There are lots of certified masters and trainers programmes available for various Agile methodologies but it is extremely hard to find one for Extreme Programming (XP). You can get certified in any methodology in 3 days and claim to be a practitioner but claiming to be a good XP developer is extremely hard.
It takes a few years of dedicated practice in XP to get some mastery in XP be recognised as one by peers. It does not come with just knowing how to write stories, estimate and sequence them. The most distinguished feature of XP is its emphasis on developers and technical aspects of software development.
Most of the people I encounter have modified waterfall into mini waterfalls following super rigid plans but tracking on a weekly basis in the name of agile development without giving much thought to the technical aspects. This will not help in realising many of the goals that we set out to achieve. Also to improve the speed, work is usually allotted in silos thereby increasing dependency on people and reducing collaboration.
Try answering Yes or No to the following questions
- Do you do pair programming (May not be followed for simple straight forward tasks)?
- Can any developer in the team call for a huddle when stuck or when there is a need for a design discussion?
- Do you follow Test drive development (TDD)?
- Is your team’s CI sacred, no one breaks the build or if broken it comes back green soon?
- Do you do frequent commits/merges (short lived branches) to the master or do Trunk based development?
- Can anyone in the team question the quality of code?
- Does the team get together often to do mob code reviews or do some learning sessions on best practices?
- Is it easy for you to roll off or onboard developers at least once a quarter?
- Is there automation at all levels that people do not spend any time on recurring tasks?
- Does your team seems to be productive enough if they work only for 5 days a week?
- Is the team able to interact and negotiate on the stories with the Product owner during development?
The list above is not exhaustive but if there are questions that you have answered ‘No’ then you are not on the path to mastering XP.
I am quite surprised how some technical terms easily lose their meaning over time. TDD (Test driven development) is one of them. I repeatedly meet people who do TDD at their work and when I say I also do TDD at work the next question most of the times I get asked is “Do you write tests first”? Stumped! TDD is always about write a test first and then write its code, test code is not a different citizen from production code while under development.
A few years ago if I had asked an interview candidate “Do you write your unit tests before writing your code if you are following TDD?” the chances are high that the candidate gets offended but now I am given a reply “I tried, but it is hard to do it; so we write tests after the coding is done to keep the coverage at 80”. So TDD has evolved to have a meaning of having 80%(or any other easy number) line coverage than a way of making sure to get a good low level design and have enough safety nets in place.
You are not following TDD if
- Not writing tests first
- Repeat point number 1
I often come across people at management positions who clearly want to manage by tracking only numbers but fail to understand why were those metrics in place. We were part of a six team project, we were asked to go through our requirements and give an estimate including any proof of concepts and study that we had to do. The estimates were in points in fibonacci but were tightly mapped to number of days. When we questioned about why points to days the answer was to keep the yardstick of measurement same across all the teams in the org. It was setup for failure, but our team had to move on with the development so we went ahead agreeing to the terms.
After the first sprint our team had missed meeting the estimate while all the other teams had achieved it, we were met by one of the senior managers who gave a stern warning to the team that points are non negotiable and wants us not to fail again. When the time for demo came by, we were the only team that did a demo of the working software and product owners were able to immediately grasp what was going on and gave feedback on it. All the other teams had met their estimated points but they did things like ‘Study ABC tool’, ‘Setup CI machine’, ‘Setup Dev machine’ and so on.
Our team did all those and also demoed a working software, the other teams have bloated the estimate and bought time. This went on for some iterations, all the other teams were able to meet the estimates but other than our team all the other teams were not able to showcase their working software. The management did not care much about working software, their success was measured by meeting the points; it was the product owners who suffered the most as it took an extremely long time for them to get something working.
When you choose to measure something people will optimise for the metrics. Velocity and points are a way to help plan and size the software so that people can be allocated and releases can be planned, when it turned out to be a yardstick then there is only movement but no progress. People will eventually game the system and it becomes a toxic cycle.
Please prioritise working software over points
During our college days (2001) when Bluetooth was in its early stages the Bluetooth SIG (Special interest group) tied up with IEEE and announced a Bluetooth based theme for CSIDC (Computer science international design competition) with good perks like Bluetooth adapters, Windows XP and Visual studio licenses for participants and good prizes. One of our friends read about this and three of us put up a proposal with our ideas and we got through the initial round. We had a lot of ideas with us to implement a prototype, it is at this point a software company which was run by one of the alumni came over to help us in planning.
Our initial plan was to implement quickly and try it out on the users for feedback.
This was for a generic identification device that can be configured to use for payments, tolls for cars, parking etc. The idea was that Bluetooth devices can hold a lot of data and gives the users the flexibility to create as many profiles as they want.
