore your attempt at humor and fill you in. The resulting profile presents four personality types, of which you may be a mix of more than one:
- Cool Blue: A person that is cool blue is introverted, indirect, works in a structured way, focuses on process, fears embarrassment, seeks security in preparation, likes data to back up a claim, is thorough, is precise, wants to be correct, and likes time to think before making a decision. Cool blue is a combination of introversion and thinking. Many developers fall in the blue quadrant
- Earth Green: A person that is earth green is introverted, emotive, has a slow/easy style, focuses on maintaining relationships, likes attention, wants to be liked, and seeks acceptance through conformance. Earth green is the combination of introversion and feeling. Morris sounds like he is in the green quadrant.
- Sunshine Yellow: a person that is sunshine yellow is extraverted, feeling, has a fast and spontaneous style, focuses on relationships, is often sarcastic, likes you to be outgoing, wants to be admired, and makes spontaneous decisions. Sunshine yellow is the combination of extraversion and feeling. Mavis sounds like she is in the yellow quadrant.
- Fiery Red: a person that is fiery red is extraverted, thinking, fast and decisive, focuses on productivity, wants to see results, likes you to be brief and smart, and is usually quick and decisive. Fiery red is a combination extraversion and thinking. Maverick sounds like he is in the red quadrant.
Motley: Isn't calling someone by their color a little prejudiced?
Maven: In this case, no. Learn what color each person is and read the portion of their profile that indicates how they deal with people and how people should deal with them. Based on this information, you can make the team much more effective and understand everyone's behaviors much more thoroughly. James was telling me he did this on a previous team, which helped ensure the team was diversified and helped each team member deal with each other and be more empathetic to behaviors. I think he said he was blue, borderline green, which is actually fairly typical for a developer.
Motley: And I suppose all of this costs money?
Maven: Think of it as a team investment. A really good team investment. I don't know what the specific cost is, but it is well worth it. If cost is a major consideration, there are some free tests that you can do on the Internet that may not be as effective but will still provide some results. I am going to persuade every team I join in the future to do this kind of testing as it can only help, not hinder.
Motley: I'll ask for the funds from the boss, but if he laughs at me and it affects my annual review, I am coming after you...
______________________________
Maven's Pointer: There are may different personality tests out there, and many of them are available for free. One of the most popular personality designations is the Myers-Briggs personality test. After taking the test, you end up with a four-character designation indicating your personality type. A very brief description of the results is as follows:
- Introverted or Extroverted (I or E): E = actively involved and outgoing; I = prefer to be alone
- Intuition or Sensing (N or S): N = pays attentions to impressions and patterns; S = pays attention to physical reality
- Thinking or Feeling (T or F): T = more weight on principles and impersonal facts; F = more weight on personal concerns and the people involved
- Judging or Perceiving (J or P): J = structured and decided lifestyle (planned, orderly); P = more flexible and adaptable lifestyle (spontaneous)
My (James) personality as indicated by Myers-Briggs is INTJ, which actually is fairly typical for a software developer, and in line with the green/blue personality type.
Maven's Resources:
Summary
Motley: Developing international software is really, really hard. We need brand new binaries to ship in other languages.
Maven: Follow these tips when developing for international markets: design for one worldwide binary, ensure the software is globalized, do not build strings at run-time, expand UI labels by 40%, and test with pseudolocalized builds.
______________________________
[Context: Motley is a little shocked that the marketing team has asked the development team to produce a non-English version of the software they just shipped]
Motley: Arrrrrrggggghhhh. I've had it! We spend all this time shipping the first version of our software in English, and now the marketing team wants us to ship a Japanese version to expand our reach. I don't know the first thing about shipping software in languages other than English. It's too hard to do if you don't speak the language. We are going to have to hire a vendor to fully create a new version.
Maven: Calm down, Mot. It's not so bad. If you designed the software correctly from the beginning, shipping in another language really is not that difficult.
Motley: Okay, don't keep me in suspense. How does one "design the software correctly from the beginning?" I have to admit that we were not thinking about shipping an international version, and instead focused on getting the thing done as soon as possible in our default language - English.
