Agile Doctor

Retrospectives are my favorite of all the scrum activities because they represent the opportunity to reflect on how we are implementing and to adjust our behavior to be more effective. I have said to my teams on many occasions that if I were forced to choose only one scrum ceremony that my choice, without hesitation or reservation, would be the retrospective. Without it, how could we ever expect to improve? What essential difference would an “Agile” project have over the many death march projects that teams have come to accept?

I have often argued that the founders of Agile did not provide reasons why their approaches worked just that they did. Their was empirical evidence, proven by doing the work, or, as they state in the beginning of the manifesto - uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. From their very pragmatic approach, they figured out that better software was created by following the values and principles. One of those discoveries was that better software was created by self-organizing teams.

In 2002, Jim Johnson of the Standish Group (made famous by their Chaos Report of software project “success”) presented findings of features and functions used in a typical system. The number of features that were never or rarely used totaled a whopping 64% while sometimes, often and always weighed in with 16%, 13% and 7% respectively. For those acquainted with the Pareto principle (80/20 rule), notice how the often and always used features - those things we should concentrate on building for our customers and those things things that bring us the most value – is exactly 80%. In other words, a great deal of our effort is generally spent creating things that customers do not use or want.

This principle is much like the one previous about sustainable development. Agile doesn't ask us to shortcut quality and increase technical debt in an effort to deliver software faster. It is precisely because we do not shortcut quality and incur technical debt that we are able to move faster. I have worked with many teams to introduce Behavior Driven Development (BDD) because, among a great number of other advantages, BDD allows developers an easier way to access the practice of Test Driven Development (TDD). And, in my experience, TDD is the only way I have seen out of the practice of “Big Up Front Design”.

Agile processes promote sustainable development. The sponsors, developers, and users should be able to maintain a constant pace indefinitely. When I think on this principle I cannot help but think about the potential "dark side" of agile and how it can be misunderstood and implemented incorrectly.

Metrics. Metrics. Metrics. We love numbers. We measure and put numbers to all kinds of things. We use these numbers to mark our projects as red, yellow and red (of course, the project is always green until there are a few weeks left when someone finally blinks and acknowledges reality and begins to use yellow or, god forbid, red). Unfortunately, in our headlong rush to create metrics we tend to forget the why of what we are doing. Numbers and statuses become an end unto themselves.

The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and with a development team is face to face conversation. Since there are so many misconceptions about miscommunication around agile, I created my business cards to contain the entire Agile Manifesto so that when people confuse scrum framework with agile philosophy or say, "This is agile blah, blah, blah," I can hand them my card and say, "This is agile." Then I let them know that agile is nothing more than a philosophy, a series of values and principles.

If I had to take exception to any value or principle this would have to be the one. While I have the utmost of respect for the original Agile signatories, they made a slight mistake because this principle refers to only projects. I have ranted often enough about the distinction between project and product management (See this post for more), but it is important to understand that Agile works best when we build a product (not a project) mindset. By having a principle that mentions projects might hinder folks from transforming their thinking to product-centric thinking.

I quote this principle verbatim to all the teams I coach constantly because it is the only completely prescriptive principle. While other principles use more vague words like "early", "late" or "shorter", "daily" is not open to negotiation or interpretation. The word "must" is also unequivocal as are the roles described. That prompts the following question - why were the founders of Agile so strident with this principle while allowing for broader interpretation with all other values and principles?

While there are many people who believe that the key reason to adopt agile frameworks and methods is for increased productivity, I tend to find this to be more a healthy byproduct of a team working together over time (and thus could be found in other methodologies). The real benefits of agile lies in greater transparency, predictability and faster time to market. The third agile principle speaks directly to these, especially quicker time to market.

The world changes fast. The software development world changes faster. Locking into a long term plan and remaining steadfast to that plan might bring comfort when the world around us is awash in change, but it doesn't give the flexibility necessary to remain competitive.

