Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
Imagine you work as a contractor in a large project involving multiple systems, and you are creating one of them. The whole project uses a traditional process, but there are smells that tell you that an agile process would be much better.
Now the question. Does it make sense to introduce an agile software development process in your own group only? There is no chance to change the whole project, but you might perhaps change the process in your own group.
What would be the major benefits and pitfalls of such a local process change? Are there specific agile processes that would work good in such a case?
Here's a great diary of how a guy changed his whole company towards Agile over a period of a couple of years - yes, starting with his own subproject, i.e. "bottom-up". But he does go into the pros and cons of trying a "top-down" change.
http://jamesshore.com/Change-Diary/
Very entertaining and intruiging stuff.
Read Effective Ways to Introduce Agile into the Workplace and Joel's seminal Getting Things Done When You're Only a Grunt.
Beyond that it's probably mostly marketing/expectation management with your superiors and customers. Both of which might resent investing in the various agile customer-inclusion "games". Both of which also might resent the "new-fangled" way of doing things.
I think the answer depends how isolated you can be from everyone else's process. If they just tell you to go get your portion done and come back with a completed widget, implementing Agile locally should be relatively easy. If, on the other hand, you are expected to follow lots of random dates and procedures, it will be more difficult.
You'll have to be flexible and make sure that whatever sprint cadence you have lands on similar dates to the rest of the system. You'll have to plan out your sprints ahead because the central planners will probably want an all-up feature list early and won't stand for the more laid back Agile approach. Just be conservative about what you'll deliver and you should be fine.
The advantages should be the same as the advantages Agile has elsewhere.
This is an interesting scenario. I had a similar situation years back, and I'd say doing this essentially doubles the project manager's (your?) workload. You will need to play double face, with one set of cards towards the customer and one set towards the developers.
If your developers are GOOD, I would go for it. If they are not, and would require kicks and handholding, be careful. If they are good but may get carried away to their own agendas, be firmly in charge.
It is sometimes funny how organizations with traditional project model emphasize minor features, irrelevant to the developer's mind, and completely ignore the real hot spots. I still don't get it - maybe it's plain stupidity and nonprofessionalism. Expect that.
And do remember test based approach is the heart of Agile development. Do tests first. This will be peculiar to the customer, but they will benefit in seeing how the subproject actually proceeds. You might get less "progress" early on but more at the final yards.
Depends on your motivations, and what you aim to achieve.
Pitfalls: the major one is that agile development works by increasing visibility. Thus, adopting agile practices in one sub-project, if the effort is at all successful, can lead to exposing issues that affect the whole project, resulting in a risk of backlash. Keep in mind the parable of the two envelopes.
Which practices you take on first depends on how you want to handle this risk. If you start by adopting the planning-related practices (task board, release plan, user stories, velocity) matters may come to a head relatively fast.
Ditto, more or less, if you start with practices in the area of requirements (user stories, automated acceptance tests).
If you start with internal quality (test-driven development, refactoring, continuous integration) you may improve the motivation of the developers on the project, at the risk of not necessarily mattering a whole lot in the larger scheme of things.
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I lead a team of six programmers, and we are presently implementing a number of agile development practices. I'm very interested in Scrum, however it seems to assume that your project will have multiple developers. Most of my projects are smaller, and involve a single developer. We run 3 or 4 such projects in parrallel at any time.
From reading Schwaber, a lot of the benefit of Scrum seems to derive from teams self-organising to achieve a complex task. If you have a single developer doing all the work, will Scrum deliver much value?
Scrum might be more than you need as a single developer, but if you have a stake holder and a QA person then Scrum can still be helpful. Remember they are apart of your team, and should be at your standups to trade information with the team.
If you are truly alone there are other agile practices that might make more sense to you. For example, Kanban might be a better fit. You don't have iteration overhead, retros, sprint planning, etc. You just have a backlog that you pull tasks from. This works well as a way to organize your work, allows stake holders to adjust priorities, and works well for a single developer or small team where you can break up work without a lot of need to synchronize between developers. Maybe you have a product built that only has small features that doesn't need a lot of architecture being built to support new features. Or lots of small projects that are independent say for advertising firms, etc.
