recently, I found a good example of why (or how) to use the SO THAT clause in a user story. The use case is simple: a web site where the visitor should not be required to sign-up or sign-in.
The US would look like:
AS A visitor I WANT to access the site without any sign in or sign up SO THAT …
What to put in the SO THAT clause? try not to read the below and stop a bit thinking about it. What would you put?
I am pretty sure most of you is thinking “it depends by the reason why this is needed”…. EXACTLY! the SO THAT clause tells something about why we want that US; it tells something about the value to the user. It is important, because differently than use cases or formal specifications, it does not give the exact intended behavior, but just the goal from a user perspective. This tells us a lot in terms of what we can think of and what we should not if, for example, we want to provide the functionality in increments.
Back to the US, one version could be:
AS A visitor I WANT to access the site without any sign in or sign up SO THAT I do not give any personal data to the site
AS A visitor I WANT to access the site without any sign in or sign up SO THAT I can easily and quickly access all functionality of the site
As you see these two USs provide very different perspectives on what’s the real value to the user: in one case is privacy, in another case is easy of use. This can bring to very different strategies to split the story if necessary.
What do branches have to do with agile? They have a role under many aspects. I will not cover the most basic ones like why a version control system is necessary (which is true regardless you do agile or not), but I want to cover a bit some implications we are facing in an environment with many teams working in parallel.
I believe the role of a VCS is fundamentally twofold: it’s the central repository of code from which you deliver a new release; and it is a communication tool, so that all developers can see what each other does and keep themselves updated with each other work.
In this post, I want to go in more details about the second aspect, accordingly to some real work (and world) experience I notice in my teams.
The concept that a scrum team uses the repository as a communication tool, is quite widely accepted. I would say it is well metabolized by each team member, so that everyone does not feel comfortable in keeping the code on his/her laptop only. It is the way code is exchanged, which is very good indeed. It is also well received and assimilated as a communication tool between different teams, so that we can all relay on nightly builds built from the trunk. The code repository is therefore a tool every one in the team relay upon to have the most stable code.
What’s wrong then? well, nothing in itself. However, there is a dynamic I am still trying to understand better, but that is showing some very bad effects. I start to identify a broken pattern, which is like this:
- One dev team needs to implement a new feature for a customer that we want to include in the product;
- Because as usual customers are in hurry, you need to deliver as quick as you can, and all that you know better than me, the team decides to make branch for that customer and develop the new feature on the branch
- Since everybody understands that 2 must be a temporarily solution because we want at the end the feature in the product, the team promises itself after releasing to the customer the branch will be merged
- The merge does never happen
And here is where the process breaks. At the end, you have different customers with radically different versions, all live with something that it is not the product. And because they are live, the forces against update them with a new release of the product are so strong that very hardly they will ever be all aligned to the same version. I am sure all readers understand this is quite bad, and who hosts for their customers, understands how bad it is even more.
The reasons why the merge does not happen are many and all good: firstly and most fundamentally everybody is scared to do the merge because at the point when it will be done, the code has so diverged from the trunk that the merge will be boring, very hard, long and will surely result in breaking the product, requiring a lot of regression and so on. Secondly, if the project is successfully, very likely you have a phase II, still urgent, still important. Do you want to risk you break everything? of course not, let’s keep working on the branch… this is even more true in agile development where it is us before all that tries to make the customer accept to do things incrementally and in phases.
So, should we ban the branches at all? Shall we just all work on the trunk? Honestly I do not know, at least yet. But I want to see if there is another way… what I’ve been doing since a few iterations is trying to understand why the teams feel so badly the need to work on branches. I am realizing something interesting that I want to report below:
- Usually branches start from a genuine good intention of a team, not wanting to interfere with the work of other teams: if I work on my own branch, I will not break the code for you, so that you can keep working like I wasn’t doing anything.
- The above is a practice also in place during the iterations, even at the level of a single iteration. The assumption is that the code will be merged before accepting the user story. The good news is that at this level (differently from branches for a project) the teams do it diligently. However what’s the direct result? it is that the other teams will just see the code changing suddenly at the end of the iteration, without time to remedy. The good intention of not breaking the code for other teams turns into delaying the time when issues can be encountered to a time where usually there is not more time to fix things within the iteration.
What I am finding is that branches are created mainly for the fear of breaking the code for other teams. Again, the intention is good, but is it the best way to make sure we do not break the code for other teams? Are we sure we can not work differently so that we do not break the code, and if we do is not a big deal?
