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
What do you do when you join a team that says they use Scrum, but only use it as a time-management tool and not the whole process?
How can I reinstate back testing and documentation?
I was thinking to start off with adding user stories specifically for testing and documenting.
Perhaps someone else has more experience with this then I do about this as I am sure its not that uncommon.
The key to scrum is that a task be identifiable as "done" before it can be classed as done. How does you company assess whether something is done without reviewing documentation and tests?
Perhaps they have an unusual, but valid, way of doing it. Or perhaps they have missed the point of "done tasks". I'd suggest you start by asking them how they measure down and whether it could be improved. Then suggest documentation and testing as the way of improving the process.
Note that neither testing nor documentation are in fact part of Scrum. Scrum is a pure project management approach - the required engineering practices, like the ones you mention, are supposed to "emerge" during the project. And most specifically, they are supposed to be identified during the heartbeat retrospectives that you do at the end of every sprint. Are you doing those? Can you bring up your concerns there - and are they actually the biggest concerns the team has?
Is the issue that they don't have any documentation and tests, or that they aren't implementing the entire Scrum methodology? Those are 2 very different problems in my mind.
I would much prefer an organization that has taken the time and effort to find and fit a development process that matches their development style as opposed to mandating down from on high the one true process. So I would not be concerned at all if they were using a process that they called Scrum but that didn't meet all the "official" guidelines. Try to determine why the process is the way it is. Chances are that if they have taken the time to tailor it, the team will be receptive to your ideas, especially if you have taken the time to determine why things are the way they are. If you simply approach it as "this isn't Scrum and so isn't right", you will probably not make much headway, but by being pragmatic about the benefits you can likely make some substantial improvements.
Alternatively, if they aren't doing testing and don't have any documentation I would consider that a fairly bad sign. And by documentation I am taking the minimalist view here - a list of features, bug tracking, etc. - I would be very concerned by the absence of these items, less concerned by the absence of items higher up the abstraction list. In the absence of support from management, I would suggest you lead by example. Take it on yourself to setup a simple bug tracking system (there are several - in a pinch, simple text lists in a central location work as well). Don't declare your features complete until someone else has tested it. This can be as simple as walking over to another developer and asking them to try it in front of you. If someone claims a feature is complete, take a few minutes to familiarize yourself with it. If you find a bug, politely mention it to the responsible developer. Slowly build an environment where the team can see the benefits of running tests and tracking features and bugs.
Most teams operate in this manner simply because of a mistaken belief that they don't have time to "do it right", or that they will get to it later. Often this will occur when a simple proof-of-concept done by a developer or two as a side-project turns into a full-on development effort. By showing that it can actually save time and effort, and reducing the initial costs to the rest of the team, you will often find that it becomes ingrained as part of the process without ever actually being officially endorsed or accepted.
If you have management support it will make it much easier, but always be careful to make sure that the team is receptive to the changes. This may mean it takes longer than you want, but so be it, without the team's support any mandated process will fail at the first sign of pressure, which is when you need the process the most.
*Disclaimer - On my last project I spearheaded the movement to tailor the SCRUM process to fit our environment. The "official" process was simply untenable for our client, but it was still an invaluable guide in tailoring our process.
"adding user stories specifically for testing and documenting"
While meta-user stories might make sense in some circles, it rarely works out well. Software folks rarely cope well with meta-user stories, they either don't get the idea that they can change their own processes by writing a story, or -- more typically -- they engineer the meta-user story to death.
When you're interviewing users, it feels like they're making the user story up. Certainly, you're making it up as you listen to them and try to capture it.
When an IT organization tries to make up its own user stories about how IT should work, the process falls apart. Until the organization has done the thing (testing, for example) a bunch of times manually, they're not really qualified to write user stories. Then, after they've done it, they don't need software development processes, they'll just automate the important bits a little at a time.
I think change has to come from a less formal direction. Actually balking at calling something "done" that hasn't been tested is a good starting point.
IT doesn't do things unless forced. So, meet the users and find out why they're not requiring testing. Coach them to require testing. Tell them the consequences and the words to use.