Maven: There are various keys to shipping software in multiple languages. The first is to have one worldwide binary.
Motley: How can we ship one binary? If we ship English and Japanese, that will mean two different binaries that we have to build and distribute. Use your head, Mave!
Maven: Actually, no. Ultimately you want one executable for your application that is used regardless of what language is displayed in the UI. The user can potentially set the locale via the Windows control panel to switch languages, which does not change the .EXE that gets launched when the application icon is double-clicked. What does change, however, is what strings are loaded by the executable.
Motley: Ah, of course. That's what I meant. And, hmmmmm…. Fortunately we did use resource files for the UI strings for the most part to make it easier on the user experience people to make sure we developers who don't talk good English get our mistakes fixed.
Maven: Nice play on the grammar, Mot. The other benefit of being able to pass the resource files to user experience people is also being able to pass them to localizers for translation to other languages like Japanese. To do this, however, you need every visible user string in those resource files. Did we do that?
Motley: Well, probably not every string. We'll have to do a scrub of the strings. Shouldn't be a problem though. So that's it?
Maven: Not necessarily. You have to follow a few other rules. Firstly, do not build strings at run-time.
Motley: What exactly does that mean? Let's take a simple example: if I ask the user for their name and I want the software to say "Hello", I have to do something like: "Hello" + name. No real way around that.
Maven: Yes, that type of functionality is often required. However, there are better ways to put strings together. For example, in C# you want to do something like:
string.Format("Hello, {0}", name);
But remember, the string above is actually taken from a resource file. That gives the localizers the opportunity to change the positioning of the token in the string to match the language being translated. Some languages may force different locations of the name in the string. If you build the string in code with the '+' operator, the ordering is compiled in and you have to rebuild (and generate another binary) to change order if another language is "<name>, <hello>" instead of "<hello>, <name>".
Motley: At least the solution is easy. What else do we need to do?
Maven: Another big rule is to expand your UI labels by approximately 30% to 40% in length. In some languages, like German, a typical phrase has many more words/characters than the equivalent English phrase. As a result, just because your UI looks great for English does not mean that text will not be clipped for other languages. Have to be careful there.
Motley: Rules, rules, and more rules. Can't we just abbreviate for the other languages? I am kidding of course.
Maven: Additionally, don't forget that you should not make any assumptions about sort order, date/time formats, currencies, and other international differences. For your software to be truly globalized, it must work with any culture - even when Windows is set to display right-to-left instead of the standard left-to-right.
Motley: One thing at a time. Let's just focus on making v1.1 localizable (translatable to other languages) and globalized (functions correctly in differing cultures). We will likely have to make small modifications to our designs to accommodate this. But here is another question: I don't speak Japanese, so when we have a Japanese version available, how am I supposed to debug it? I want to avoid constantly switching between a Japanese and English build.
Maven: Great question. For initial testing that finds the vast majority of problems, as well as easier debugging, we can create what is called a pseudolocalized build.
Motley: Pseudo-what??
Maven: Pseudolocalized. We take a build that is localizable, and automatically insert some more, well, troublesome characters. We could insert accented 'e' characters to replace the 'e', as well as other characters that are similar to their English counterparts, thus still making phrases readable. In addition, the lengths of the strings are expanded, and each string starts with a delimiter character like '[' and ends with ']'. If you see a string in the UI that does not start and end with those characters, then you have a clipping bug. Pseudo-localized builds really help nail down international problems early in the development cycle.
Here is what a pseudolocalized application could look like:
Motley: Very cool. A lot of it looks like gibberish, but is still English-readable. The UI contains a lot of the characters that can be troublesome given the wrong font choice for the UI. I can definitely see this technique saving lots of bugs prior to check-in, provided the developers can generate a pseudo-localized build on their own.
Maven: Exactly. Since pseudolocalized builds really only require processing of resource files, they are generally easy to generate. The are tools out there that can do it for you, or you can write your own text processor to do simple string expansion and replacement. It's a valuable tool.