In working directly with the teams I started to question the need of a branch and I expressly asked a team to discuss a bit before creating one. I am finding particularly interesting that most of the times, the need of a branch comes from the fear that only potentially a developer interferes with the work of another developer. And even more interestingly, they may be working on the same code. This seems common sense at a first glance. But when asking something like: have you checked with the other team if this is a problem? have you talked to them to see if touching that area of the code would be a problem for them? have you briefly discussed the changes together so that everybody will not have big surprises? …
You know what? most of the times that communication did not happen. Thus, the communication tool subversion, is turning into an obstacle to a more effective and efficient way to communicate: talking. This is the aspect I consider more important and that I want to attack. I want to attack the fear of breaking the code for others. And I believe the best way is not to isolate more the teams, but more integration between them. The best strategy is not to avoid to interfere each other, but to interfere more, on a daily basis, working all the time on the same trunk of code. I am sure this will break things more often and we will have a less stable trunk for a while. But I also think the incidents that will happen will make the teams generate the anti-corps to pay more attention to the code they release, to make sure code is tested at build time, to be able to change code more quickly and to talk more each other to save time and effort.
Therefore, from now on, I declared war to branches!
Well, you won’t believe it, but this is the kind of comments I witnessed today! I am at a big customer on a very big project. You know, many parties involved, big companies, a complex environment and a lot of stress for the approaching deadline…
In the status meeting, the big boy realized we can run out of time. The feeling of not making progress was starting to dominate the meeting… until someone came out saying “maybe we should do a scrum meeting every day” to speed up things…. I wish it could be like that!
What they do not realize is that to have better control of the project, and speed up things, they should start to work better together and trust more each other; not to increase the level of control on the project’s tasks. This is the exact opposite of scrum and what will make them waste a lot of time…
Ok… in the agile mythology it is enough you explain agile to your team and everybody in the team will be excited about it and can’t wait to start to release something every week and do pair programming. If this does not happen… just fire who is not convinced enough and hire somebody else…
I do not want to argue if this is a dogmatic or pragmatic position, I would just say it is not the way I like to face the issue. If there is something that agile tells you is that hiding the problems under the carpet of time does not make you do better. From agile you learn to highlight the problems and find the solutions.
In introducing agile in a team of about 30 engineers, we experienced people reacting in different ways: somebody was excited (at least in principle), somebody doubtful, some were completely against (and maybe still are), the most close to neutral. What to do in such situation? Fire who is not fully convinced and hire a new team? Give up? Or firmly keep trying to change things and fix problems convinced that the results will come? We have taken the former approach, but I have to admit we had to push some changes from top to the teams. This is not ideal indeed and only the time will tell if it was a good thing or not. For sure, it is not something you can keep doing for too long. How then encourage people to free-up their energy also in making the way they work better, easier, more efficient, more knowledgeable… in a word more enjoyable?
One initiative we introduced and I hope will bring the benefits above is the Agile Jedi Initiative. Aim of this initiative is to combine ideas, sensitivities, skills and energy of who is more sensitive to agile practices so to build a working group open to anyone that sees a problem in the current practices and wants to contribute to solve it. This is something that shall come from the teams and that is for the teams. I really hope it will virally spread to all members of the engineering team.
But what’s the mission of an Agile Jedi? A simple question with a non trivial (or no) answer, so let’s get some principles come to help us. An Agile Jedi:
- Constantly inspects and improves
- Does what makes sense, never more, never less
- Takes ownership
- Grows leadership
- Turns problems in opportunities
- Is not afraid to make mistakes
- Searches for the next right answer
- Breaks the patterns, sees things under different perspectives
- Exercises agile techniques
- Helps anyone in all the above
May the Force be with you!
A nice post from Edo: http://edschepis.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/foster-collaboration-in-forming-teams/
After CSM certification… my next step… http://edschepis.wordpress.com/2010/04/15/certified-scrum-professional/
Thanks to Funambol Engineering Team that gave me this opportunity: challenging every day my skills and our practices.
Do you know that feeling when you’re doing right? When the team is working effectively and with passion, focused on releasing value every sprint?
Well, one of these moments is during the Sprint Review meetings (the good ones).
And in order to properly celebrate the well DONE sprint I had the idea to close the review meeting with some nice “agile” messages: funny and interesting at the same time.
So I have started projecting some funny videos on basic agile themes from youtube: short and funny.
Here’s the list of the latest ones by category:
Enjoy the show and celebrate your scrum meetings when it is worth to do it!