The single most important benefit of Scrum that is there even if there is just one developer is not the daily sync (meeting), but rather the limitation on context switches. While working in sprints this single developer can concentrate on given stories within his (presumably short) sprint knowing he won't be interrupted or pushed to do something else before finishing this.
Less context switching == less waste == more productivity.
BTW - Kanban offers less overhead than Scrum, but it is easier to circumvent and force developer to context switch. This can be a benefit but can easily become a problem too.
I think that the value you may get can come from scrum or other agile concepts.
For example, instead of a weird standup meeting, have the one developer tell you why he has taken x desicion for the y task. You may or may not be able to suggest things (depends on your background as a developer I guess), but the fact that the developer is hearing his own explanation might be useful for finding bugs or dead-end reasonings.
As a professor of mine once commented on asking yourself a question aloud: "If you ask the universe for an answer, it will give you one"
While, as others have pointed out, the daily standup may be weird, there's still value for an individual developer in adopting a scrum-'like' process.
Timeboxed, potentially releasable, iterations and a stack-ranked backlog can only help an individual developer keep focused on actually getting something done instead of endlessly ratholing.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I have been doing TDD for the past 3 years. We were a small company, and we had very solid support for most aspects of the agile process from management. Everyone on the development team was sold on the process. And thus, the upfront investment it usually takes to build fixtures was accepted knowing it would pay off along the way. (Code that starts an http server, code that populates sql databases before tests, etc). Documentation mostly happened in the tests and help requests were usually presented in the form a failing test.
Now I moved to a bigger company, and while management is supportive of the Agile process, teammates are a mixed bag, some of them see it useful, some of them do it because of management and some don't see the value. It's been a challenge to convince people to spend some time building fixtures or to convince a team member the best way for me to help him if he took the time to write a failing test.
So what do you think is the best way to sell TDD to a hesitant teammate? The objections are usually : 'It's an unneeded cost', ' we can always write tests after the fact for parts that are important', 'it's a buzz word, teams pick it up and then it falls to the side as the heavy grind begins' etc.
"the best way to sell TDD to a hesitant teammate"
You can't. Don't waste time "selling".
Instead, invest time in "proving".
Just do it. Be successful. When people ask what the secret of your success is, then reveal the TDD. Not before.
simple -- maintainability. TDD gives you the ability to make changes, and see where those changes affect the rest of the code. The larger the code base, the more imperative it is that there be tests to validate any new changes.
correctness. Although tests can themselves be broken, eventually they reach a point where they make sure the components are doing what they are supposed to. The better the developer, the faster that is.
another advantage is that TDD informs the design of the components in the system. If you are trying to test something, and the test is too complicated, it probably means you need to break the problem down into smaller parts...
to sell it to people, you say that in the long run it makes adding new features cheaper, and reduces the risk of breaking existing functionality. So it reduces cost.
For the hesitant teammate, be patient, wait for an opportunity, then pounce. In software development there will undoubtedly be an problem where TDD would have prevented or mitigated the problem. Be on the lookout for such an opportunity. Work with him/her to create a test(s) that should have been developed from the beginning. However, make sure you craft your message in such a way to not embarrass your teammate.
I agree with S. Lott, you can't "sell" them you need to show the value.
One of the most effective ways to do that is with pair programming. Granted you have another "sell" problem convincing people that pairing is an effective approach, but after some time you may convince/convert a developer or too.
TDD was a tough concept for me initially, but now I can't imaging programming any other way.
I think Joel's post explains very well why testing is A Good Thing™.
I don't think he ever uses the phrase "TDD", but it's got some great info.
Show them this site: WeDoTDD.com - actual company team use cases. Those who are successfully practicing TDD in real companies.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
Is Agile really different from TDD ? If so what are the main differences ?
Agile is anything that is inline with the values listed here - http://agilemanifesto.org/
XP (Extreme Programming) is a methodology that qualifies as agile. There are others too (Scrum, Crystal, etc..)