One of the seniors in the company invited us to their place, in our first meeting itself we were stumped when we saw the mountain from which the waterfall process flowed. We were slapped with a software requirements specification document template which would have taken a few weeks to fill for the amount of ideas we had. It also had various parameters to rate the requirements like return on investment etc. I could never forget the feeling that we had on that day, we dropped our idea altogether and went on to find something which had requirements perfectly documented.
By the time we finished the first cut of the project and submitted we were only half happy that we did finish something. We ended up converting EEG wirelessly and transmit through Bluetooth which was not a novel idea at all. The Waterfall process killed the idea, the fire and above all nothing useful came out of a defined process. Someone else who had submitted a similar generic id device entered the top 10 and ended up winning something. Some events leave a lasting impression on your life, this one was so strong that I had never accepted to work in waterfall development ever even though that was the only one very active around the time I graduated.
Any process followed for the sake of following it will surely kill a lot of things
I often get into a debate with people about the type and the extent of testing that has to be done for software. One of the key arguments I hear is that developers should focus on creating only the happy path and leave the rest to the testers to find or have SDETs write extensive automated tests while developers can skip unit tests and focus only on writing useful code.
I have used the swiss cheese model to explain to people about the need for layered coverage instead of concentrating all the effort onto one layer. I first heard this term while watching an air crash investigation episode in nat geo. The narrator explains that though there are millions of parts in commercial airliners, the chance of getting into an accident is far lesser than motorcycles.
How an aircraft with millions of parts is able to get back on to the sky within a few hours after landing from a long trip? The answer lies in layered testing. The pilot has a pre-flight checklist, the ground staff do a routine check for visible damages, the maintenance crew notice the hours of usage and do preventive maintenance, there is a strong network of weather monitoring and routing, ATCs manned with trained staff and modern radars, aircrafts fitted with collision avoidance systems, a long series of protocols for ground and sky movements etc.
It is the same across many engineering and medical disciplines. The risk of something slipping through all the layers of test is very rare and if it happens then it is immediately plugged. In software engineering it is a combination of static checks, unit tests, integration tests, automated ui tests, heuristics & exploratory tests, performance tests etc. No one type of test can be removed altogether and replaced by another. We need the layers to move fast and yet deliver what is required.
Image courtesy: Davidmack, Swiss cheese model of accident causation, CC BY-SA 3.0
I went to a restaurant for a buffet which was a bit crowded. I thought the service at some of the live counters will be slow but was surprised that the people at the counters were able to serve large number of customers in a short span of time, especially the salad counters.
I was curious so visited one of the salad counters to see how was it possible for them to serve that many people at once. It was shocking to see that in the name of speed the person at the counter was cutting fruits in such a way that about half of them got thrown away along with the skin and the seeds. If this person had maximized the fruit content then it would have taken 4-5 times the amount of time taken now on fast cuts.
It is very clear that the restaurant can afford to waste as much of half of the food because they still gained from servicing a lot more people than operating efficiently. It was optimized for time not cost.
This is something people don’t understand while choosing tradeoffs, people often choose both cost and speed as key without giving a second thought that both cannot go hand in hand. If the same set of people had to do things much quicker and at a larger scale there has to be expenditures in tools, training and also some change in processes where there will be huge wastes before optimization kicks in. This is what happens in software development teams, often there is a tight budget and an impending doom if something does not happen; leading teams to easy burnouts.
I did not include the word quality here as it is non negotiable, you can do things quick and cheap but with a poor quality of work like serving the fruits with seeds still intact or skins not peeled well. That is not work done, there is no work without quality; eventually it drives away customers.
Next time when you have a debate about speed consider moving the cost sliders.
If you are a salaried person, then imagine that you are a business owner who serves only one client at a time. Won’t you keep looking to improve the product/service you offer, won’t you keep looking at emerging trends and stay on top of your business domain, won’t you find out who your next prospective client is? It is not that hard to answer these questions, a business owner always has to stay aware of the market and stay relevant.
When it makes sense as a business owner to explore the market, find the options and stay relevant; why should salaried employees not be aware of what is going on around them? Each salaried person should always stay aware of the market and keep themselves relevant. I have often come across people who scamper for opportunities or rush to update themselves when they are either disgruntled or unable to perform with their current employer. This will lead to people making bad decisions as survival instincts kick in to stay employed. Your best decisions will come to you when you are least stressed.
If we treat our employment as a business that has to be sustained, we won’t be relying on the learning & development programs of the companies. We will constantly be in touch with the industry and will continue to stay aware and stay relevant. To be aware of what is going on in the market, time to time conversations has to happen about opportunities like any other business. If we are aware of the market, then we are aware of our abilities and will shape up quickly to always be a market fit.