A lot can go wrong in an organization to lead to poor processes. It's important to know what's wrong, and create a demand for change. The best possible thing is to have your boss complaining that you're not fixing it, rather than you suggesting that perhaps it would be good to fix it.
[It doesn't feel right when your boss demands you fix the process, but it's about the only way change will happen.]
Related
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 3 months ago.
Improve this question
First a little about myself. I am not an experienced software engineer, architect or developer. I have done mostly small ASP and ASP.NET projects in C# for the last 5 years. I am pretty good with HTML and JavaScript. These projects were done when I had free time from my other duties which were not related to software development. I have now been moved into a software developer position. The company I work for is not a software development firm.
I am now working on a Silverlight LOB application with WCF and Entity Framework. I have been given little specifications for this project, just the 'make an application like X, only simpler so we don't have to pay for it', my boss doesn't check on my progress as often as I think he should, the project manager(a co-worker) will stop by now and then but we never discuss the specs, architecture, UI or business rules. I am mostly just asked when I think it will be done. I have had to learn Silverlight, WCF and Entity Framework to work on this project which is not a problem as I really enjoy working with these technologies. The problem is I am the only one in the company that knows anything about these and have no mentor/boss to discuss the problems and how they could be solved. I have been able to seek out one interested party in the company that has at least given me a list of some of the requirements.
I can't believe this is how software development should be done. I think the project managers should offer guidance and keep a closer eye on what is being done to prevent going in the wrong direction(but how can they in my situation since the don't know the technologies!).
Should I feel this way or am I way off base?
Thanks for listening.
What you describe is certainty not optimal, but it's extremely common, particularly in smaller shops. Some people find it rewarding to work in that kind of environment. It's not what the software engineering books teach, but that's why there are so many software engineering books.
If you want to continue working in this environment, you're going to have to supply all the discipline you rightly recognize as missing yourself. Write up a spec. Build a schedule. Share these with your management. Hold yourself to deadlines.
Share your concerns with your management; don't be shy about that. Chances are, they recognize the situation. Your boss doesn't check your progress? Publish your progress to him. Show him where you need to get to, how far along you are, and what's blocking you.
It'll be chaotic, no doubt, but you'll learn a lot.
Every organization is different. If they are operating in this capacity then you should adapt and make the best of the situation. It's either happening because that's how things are done and they are aware of it, or they don't know the wiser or don't want to invest to improve the process of delivering strategic/tactical projects.
In a perfect world everyone would have a robust Quality Methodology in place which would provide a framework for Project delivery and systems implementation. It's just not a reality.
Here are some tips to help you operate more effectively:
Identify your sponsors (the people who own the product) and determine the high level benefits and driving objectives of the business problem they seek to solve
Identify your stakeholders (who has influence and who has interest) and get them to communicate their needs as much as possible
Involve both sponsors and stakeholders in the process as much as possible or as much as they want
Capture what requirements you can from them through written form (email)
Provide opportunities for them to gain visibility into the delivery and to provide feedback
Your project will likely fail from your boss point of view. Because i'm sure you developing program not suitable for him. But you don't feel guilty. It's your boss' pain.('because you are good programmer). Sorry for so dark post :-).
The role of the project manager is not to know the technology, but they definitely should have a finger on the pulse of the project, so to speak. The real project management job is not to control the project, but rather to enable it. Either way, from your description, looks like yours isn't doing such a great job at it.
The other extreme is a process-heavy organization where meetings and committees decide everything, and all the real communication, if it exists at all, happens through side channels.
The ideal world lies somewhere in between.
Your project manager should not be too concerned with how you're doing things. Since they have no qualifications, the best they can do is connect you with someone who does. When they can't verify that you're building the thing right, they should at the very least ensure you're building the right thing. Even if it's for internal use, you still have a customer, and no communication with the customer spells bad news to me. :)
If your PM is not concerned about the issue, you could try to do something yourself. For example, ask the PM to connect you with a would-be end user of the application. Extract bits of your application and give them to the user to play with -- just make sure the bits you give them don't look or feel too finished.