As an Agile coach I am in the Agile transformation business. Coaches are rarely employed when an organization “gets” the philosophy and properly implements an Agile framework or methodology. In my experience those that are most challenged are those who seem to concentrate on the ceremonies while failing to focus on the bigger picture concerns – those more interested in “doing” rather than “being.”

The interesting thing about big upfront design is the gall it takes to even begin to believe that all can be known at the beginning of a complex endeavor. This harkens back to some of my earlier posts, including Software Development is Communication, where I argue that those in charge of software development decisions (like team size, composition, physical location, etc.) have no clue about software development. Software development is most often a complex undertaking.

We all have customers. If we didn't there would be no reason to do what we do. If we didn't their would be no one to pay our invoices. And when someone agrees to pay you for work, they generally want to have some kind of agreement on the nature of the work for the money that is being paid. This agreement is usually put in writing and voila, we have a contract. This is an important part of the process and as everyone knows, contracts are valuable documents for both the customer and yourself. But as the Manifesto states, it's important to not get caught up in negotiation fever.

Of the four agile values, this is probably the least understood and most often misinterpreted. It certainly does not say that there should be no documentation as some (the less ambitious developers and teams) propose. It says that there is more value to actual software than comprehensive documentation.

The Agile Manifesto is best seen as a reaction to the environment at the time. Many authors are saying that software development values have gotten out of whack because the majority of companies now value processes and tools more than individuals and interactions. Obviously in order to create better software this needs to be corrected!

I am pleased to announce that my first book, Understanding the Agile Manifesto: A Brief & Bold Guide to Agile is now available as a podcast. Over the next few days / weeks I will be releasing the book, chapter by chapter, on this website and through the iTunes store under my "Agile Doctor" podcast.

Between these presentations and my daily coaching practice, I am reminded yet again at the importance of forming a good scrum team. This, along with proper backlog compilation and maintenance, can make the difference between success and endless frustration. In my experience, proper scrum team formation is the area where companies who are unsuccessful in Agile transformations fail most often.

Companies complaining that they cannot find good people, so much so that they have to go outside to United States through programs like H1B (or worse yet, ship work completely offshore), while there are over 200 people actively looking for work. There are so many good people looking for work that there is a waiting list to enroll in a program that helps them to find work. Hate to veer to political, but if anyone is still mystified by the Trump and Sanders “phenomenon” they should look no further than a ProMatch meeting in Silicon Valley!

Perhaps malpractice litigation will not affect the realm of software development as I anticipate, but that does not mean it is not appropriate. In some cases, people who with authority to make decisions regarding software development show a willful ignorance of the nature of software development. I believe their behavior is not only detrimental to the production of quality software and the satisfaction of customers and employees alike, but certainly borders on the realm of malpractice.

There is an Agile principle which states, “Agile processes promote sustainable development. The sponsors, developers, and users should be able to maintain a constant pace indefinitely”. It has become obvious to me, the word “sprint”, which, although it may have a specific meaning in scrum, generally is understood to mean “an act or short spell of running at full speed.”

I am often reminded of the difference between a cook and a chef in my agile practice. I have used this story numerous times with developers to explain agile development practices. Like me, it seems that some developers will always be cooks. While there are some who don’t know the difference, I have even run into some that prefer to be cooks instead of chefs. Not that there is anything wrong with choosing to be a cook, but it helps when one is aware of the choice and makes a conscious decision to be one.

My topic this week is the fall of a company I (still) have a great deal of affection for, one that I continue to support. To me this company “was” the internet and their rise and past prominence represented what was best of Silicon Valley. More troubling is their subsequent lack of direction and downfall represents what can be thought of as the worst of Silicon Valley. I am not the first (and will not be the last) to weigh in on the tragedy that goes by the name of Yahoo!

So when my friend mentioned that a good indicator for agile transformation success was a company had hit rock bottom I knew exactly what he was referring to. In this particular case he used the examples of the FBI Sentinel Project and Healthcare.gov website debacle. In both cases, it wasn’t until each was a total disaster that Agile was actually tried with any seriousness and rigor and in both cases the results were amazing.