Motley: Good tips for a change, Mave. I guess we have some work to do to really make our software internationalized, but I don't feel it will be a lot of work given the choices we have already made. I better get to work!
______________________________
Maven's Pointer: There are lots of other tips to creating good international software, from requirements to development to testing. As a developer, it is little extra work to make your application localizable and globalized. Do this work up front - trust me. I was on a software project that lasted 6 months while we moved strings around. Not exactly fun work. If we had followed the tips above, avoided text in graphics (hard and expensive to translate), and avoided hard-coded user-visible strings in the code, we would have been in great shape to ship in multiple languages. Do it right the first time, and take the very minor hit to the schedule that comes with it.
Maven's Resources:
- Developing International Software, 2nd Edition, by Dr. International, Microsoft Press, ISBN: 0735615837, November 2002.
- NET Internationalization: The Developer's Guide to Building Global Windows and Web Applications, by Guy Smith-Ferrier, Addison-Wesley Professional, ISBN: 0321341384, August 2006.
- Wikipedia entry on Pseudolocalization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudolocalization
Summary
Motley: I must conform to the wishes of the management team, even if they are wrong. I need permission to modify the organization-wide processes.
Maven: Sometimes it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission. Break the rules if it is best for the team, then say "sorry". Be accountable for results, not processes.
______________________________
[Context: Motley has just surfaced out of a 3 hour meeting that focused on company processes that he feels are unnecessary. Motley is back at his desk, slams his desk drawer in frustration, and lets out a few colorful metaphors. Maven takes note and walks over.]
Maven: What's up, Mot? Did someone throw a laxative in your coffee or something?
Motley: Why you-
<a chase around the office ensues>
Maven: Ok, Ok, I give up. You are in a mood. But seriously, may I do anything to help whatever is bothering you?
Motley: You're lucky I didn't catch you before you gave up or… ah, forget it. You want to know what's bothering me?? Extraneous process. Too much bureaucracy. Inflexibility. Resistance to change. Micro-managing. People telling me the wrong thing to do. That's what's bugging me. Simple fix this time, eh Mave? Good luck.
Maven: Well, let's get into some of the details. How about the first two, since they are likely related - extraneous process and bureaucracy. What's the problem?
Motley: First of all, I am a developer. I develop software. I am paid to be technical. The stuff I just talked about shouldn't even factor into my job. I want to design. I want to write code. I don't want to deal with politics. It's frustrating.
Maven: You are the lead of a team, are you not?
Motley: Yes. So? I still have to conform to the wishes of the management team, even if they are wrong.
Maven: Firstly, even though management may be wrong in your eyes, they may think that they are right. Keep that in mind. Secondly, those non-technical aspects you mentioned come with the job. Not only do you have to be a technical leader on your team, but you also have to deal with all the other stuff around it and shield your team from distractions. It comes with the job. You are good at it, too. I've seen it.
Motley: Don't butter me up, wise guy. You are right that I am good, but save it. Anyway, you know how the company is structured - there is a release management team in place that sets many of the rules. You have to input bug records in a certain way. You have to meet a ton of exit criteria at a milestone. You have to plan your feature set in a certain way. You can only have certain things for lunch on Monday. You know how it is. The ridiculous rules take away your freedom as a feature team.
Maven: Yeah, I hate having tofu on Mondays. Ha! Just kidding. Yes, there are rules in place, and many of them are there for a reason - to ensure the release of the software is on time and of high quality. But-
Motley: I figured I would get the standard answer from you: "Follow the rules. Conform. You have to play nice." Blah, blah, blah.
Maven: Ah, but you didn't let me finish. BUT, you have to understand the "why" of the rules, and if it doesn't make sense to you, break them.
Motley: WHAT?!?! YOU are telling ME to break the rules? Have you been into the glue again?
Maven: Sometimes it is better and easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. Do what you think is right and explain why later if necessary. Where the release management team is falling down is in instituting process across the organization instead of focusing on results. It's the accomplishments of the team that matters, and every team is slightly different. If you need to bend the rules to do what you think is right, then do it.