If you can't change things, take this as a learning experience. Make sure next time you're up for a project, you know the things that went wrong last time, and try to mitigate them from the start.
And finally, if your bosses tell you this is a "more agile way" of working, punch them in the face. Agile is, or should be, synonymous with discipline, not complete lack thereof.
Good luck!
It is a hard situation. Only you can really determine the best way to proceed. However, I do think that the concern with the schedule and concurrent lack of documentation (requirements, expectations, use-case scenario documentation, etc) is a train-wreck waiting to happen. Even the sharpest and most experienced dev-teams suffer from the same problems.
The "when will it be done?" questions are best mitigated by regularly providing small partially functional builds that you can use to get useful information out of the moving target that is your customer. It is amazing how much communication can occur when somebody (your boss/customer/end-user) can actually "play with" something in front of them and reconsider what they really want.
I believe this situation is quite common. I had this, too, at my previous job. Here the bet is on the fact that you are already independent and well-versed in your business. I think you should tell your manager how you feel about this.
They should change something after hearing your opinion about this situation. Because if you do something wrong and the manager does not notice it, the company can lose a lot of money and time.
But it’s also not worth constantly waiting for someone to guide you and check your work. In any case, your workflow should have self-management.
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 3 years ago.
Improve this question
We have a project hand over from on shore team to our team (off shore) not long ago. However we were having difficulties for the hand-over process.
We couldn't think of any questions to ask during their design walk-through, because we were overwhelmed by the sheer amount of information. We wanted to ask, but we didn't know what to ask. Since they got no question from us, the management think that the hand-over process was been done successfully.
We had tried to go through all the documentation from our company wiki page before attending the handover presentation, but there are too many documents, we don't even know where to start with.
I wonder, are there any rules or best practices that we can follow, to ensure a successful project hand-over, either from us, or to us.
Thanks.
In terms of reading the documentation, personally I'd go for this order:
Get a short overview of the basic function of the application - what is it meant to achieve. The business case is probably the best document which will already exist.
Then the functional specification. At this point you're not trying to understand any sort of how or technology, just what the app is meant to do. If it's massive, ask them what they key business processes are and focus on those.
Then the high level technical overview. This should include an architecture diagram, required platforms, versions, config and so on. List any questions you have.
Then skim any other useful looking technical documents - certainly a FAQ if there is one, test scripts can be good too as they outline detailed "how to" type scenarios. Maybe it's just me but I find reading technical documents before I've seen the system a waste - it's too academic and they're normally shockingly written. It's certainly an area I'd limit the time I spent on if I didn't feel I was getting a reasonable return for the time I was spending.
If there are several of you arrage structured reviews between you and discuss the documents you've read, making sure you've got what you need to out of it. If the system is big then each take an area and present to the others on it - give yourselves a reason to learn as much as possible and knowing you're going to be quizzed is a good motivator. Make a list of questions where you don't understand something. Having structured reviews between you will focus your minds and make it more of an interactive task, rather than just trawling through page after page of tedious document.
Once you get face to face with them:
Start with a full system demo. Ask questions as they come up, don't let them fob you off with unclear answers - if they can't answer something have it written down and task them with getting the answer.
Now get the code checked out and running on your machines. Do this on at least two machines - one they lead, one you lead. Document the whole process - this is the most important step. If you can't get the code running you're screwed.
Go through the build process. Ensure that you can build the app (including any automated build and unit tests they may have). Note that all unit tests should pass - if they don't or if they say "oh, that one always fails" then they need to fix that before final acceptance.
Go through the install process. Do this at least twice, one they lead, once you lead. Make sure that it's documented.
Now come up with a set of common business functions carried out with the application. Use this to walk the code with them. The code base will be too big to cover the whole thing but make sure you cover a representative sample.
If there is a database or an API do a similar exercise. Come up with some standard data you might need to extract or some basic tasks you might need to carry out using the API and spend some time working through these with them.
Ask them if there's anything they think you should know.
Make sure that any questions you've written down anywhere else are answered.