I am often faced with explaining the various aspects of Agile to people new to Agile and I have come up with a very simple way to remember (and explain) Agile. I present to you now the “3Ps of Agile Software Development” with the hope you find this useful to your own understanding and an aid in your ability to explain Agile to others.

Scrum teams that work are small, co-located, dedicated, stable and cross-functional. These elements are essential in working in the complex world of software development. Recently, I stumbled across another reason that may explain the gains found on proper scrum teams – friendships.

This particular problem manifests when a company desires the potential benefits of Scrum without really understanding Scrum. Without a good understanding, people attempt to map their existing roles with those of Scrum. Let me make one thing perfectly clear. The role of Scrum Master is unique to Scrum and any attempt to map it to existing roles will only result in confusion, frustration and less than optimal outcomes.

If we want to create better software we would be well to head Glass’ fact. We need to stop treating software development like we are building a house or assembling a car. Software is much too complex to be built using the tired old mechanistic means. Remember that as complexity of the problem increases, the complexity of the solution increases at a much higher rate, along with the risks attendant on increased complexity.

While other scaling frameworks have detailed flowcharts, organizational structure documents, etc., Wagerfall avoids such complexities. Mindy Minter, Head Architect at Great Big Company, praises Wagerfall for its simplicity. “We are big believers in the KISS principle. You can’t get more KISS than Wagerfall. Pay your fee. Get your certification. Claim you’re Agile.”

This begs the question of what should those who are not Google or Facebook, those without unlimited resources and legions of potential candidates, do to improve their hiring of software development professionals? The first thing is to be aware of the true costs and benefits associated with pursuing one path over another.

I expect that coding interviews will be with us for some time to come, but at least I can look forward to the day when I write the blog “Company X abolishes the coding interview (and Admits Earth is Round).”

With scientific evidence questioning the effectiveness of brainstorming vast, the real question is why does the use of brainstorming persist? The question is at the heart of much of my agile practice in that the prime issue is not whether one is merely effective, but that one is optimal. It is obvious to me that several cognitive biases are in play in keeping brainstorming around.

As I think back on my coaching work in agile, the blogs I have written, the many discussions I have had and the presentations I have made, I think that all of these boil down into one very simple thing – my work is all about helping people understand the true nature of the software development business process and, thereby helping them to make better decisions.

If people cannot fail a test how good can the test be. Given this fact I am not even certain that a CSM should be part of the job description. A few months of “boots on the ground” scrum is better than the two-day training.

What is the high cost of “low cost” software development? This is the tendency for people involved with financial decisions regarding software development to put too great an emphasis on the cost of software developers.

In the case of annual reviews we have such a wealth of evidence they do not work it is amazing so few companies have actually done away with them.

One of the most enjoyable parts of my work and my life is delivering presentations or giving talks to outside groups. During one particular Q&A session I was asked a question along these lines - "If you had unlimited power in an organization, what would be the very first thing you would do to ensure agility?" My answer, "Oh that is easy. The very first thing I would do is get rid of the Project Management Office." At which I unfortunately took a pause. The collective gasp from the crowd filled that void and the ensuing murmur drowned out my next statement. You see, I was addressing a PMI group, and my statement proved to be provocative to say the least.

A few months back I stumbled onto some research done by Gallup on employee engagement quoted from above. I would like to say that their findings were shocking, but having been an Agile Coach at many large organizations, I find the statistics (and conclusions based on the statistics) to track quite close to my own experiences. For example, Gallup found that only 30% of all employees in the United States are “engaged and inspired at work” and about 20% are what have been defined as “actively disengaged” employees who “aren’t just unhappy at work; they’re busy acting out their unhappiness. Every day, these workers undermine what their engaged coworkers accomplish.” The remaining 1 out 2 workers are defined as “not engaged” and “essentially ‘checked out.’ They’re sleepwalking through their workday, putting time — but not energy or passion — into their work.”