Motley: But they are going to make me accountable for following the rules!
Maven: Ultimately they are going to make you accountable for the results. That's what matters. You need to be prepared to answer why you broke the rules, but in the end I am sure you will be forgiven. What about the other issues: inflexibility, resistance to change, micro-managing, and people always telling you the wrong thing to do?
Motley: They are all basically the same category, I guess.
The inflexibility comes when the management team wants us to do something specific and won't take no for an answer. For example, we are forced to come up with a detailed long term plan when our team is agile. The important thing for us is to have the right priorities against our work, not predict exactly what features will make it into the final release.
Resistance to change comes in when management views our team as renegades and does not let us operate on our own even though the development model differs from other teams.
Micro-managing comes in when they look over every move we make. For example, they review our bugs even after we have triaged them!
For the wrong thing to do point, it just ties in with forcing actions on us that do not jive with our development model, like the planning above.
They are all related.
Maven: I see. You are right - they are all related and come back to the very same point. Focus on results and do what is best for the team even if your methodology differs from the overall group. Just be prepared to be accountable for the results. I am willing to bet the release managers forgive you if you ship a super high quality product on time. In fact, they will likely want to learn from your team in future releases.
Motley: Wow, Mave. You are quite the renegade. This is not exactly the advice I was expecting from you! I have new found respect! Well, not exactly, but let's pretend. We will definitely become the golden child of the entire organization and other teams will want to be just like us.
Maven: Great. The catch is this: you had better make sure you deliver those results or the release team has more ammunition to use you as a very bad example for other teams to learn from and not follow. That could spell disaster for you as a lead.
Motley: Of course we will deliver. There is never any question.
______________________________
James' Pointer: Sometimes an idea arises that you know is going to make the team more productive and improve morale. Take a recent situation I experienced. In my office area at Microsoft we are very space constrained at the moment, with people double and tripled up in offices and extreme difficultly booking conference rooms. Our team had a great idea to quadruple the leads, free up two offices, and use one for 1:1 meetings, and the other as a non-bookable team room with some extra test hardware in it. We were ecstatic. Then we asked for permission and the administrator shot us down stating that empty offices would not be tolerated and would need to be filled immediately to alleviate our space problems. But they were our offices to begin with and we didn't have to move! In the end, we did manage to get the administrator to agree to a partial move, and we used our ingenuity to perform the full move anyway without telling anyone. We are happier, more collaborative, and more productive. What she doesn't know won't hurt her. I just hope she does not read this write-up. We'll beg for forgiveness if we get caught, but until then we will help ourselves and the business.
Maven's Quotes:
- "It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission. " -- Grace Hopper
- "Forgiveness does not change the past, but it does enlarge the future." -- Paul Boese
- "Do whatever it takes to get the job done the right way and the best way; then both permission and forgiveness are unnecessary and thus irrelevant." -- Rosa Say
Summary
Motley: A tester's job is to find bugs, so measure them on the amount of bugs they find. More test automation is always better.
Maven: Do not measure testers by the amount of bugs they report. Think of the test team as more a quality assurance team than a quality control team. Too much test automation can be a problem due to brittle test infrastructures, too much time troubleshooting tests, suboptimal investment in tests, and lack of thinking like a user.
______________________________
[Context: Motley has been having issues with another counterpart team in the company]
Motley: I am a little disappointed in our test team. They really haven't generated many bugs in the product as of late. I feel like I have to kick them in the pants to get anything done.
Maven: I always thought we had a great test team. We have a bunch of really smart people, and they have made previous releases great. What is the problem?
Motley: Lately all the bugs are generated either by the development team or by others using the product. We pay the test team to test the product and find issues. If I was the test manager who is measuring them by the number of bugs they find, they would all fail this year's annual review.
Maven: Whoa. Before we explore the real issues of why the test team is not reporting bugs, let's talk about your statement around measuring testers.