TDD (Test Driven Development) is a specific engineering practice from XP - which is a way to write code + drive design in incremental chunks. You write a test first, make it pass with the simplest possible change and then refactor to improve the structure/design. You do this in a loop till you're done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test-driven_development
In short, TDD and Agile really focus on different aspects, and aren't mutually exclusive of one another.
TDD is very focused on how code gets written (and thus tends to be aimed at the work cycles of individual or small groups of developers exclusively).
Agile is really focused on the overall development process, not just how the code gets written and tested (and thus focuses a lot on project management and groups of developers, as opposed to specifically how a given developer writes code).
I'm going to play devil's advocate and say, Yes. TDD and Agile are the same thing, just at different scales.
Bear with me, here.
First off, TDD encourages you to have a plan of what you want to achieve, before you achieve it. You don't think about how you're going to achieve it. You just think about how to demonstrate that the thing you're about to write is valuable, and you work out how you know. This is very similar to the way in which projects are ideally sourced and requirements are gathered in Agile methodologies.
Then, you do the minimum necessary to get feedback on the work. With TDD this means a red or green bar. At a higher level, Agile methodologies encourage you to showcase and get feedback from stakeholders, or (preferably) release to production and see if it works and if anyone uses it.
Then you work out what the next bit of work to do is, and you write the next bit of the plan.
Agile methodologies may also use estimation and prioritisation, but these are mostly to do with assigning budgets and working out whether the work is worth doing in the first place - which devs do naturally at a small scale.
Agile methodologies are iterative - that is, the periods of planning, implementation, delivery and feedback are cyclical. So is TDD, with exactly the same steps.
Agile methodologies usually emphasise communication, conversation and lightweight documentation. TDD can be used as a form of documentation, too, especially if you make the test-names into meaningful sentences and use the same language that the business use together with realistic examples. This can also encourage communication and conversation.
Agile methodologies encourage reflection and learning from the past. TDD has this lovely red bar which can help you to do that very quickly.
If you scale TDD up, you get Acceptance Tests or BDD-style scenarios. Further up you start getting into Feature Injection and other forms of vision-driven analysis. Further up still you're looking at whether the released project retains your market share, or provides the options you wanted going forward, or achieves whatever its original vision was. The tests get bigger, but the process of writing just enough, getting feedback on it and learning continuously is still the same, no matter what the Agile methodology is.
All the rules which help Agile to be successful at a large scale can be applied to TDD at a small scale, and vice versa. (I'm trying hard to think of any exceptions to that and can't).
So, no. Agile isn't different to TDD. It's just TDD-done-bigger.
The differences are huge because I think there's a very simple distinction:
Agile is a philosophy whereas TDD is a specific methodology.
There are any number of ways you can work that are agile but by and large you are either doing TDD or you're not.
You can be Agile without using TDD (or a variant thereof) and you can use TDD without being agile (though I'd be somewhat surprised).
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I posted this question on Reddit Programming and did not get a single response. So I am hoping that Stack Overflow community will have an opinion.
Have any of you ever been on a software project that had fallen behind, where 'Crashing' or 'Fast-Tracking' the project schedule actually brought the project schedule back on track? I have never seen either of these project management techniques actually work. And all the articles on software development that I have read all state that these 2 techniques do not work and actually pushing the project further behind (for example literature on the Mythical Man Month). So who has seen it work?
Thanks Bill.
I have only ever seen it work once. It was a three or four month long project that was projected to run an extra two months over the original delivery date. The project got fast-tracked and things ended up getting back on track for the release.
...keep in mind though, that was only once. I've been on many more projects where the PM tried to use one of those two methods and they failed miserably and dragged the project out for months beyond already extended date.
It can work. But there's a price to be paid: lower quality (more bugs, less testing) and turnover of burned-out programmers.
And in many cases, a fast-tracked project will both fail to deliver on time and will still pay the full negative price, for the reasons stated in Mythical man-month.