You may consider it worth going through the bug list (open and closed) - start with the high priority ones and talk through anything particularly worrying looking. Even if they've fixed it it may point at a bit of code which is troublesome.
And finally if the opportunity exists - if there are any outstanding bugs or changes, see if you can pair program a couple.
Do not finally accept the app unless you are 100% sure you can:
Get the code to compile
Get the code to build (including the database)
Get the application installed
Do not accept handover is complete until they have:
Documented anything you picked up on that wasn't covered to your satisfaction
Answered ALL of your questions - a question they won't answer after being asked repeatedly screams of something they're hiding
And grab their e-mail addresses and phone numbers. Even if it's only informal they'll probably be willing to help out if the shit really hits the fan...
Good luck.
My basic process for receiving a handover would be:
Get a general overview of the app, document it
Get a list of all future work that the client expects
... all known issues
... any implementation specifics
As much up-to-date documentation they have
If possible, have them write some tests for critical components of the system (or at least get them thoroughly documented)
If there is too much documentation (possible) just confirm that it is all up to date, and make sure you find out from them where to start, if it is not clear.
Ask as many question as possible; anything that comes to mind, because you may not have the chance again.
Most handovers, perhaps all of them, will cause a lot of information to be lost. The only effective way to perform a handover that I have seen is to do it gradually. One way to do it is to allow a few key people from phase One to stay on the project well into Phase Two.
The extreme solution is to get rid of all handovers, and start using an Agile mindset.
As a start, define the exit criteria for the handover. This should be discussed, negotiated and agreed with both parties and make sure higher management knows this. Then write up a checklist of all things needed to achieve the exit criteria and chase it.
Check out "Software Requirements" and Software Requirement Patterns for ideas on questions to ask when gathering information about a project. I think that just as they would work for new development, they would also help you to come to terms with an existing project.
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
When you are deciding on what methodology or process to use for your project, should you take into account the human factors? If there is any resistance to things, do you go with the flow or force people to change?
For example, say you want to push for pair programming but the team members resist to working in that mode (or show dislikes), what would you do? Make them get used to it, try to convince them to do it or go with the flow and let them do what they like?
The human factor is the most important one.
If you consider nothing else, consider the culture and proclivities of the group.
People who want a process to fail will succeed. It's far easier to alter process than to alter people.
First try to reason, you may be wrong:
If you have resistance to certain things, you can usually give your points for why you think it's good, and hear their points for why they think it is bad, and come to some common grounds.
You should never force people into doing something against their will, but instead try to convince them based on your logical reasoning. Many times you will see reasons from them that changes your point of view.
If your developer is too afraid to voice their opinion, then you should make them feel comfortable with giving their opinion. If they are still reluctant, then you should consider new developers.
Foot in the door principle:
If you want to try some new concept that neither you nor they have experience in, say pair programming, then you can ask them to try it for 1-2 weeks and then you can sit together again after this trial period and assess the effectiveness. I think most people will find it perfectly reasonable to try something new if they have no experience in it, if it is for the purpose of finding out the method's effectiveness, and if it is only for a trial period.
If after this trial period, the thing you were testing was successful, then your developer will be more open to the idea.
Don't change them, find someone who fits:
If you are 100% for some way of doing things, and your developer is 100% against it, and he won't try it and has no logical reason why, instead of trying to change him you're better off finding a developer that will fit into your way of doing things.
If they are 100% against what you want to change, you have to make a decision. Is the developer themselves more important to you, or is the process that you want to change more important.
If you force someone into something they don't want to do, they will find a way to make your method fail.
Yes. Your development process needs to be humane. That said, there are better and worse development practices and you should strive to use the better practices. The best methodologies understand both human strengths and weaknesses and have practices that promote the former and compensate for the latter.
For example, most agile processes put a high value on trusting developers to do the right thing -- to work hard and value quality. They allow developers to have significant input into the process and into the product. This takes advantage of the human quality of rising to expectations. On the other hand, humans have trouble managing too much complexity at one time, so agile practices insist on breaking things down into manageable chunks.