Motley: Why? The best way to measure a tester is by the number of bugs they find. You can mine the bug database easily to get the numbers and it makes evaluation of the test team really easy.
Maven: Sorry, bud. Measuring testers by the number of bugs they find is a really dumb thing to do.
Motley: Don't EVER call me "dumb" - <pow>.
Maven: Ouch! Fine. I deserved that, and I apologize. Anyway, just because a tester is not reporting bugs does not mean they are not being productive. Think of the test role less as "quality control" and more as "quality assurance". The best tester can prevent a bug before it happens.
Motley: But they do control quality, and how would they prevent a bug before it happens? Developers hand over the code when they are ready expecting the tester to find all the issues.
Maven: Maybe in the past. Now, particularly with agile teams, testers are involved in the process right from the beginning. They participate in functional specification reviews, contribute to user scenario development, design reviews, code reviews, do private buddy testing, help compute metrics like code coverage, and many other quality-related activities. They do not have a sole test responsibility - they are another member of the team. A good tester helps assure quality by finding issues in all aspects of the development process and helps to improve the team's processes to prevent bugs. The best testers find no bugs in the code because they worked to prevent them right from the beginning. As a result, it makes no sense whatsoever to measure a tester by the amount of bugs they report in the bug database.
Motley: I guess that has some merit. The best tester may actually have a lower bug count than the poor testers. That is kind of an odd way of looking at the performance of a tester, though.
Maven: Odd, but reasonable. The test team should still be testing end-to-end scenarios in the product and reporting test results, however. You are saying that isn't happening? Why?
Motley: I talked to Morgan, the test lead of the multimedia feature. They are focusing all of their time on improving the test automation to ensure we have full coverage. However, the test infrastructure they are using is very unreliable and often reports incorrect results. Another team in the company is responsible for that infrastructure, but because our tests are a little more complicated, Morgan's team ends up troubleshooting the issues. It sucks up so much time that they don't have time to do the tasks that matter, like attend reviews and actually test the product.
Maven: A common problem when teams focus too much on automation.
Motley: What do you mean? Test automation is a good thing. It allows us to re-run tests without human intervention on a regular basis. Without test automation we risk breaking many areas of the product every time we make a change.
Maven: Do not get me wrong - automation can be a great thing. Unit testing is a form of automated testing and something that we have been discussing that absolutely every software developer must be doing. You make a change, you run your tests, and perhaps tests from other teams, to ensure you have not broken any functionality. The more unit tests, the better. The higher the code coverage on those unit tests, the better.
Motley: You are contradicting yourself all over the place Mr. Maven. First you said you can focus too much on automation, and now you are saying more is better. Inquiring minds want to know - which is better?
Maven: More unit tests - better. More scenario-based automated tests - not necessarily better. There is a great value in having a basic test suite that tests the core user scenarios of the product. However, relying too much on automation at the scenario level has disadvantages:
- If the architecture of the test infrastructure is very brittle (i.e. not robust), every time the product changes, major changes in the automated tests may be required. Testers spend more time trying to get the automation to work than adding real value to the product.
- A large focus on automation perpetually puts the test team behind the development team, if that is how your team is organized. If the developers design for testability, as they should, this situation is less of a problem as the testers can start developing automation fairly quickly. If automation is an afterthought, the developers may be on to the next feature before the test team is done, which means the feature isn't "done" according to our definition. It is also a context switch to go back and diagnose and debug issues later as the code is not as fresh.
- If the infrastructure on which the current features are built is expected to change in the next release, often a rewrite of the test automation is required. Should the team spend a large amount of time building automation infrastructure if it will change in the near future? Tough call.
- An automated test cannot think like a user, even if you inject some randomness into the tests. Over-reliance on automation creates some nasty test holes in the product that may only get discovered after shipping.
Motley: And here I thought more automation all the way around is always better. You actually make some good points. I am going to have a chat with the test people and ensure we are focusing on the right things. We should give up some work on automation if it means that we ship the product sooner and we do not cause ourselves any long term harm.