I've seen it work but it's not the norm.
Things I'd want to see before I thought it might be feasible:
1) Staff available with suitable skills and approach. By that I don't mean ".NET programmer", I mean detailed technical skills, business domain skills (so they understand the problem), personality fit and understand the tools and the approach (source control, methodology and so on). This can happen in large companies where there are common tools, standards and knowledge but you need to be sure that they're ticking pretty much all the boxes.
2) Tasks must be nicely divisible. The best situation is where there are whole modules, applications or tasks unstarted and you can put new people on that. It minimises upskilling, additional communication and so on. If you can't separate out what the new people will do you're likely to majorly disrupt the existing team.
3) The whole team must have bought into the approach. If the existing team don't agree that bringing people on board will be right they'll likely fight it and you're doomed.
4) You need to be sure you've addressed why it was running late in the first place. If it was just bad estimates then are you confident the new estimates are good? If it was scope creep have you got the scope and change control in hand now? If it was because the deadline moved, are you sure it won't move again?
If you can't tick all four of those off, it isn't going to work.
Crashing and Fast-Tracking are two very different things...
Fast Tracking is where you take something (tasks or work packages) out of sequence and do it early. This may because of hardware delivery lead times, availability of resources, risk or whatever. So you might do things in parallel where originally you had planned to do it sequentially. I've fast tracked a lot of projects.. and yes it works.
Crashing a project is different in that you typically throw more resources at a problem to get it done quicker... this can be tricky. If it's done as a crisis response it can be painful adding extra people as you are already under the pump. In some situations you just add more problems.
Another alternative to crashing is to reduce scope. This is not always possible, but it should be considered.
With fast tracking or crashing... the sooner you know when you need to make a schedule change the easier to manage. This is why early deadlines are so important, they indicate how the rest of the project will go.
Both of these project management techniques work well to maintain a schedule, but they should be used intelligently by judiciously analyzing the network diagram:
study the variance,
study lead and lags;
decide what suits to your project: ‘Crashing’ or ‘Fast-Tracking’.
There is a software management principle that says adding manpower to a late project makes it later.
That said, as long as the measures taken are sensible it should be ok. Don't expect too much of your staff and provide reasonable incentives and don't take short cuts. It won't make miracles happen but if you're practical and want to push things just that little bit faster it can definitely be done.
When people have a stake in the potential success of something it's amazing how much more effort they're willing to put in.
It depends on what you mean by "work". I don't think I've ever seen it make a way late project deliver on time, if that's what you are asking.
However, I have seen it make way late projects deliver only a bit late. From the fuzzy perspective of management, that might be called "working". I've also seen it significantly lower the customer-based pressure on the company. Some might also call that "working".
Of course the price is rather high. Employees burn out, develop health problems or big problems in their neglected personal lives, etc. All of that has large financial repurcussions to the company. So I doubt the company comes out ahead in the long run. Is that "working"?
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
We are just starting on a pretty big project with lots of sub projects. we don't currently use any kind of named process but I am hoping to get some kind of agile/scrumlike process in by the back door.
The area I will be focusing on most is having a good backlog for the whole project and, at least in my head, the idea of an iteration where some things are taken from the backlog, looked at in more detail and developed to a reasonable deadline.
I wonder what techniques people use to break projects down into things to go in the backlog, and once the backlog is created how it is maintained and ordered. also how relationships between elements are maintained (ie this must be done before it is possible to do that, or this was one story now it is five)
I am not sure what I expect the answer for this question to look like. I think what may be most helpful is if there is an open source project that keeps its backlog online in some way so I can see how others do it.
Something else that would get +1 from me is examples of real user stories from real projects (the "a user can log on" story does not help me picture things in my project.
Thanks.
I would counsel you to think carefully before adopting a tool, especially since it sounds like your process is likely to be fluid at first as you find your feet. My feeling is that a tool may be more likely to constrain you than enable you at this stage, and you will find it no substitute for a good card-wall in physical space. I would suggest you instead concentrate your efforts on the task at hand, and grab a tool when you feel like you really need one. By that stage you'll more likely have a clear idea of your requirements.