On the other hand, we know that people don't like to do things that don't directly add value to their work. Agile practices, recognizing the value of things like unit testing, insist on this however and require the developer to conform to it despite the initial reluctance. Using TDD compensates for this somewhat by giving real value to developing tests -- you do them first and let them guide the design. It's a bit of the carrot and stick approach to get developers over the initial reluctance to the point where they can experience the value of the method and buy into it on their own.
Adapting the Process
The key to developing a good process with your people lies in adapting the process to the amount of ceremony that you need or want. We use the RUP where I work and one of the central goals of the RUP is to tailor the amount of ceremony in your process to fit your project and the personnel.
For instance, small projects require far less ceremony and tool support. As well, people new to a process need time to adapt. It's best not to flood them with information and let them adapt at their own pace.
Show Me the Money!
To get people to buy into a new process is to let them make a mistake (or present an example form the past) and then show them how the process could have helped prevent the mistake. Try and draw a direct line to show how the process will help them improve the way they work.
For instance: if people are resistant to automating builds and running tests automatically then the next time they release a fix for something that broke a piece of code that was already working use that opportunity to illustrate that an automated test would have caught the error before it got released, saving everyone time and money.
Automation
To ensure people can adapt to a process is to remove as much human intervention from them as you can. Automate builds, tests, reporting as much as possible using information that is automatically captured.
How this helps support process is by removing the "nag" factor. Many people resist new process because they figure it means more work for them to do or extra work that produces little result in the end. By automating existing tasks and gathering data from them you get a lot of benefit without increasing any individual developers workload.
A classic example is continuous integration. Continuous Integration tools like CruiseControl, TeamCity or Hudson can work with version control repositories to extract latest versions of source code, build that code, execute and archive test results and package stuff for deployment. This requires no extra effort on the part of the developer but you get a lot of extra "process" in return. You now know how good your source code is, you can distribute it easily and you can catch bugs earlier.
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
In your “enterprise” work environment, how are engineers held accountable for performing code inspections and unit testing? What processes do you follow (formal methodology or custom process) to ensure the quality of your software? Do you or have you tried implementing a developer "signoff" sheet for deliverables?
Thanks in advance!
Update: I forgot to mention we are using Code Collaborator to perform our inspections. The problem is getting people to "get it" and buy into doing them outside of a core group of people. As stalbot pointed out below it is a cultural change but the question becomes, how do you change your culture to promote quality initiatives such as reviews/unit tests?
• Our company uses peer code reviews. We conduct them as Over-The-Shoulder reviews and invite the team’s tester to participate in the meeting to gain a better understanding of the changes. We use Source Control software that requires check-in, code-review rules to be signed off. Nothing big, just another developer's name that has reviewed the code.
• There are definite benefits to code review as several studies have been able to demonstrate. For our company, it was evident that code quality increased as the number of support calls decreased and the number of reported bugs decreased as well. NOTE: Some of the benefits here were the result of implementing Scrum and abandoning Waterfall. More on Scrum below.
• The benefits of code review can be a more stable product, more maintainable code as it applies to structure and coding standards, and it allows developers to focus more on new features rather than “fire-fighting” bugs, and other production issues. There really aren’t any drawbacks if code reviews are conducted “right”. More on the “right way” below.
• Some of the hurdles to overcome while implementing code reviews are the idea that “big brother” is watching me and the idea that not having perfect code means torture and pain. Getting developers to trust each other is difficult sometimes, especially when it involves “pecking order” or the “holier than thou” attitudes and putting your hard work under a microscope. Trust is the key to resolving these issues. A developer must trust that they will not be punished by peers or management for mistakes in code. It happens to everyone. Make a note of the issue, get it resolved and move on.
Scrum
One of the benefits of using the Scrum methodology is that a development cycle (”sprint”) is short. The time-frame of the “sprint” is determined by what works best for your organization and will need some trial and error, but really shouldn’t be longer than four week iterations. The benefit is that it requires the developers communicate daily and communicate problems early on in the project. This was initially adopted by our development department and has spread to all areas of our company as the benefits of scrum are far reaching. For more information, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCRUM or http://www.scrumalliance.org/ . As the development iterations are smaller, the code review process reviews smaller pieces of code, making the review more likely to find problems than hours or days of formal reviews.