Maven: Sounds great. Let me know how you make out. I'm now going to stick some tissue up my nose to control the bleeding thanks to you.
Motley: Ah, you know you deserved it.
______________________________
Maven's Pointer: At Microsoft, I (James) have worked with a test team that seems to spend more time diagnosing and troubleshooting organization-wide automation infrastructure than it does improving processes, working closely with developers on test plans, and manually testing the product as a user would. Automation is a tool to detect regressions earlier in development, but it should not be used as a crutch. Given that philosophy, limit the amount of time you spend on automation to a reasonable number and pay attention to diminishing returns.
Maven's Double Pointer Indirection: We talked about code coverage in the past. One mistake test teams make is that they demand that they own the code coverage numbers, and that coverage should be measured against the test team's automated tests. Scenario-based test automation is not about testing individual components, modules, methods, and lines of code - it is more about ensuring that a scenario works as it should. Leave code coverage metrics to the developers and measure it with unit tests.
Maven's Resources:
- I.M. Testy's blog, from a guy in the Microsoft Engineering Excellence who has been teaching about testing for a long time.
- Alan Page's Notes and Rants, from another guy in Engineering Excellence who really knows his test material
- How We Test Software at Microsoft, by Page, Johnston and Rollison, Microsoft Press, ISBN: 9780735624252, August 2008.
Motley: James, that slacker, is not in the office again. That guy spends so much time outside of work that it's a wonder we pay him.
Maven: Well, everyone is entitled to a bit of vacation now and then, don't you think?
Motley: If that's what you want to call it.
Maven: Actually, this time around he's off doing a backpacking trip for charity. James is doing a 4 day hike to support Washington's National Park Fund (WNPF). It's a really good cause. We all do lots of hiking and camping in the backcountry in our national parks and generally take trail maintenance, repair, rangers, etc. for granted. Money to support that stuff needs to come from somewhere. James is raising money for the WNPF to help out. Care to give?
Motley: Ummm, I gave at the office.
Maven: Well, if everyone said that then nothing would get done. James will even take care of having Microsoft match whatever funds you donate. In case you change your mind, you can donate at http://www.firstgiving.com/waletzky.
Motley: Ugh. Fine. I can probably part with a few morning lattes. I'll have a donation up there within the hour.
___________________________________
James: No blog entry this week due to a charity event. Back next time. In the meantime, if you feel like donating to the WNPF, please click the link above. Thanks!
Summary
Motley: Use Scrum in my personal relationships? Don't be such a geek.
Maven: You can apply the same lessons as Scrum teaches to your personal relationships - lots of communication, planning, iteration, and retrospectives focusing on continuous improvement. Just translate the really hard stuff (relationships) to the what we geeks understand.
______________________________
[Context: It's Monday. Motley is not a very happy developer after spending the weekend with his girlfriend]
Maven: Hey, Mot. You look a little depressed today. Did you not have a good weekend?
Motley: Personal stuff. Leave me alone.
Maven: Ah, c'mon. Maybe I can help.
Motley: Dude - you write software for a living. You have no personal life. You don't know the first thing about relationships. Ah, crap. I already gave too much away.
Maven: Girl troubles. I see. What's the problem?
Motley: Ok, I'll humor you. I may as well tell someone my problems. It helps to get them off your chest. It's pathetic that I have to resort to you, however. Anyway, I have a great relationship with my girlfriend - usually. We are going through a rough patch. We haven't been communicating as much as we should, expectations are not being set appropriately, and I feel like we keep digressing to old behavior.
Maven: Typical problems in a more mature relationship. I remember you saying you live with her, so I presume it's mature. How about starting with some examples? What's the communication issue?
Motley: Wait a second. You see James listening again hoping for some blog material? Hah. Not getting anything this time. For once we are having a conversation about a topic that has nothing to do with software engineering! Sucker.
Maven: Knowing him he'll turn this into a software engineering topic somehow.
Motley: Anyway, one of the main issues in my relationship centers around chores. She has some responsibilities and so do I. The problem is that she does a poor job at the chores and I have to clean up and finish. It is frustrating.