I have run several agile projects now and we have never needed a more complex tool than a spreadsheet, and that on a project with a budget of over a million pounds. Mostly we find that a whiteboard and index cards (one per user story) is more than sufficient.
When identifying your stories, make sure you always express them in terms that make sense to your users - some (perhaps only small) piece of surfaced functionality. Never allow yourself to slip into writing stories about technical details that you could not demonstrate to a user.
The skill when scheduling the stories is to try to prioritise the things you know least about first (plan for what you want to learn, rather than what you want to do) whilst also starting with the stories that will allow you to develop the core features of your application, using subsequent stories to wrap functionality (and technical complexity) around them.
If you're confident that you can leave some piece of the puzzle till later, don't sweat on getting into the details of that - just write a single story card that represents the big conversation you'll need to have later, and get on with the more important stuff. If you need to have a feel for the size of what's to come, look at a wideband delphi estimation technique called planning poker.
The Mike Cohn books, particularly Agile Estimating and Planning will help you a lot at this stage, and give you some useful techniques to work with.
Good luck!
Like DanielHonig we also use RallyDev (on a small scale) and it sounds like it could be a useful system for you to at least investigate.
Also, a great book on the user story method of development is User Stories Applied by Mike Cohn. I'd certainly recommend reading it if you haven't already. It should answer a lot of your questions.
I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but it may still be helpful. Max Pool from codesqueeze has a video explaining his "agile wall". It's cool to see his process, even if it may not necessarily relate to your question:
My Agile Wall (Plus A Few Tricks)
So here are a few tips:
We use RallyDev.
We created a view of packages that our requirements live in.
Large stories are labeled as epics and placed into the release backlog of the release they are intended for. Child stories are added to the epics. We have found it best to keep the stories very granular. Coarse grained stories make it difficult to realistically estimate and execute the story.
So in general:
Organize by the release
Keep
iterations between 2-4 weeks
Product owners and project
managers add stories to the release
backlog
The dev team estimates
the stories based on TShirt sizes,
points, etc...
In Spring planning
meeetings the dev team selects the
work for the iteration from the
release backlog.
This is what we've been doing for the past 4 months and have found it to work well. Very important to keep the size of the stories small and granular.
Remember the Invest and Smart acronyms for evaluating user stories, a good story should be:
I - Independent
N - Negotiable
V - Valuable
E - Estimable
S - Small
T - Testable
Smart:
S - Specific
M - Measurable
A - Achievable
R - Relevant
T - Time-boxed
I'd start off by saying Keep it Simple.. use a shared spreadsheet with tracking (and backup). If you see scaling or synchronization problems such that maintaining the backlog in a consistent state is getting more and more time-consuming, trade up. This will automatically validate and justify the expenditure/retraining costs.
I've read some good things about Mingle from Thoughtworks.
here is my response to a similar question that may give you some ideas
Help a BA! Managing User Stories ...
A lot of these responses have been with suggestions about tools to use. However, the reality is that your process will be the much more important than the tools you use to implement the process. Stay away from tools that attempt to cram a methodology down your throat. But also, be wary of simply implementing an old non-agile process using a new tool. Here are some strong facts to consider when determining tools for processes:
A bad process instrumented with a software tool will result in a bad
software tool implemention.
Processes will change based on the group you are managing. The
important thing is the people, not the process. Implement something
they can work successfully in, and your project will be successful.
All that said, here are a few guidelines to help you:
Start with a pure implementation of a documented process,
Make your iterations small,
After each iteration talk with your teams and ask what they they
would change, implement the changes that make sense.
For larger organizations, if you are using SCRUM, use a cascading stand-up mechanism. Scrum masters meet with thier teams. Then the Scrum Masters meet in stand-ups of 6 - 9, with a Super-Scrum-MAster responsible for reporting the items from the Scum-Master's scrum to the next level... and so forth..
You may find that have weekly super-scrum meetings will suffice at the highest level of your hierarchy.