When somebody in the team says that Scrum is like the 12 tasks of Asterix in the following video….
What do you do? What is the best approach to manage the situation?
I’ve just posted the question to the scrumdevelopment Yahoo group and I’ll report here some feedback.
As you may know we recently acquired an Ukrainian company; they were mainly developers (in a wide – or agile if you want – sense) so they joined my team. Since they had all the competencies to release a software product, the most natural choice for me was to organize them in their own scrum team. In the past we have been working with teams neither fully collocated nor fully remote, and we have been experiencing the pain of such situation. Therefore, I wanted to avoid it at all costs. Also, their competencies where more focused on the client side of our product, which looked to me another good reason to keep them together in a remote scrum team.
Since this is not what I want to talk about in this post, I’ll make the long story short. The organization above shown some issues that the teams perceived as a big impediment to them because the remote team could not reliably commit on client-side user stories until the server side-stories, developed by another scrum team, were done.
To come to the topic, by chance, the other day I heard my development manager and the scrum master discussing about how the teams wanted to solve the problem: mix the server and client teams so that they both had who can work on the back-end and who can work on the front-end. Unfortunately, this also means to make both teams again partially collocated and partially remote. This reminded me with terror the past times and our previous bloody experience with such teams. I therefore started to question the decision and remarking my strong opinions, probably also making quite evident my opposition to the decision.
At that point, Edo (the scrum master) candidly asked:
“Stefano, do you want the teams to self organize or do you want to make the decisions on their behalf?”
He left me speechless and weaponless…
I do not want to be fake-modest here… being a founder and the CTO of Funambol, I know I am an heavy presence… I interviewed everybody in the engineering team and no one takes me lightly (or at least I hope – if you are new to Funambol you are warned now :) ). Still, that was I had to hear… :|
I hated him with all my forces. But at the same time I loved him with all my heart. I mean… what could have made me more happy having embraced agile? The teams are the ones at the front line. They fight every single day. They know their problems and they want to fix them. What must be here my role? Tell them I know more then what they know looking around from my desk? Or give them all support they need to remove the impediments they have found out?
Guys, that’s the way I want you. Put your balls (wherever you have them) on the table and tell me I am wrong; show me I am fucking wrong!
If I have created a self organized team or a monster, only the time will tell. For now it is good to know I can go on vacation tomorrow for 6 months and no one will ever notice it! It is a great feeling. A feeling of achievement of at least a milestone. It is time for a new tattoo!
One of the most advertised advantages of agile development is that at the end of each iteration the product is always releasable. The idea is that each piece of functionality is either done or not done and everything done should be shippable.
Ok, we are not that good yet :) Or maybe this is not even a realistic goal in some organizations or under certain conditions. Under the cover, the subject is not that obvious and if you are interested in knowing more these are few interesting links:
We adopt stabilization sprints before declaring a release GA. Indeed, the stabilization process is a work-in-progress that we try to improve at every release. For the upcoming release we structured the stabilization process in two main phases: integration and final stabilization. The integration period will take two iterations and is focused on putting all components together and performing integration and other high level testing. Then we will have one iteration of final stabilization. In this last period we will focus on real usage to make sure we do not encounter major issues that will get in the face of the user on real deployments. In the following, the process is described in little more details.
Length: 2 2week iterations
Focus: integration, regression and performance testing; general testing by selected users (dogfoodding)
- snapshots of all components ready
- user documentation ready
- no bugs targeted to the release
- no development planned for the release
- device list of the devices we condider blocker for the release ready
Output: all packages become release candidate
Length: 1 2week iteration
Focus: stability and general testing by selected users
- all components are release candidates
- network environment for testing machines verified and locked
- performance are ok
Output: all packages become GA
During integration testing any bug found is triaged to determined if it must be fixed in the current release or can be postponed. Of course the bar is pretty high assuming most of the bugs should have been captured during development iterations.
The final stabilization iteration is intended to make sure a live system works smoothly for a period of time without major flaws. In our experience, it is a very good way to capture things that are difficult to foresee in advance and that likely (as per Murphy’s law) a customer would run into pretty soon. Only really sever bugs should block the release at this stage.
I keep asking myself if stabilization sprints are necessary in real cases or instead are just a sign of sub optimal development practices during normal iterations. For now, my experience tells me stabilization gives still a lot of value to the quality of the product shipping and allows to focus the team on tasks that would be not very efficient to do upfront in each iteration. But as usual, we will see how it goes and try to improve next time ;)