Maven: It's your fault.
Motley: What do you mean it's my fault?!? She does the chores!
Maven: Have you sat down and communicated expectations you have for the chores? The two of you have not specified the completion criteria for the chores, so there is a misunderstanding of what needs to be done.
Motley: That sounds so robotic, dude. But, fine. I guess if we don't talk about expectations, that leads to issues. I'll have a chat with her about that.
Maven: What are the other problems?
Motley: Still related to chores, when she starts on something, it takes forever to finish it. She just bites off way too much at one time. And by the time it's done, it's too late to be useful. Yeah, yeah - you want an example. Well, she started working on the yard in mid-summer - bought all the plants, and by the time the plants were all in the ground it was fall and they died off shortly thereafter. Definitely not the way I would have done it.
Maven: Have you encouraged her to split the larger tasks in smaller pieces? Instead of doing one big task she could do a bunch of smaller tasks and adjust as needed. If the yard is taking much longer than expected, she could adjust what plants to put in the ground to be more seasonal.
Motley: Probably not a bad suggestion. I'll bring it up. While I am in a whine mode, another thing I am not happy about is that many chores get overlooked. Taking out the garbage is a regular thing - if you don't do it, you miss garbage day and have to put up with a nasty odor for a week. Don't you just love the smell of two week old rotten vegetables?
Maven: Perhaps what you two should do is have a brief discussion at the start of the week to come up with a shared to-do list of tasks you need to accomplish. Think of it as a family meeting or something.
Motley: Have you ever had a relationship? Never mind - I withdraw the question. Your suggestion is way too formal! She will likely laugh in my face.
Maven: It doesn't need to be formal, and it goes back to setting expectations. If you clarify the plan for the week, you will save yourself some stress and headaches later. Write it down so there is no confusion, and then you get the pleasure of checking off the task when it is complete, as we talked about previously in our checklists conversation.
Motley: I am not going to bring it up as a "family meeting", but the concept is reasonable.
Maven: If you do a daily check-in as well, you ensure that things are kept on track for the week. Just bring it up in everyday conversation.
Motley: I am afraid that if we take these suggestions that we will be back to our same old selves at the end of the first week.
Maven: Change is hard. We have talked about that too. When you make up your plan for chores for the next week, think back about the previous week and talk about how you can make the next week better. Scrap the to-do list if it isn't working. Make more time to talk if that's what it takes. Additionally, have a chat about what went well, and continue to do those things.
Motley: I don't know if I can sell all of this to her. I am obviously going to have to rephrase everything that you have just said in a way that she can understand, and not sound so ridiculously formal. All of this thinking sounds familiar though, but I am having a hard time placing it.
Maven: At this point you likely think I am completely off my rocker (crazy), but in a previous relationship my girlfriend and I were seeing a counselor and he recommended everything above. I thought it sounded very familiar to the work environment, and then it hit me like a tire on the side of the head - it's Scrum! Who knew that you could apply Scrum concepts to your personal life. I didn't.
Motley: Scrum. Yeah, I thought that sounded familiar. You just ran over planning, the meaning of "done", doing work iteratively, the daily check-in meeting, updating your backlog, and retrospectives. You are such a geek. You did say "previous relationship" with your girlfriend, so I am assuming this didn't work. Why bother?
Maven: Don't be a wise guy. Apply all the stuff we just talked about to both your relationships and to software engineering and you will be fine. Just remember to apply some right brain thinking when you use it with your girlfriend.
______________________________
Maven's Pointer: Building and maintaining relationships is often hard for techno-geek logic-based beings like software developers. It is amazing how the metaphors that we apply in everyday software development also apply to life in general. The counselor in the story above had no idea whatsoever what "Scrum" was, but he presented all the concepts in his language. Many concepts that we leverage as developers are applicable to other domains and disciplines. You just have to look for it.
Maven's Resources:
- Yeah, right. This topic is pretty far out there. If you find any related resources, be sure and let me know!