“Right Way”
Code Reviews done the “right way” is completely subjective. However, I personally believe that they should be informal, over-the-shoulder reviews. All of the participants in a review should avoid personally attacking the person being reviewed with statements such as “why did you do it that way?” or “what were you thinking?” etc. These types of comments diminish the trust between peers, leading to animosity, hours of arguing over the best/right way to code a solution. Keep in mind that developers do not think or code exactly the same, and there are many solutions to a problem.
Just a little clarification on over-the-shoulder reviews; these can be conducted via remote desktop sharing (pick flavor here), or in person. However, they shouldn’t be limited to the developers only. We typically invite our entire scrum team which consists of two developers per team, a tester, a documentation person, and product owner. All non-developers are there to gain a better understanding of the changes or new functionality being made. They are free to ask questions or provide input, but not to make coding decisions or comments. This has been effective as certain questions will be asked that may change the direction of the project as the initial requirements may have missed a scenario, but that is what agile is all about, change.
Suggestion
I would highly recommend researching scrum and code reviews, before mandating them. Create the basic rules for each and implement them as part of your culture to achieve a better quality product. It must become part of your culture so that it is part of a natural process and integrated at all levels, as it is a paradigm shift from poor quality, missed deadlines and frustration to better quality products, less frustration, and more on-time deliverables.
If you want to ensure that every changelist gets reviewed, before checkin, then you could have your source control tool reject unreviewed checkins. For example, a trigger could reject checkins without "CodeReview: " in the checkin comment. Although people could still lie, they could also be held accountable.
If you want to ensure that every changelist gets reviewed, after checkin, then you could see if Code Collaborator will play nicely with your source control system and automatically make a review task after each checkin (push or pull; whatever works). After that, use whatever "polite annoyance" features Code Collaborator has, to make sure reviews actually get done.
If you want people to review only some checkins, not all checkins, then good luck with that.
We have a pretty cool setup. Coders are expected to test their code before check-ins to ensure that it doesn't break the build and to write tests where they make sense to have but high coverage isn't required.
Complex methods are expected to be commented.
At the end of phases code is reviewed by the whole team.
Pair programming. Work items have a required field of collaborator, the person that you paired with for the work
We lean heavily on ITIL concepts. While we don't need the full scale ITSM that ITIL provides, we have implemented processes that draw from some of the best practices in ITIL, specifically in the areas of Change Management and Release Management.
Code reviews are part of our RM strategy. As a change or new piece of code makes its way through our RM process, a lot of eyes look at it. Ultimately the Release Manager makes the call on approval or rework, and all of this is documented (we use TFS and SharePoint). Formal code reviews are held by the Release Manager and the technical team he selects. The primary developer for a release candidate is held accountable for adherence to standards, functionality, and a verification of a completed test plan. If the quality standards aren't met, the deliverable is rejected and the project schedule is updated to reflect the rework.
Yes, this is all very heavy. I work in government and we have complex laws to follow, specifically in the areas of taxes, ADA compliance, and so on.
We use three basic rules
1) The developer is responsible for fixing bugs in code when unit tests don't exist. In cases where there is a test, the person breaking the test is responsible for fixing it.
2) Code reviews. There are some code review smells that are a good warning sign, over defensiveness and blame redirection being the two most common.
3) NO EMAILING CODE, JARs or config files. Everything is in the scm.
To create the culture 1st try define your standards and values and most of all make them known.
Then hire people who believe in them or who could be able to adapt to them. Don't hire someone who does not have any connection at all with your company values.
Make sure that those who respect these values and show improvements are "rewarded" and "properly" recognized and seen as models. Don't forget that for many is not all about the money.
Don't hesitate to take appropriate measures againts those who do not fulfill their responsibilities but make sure they know them. And have them accountable for their deeds.
Allow people to become used with any new responsibility.
To make change in culture is big deal. Still there are some ways to change.
Create awareness about code review and importance of code review tool. It can be done using training session.
Motivate the people : Giving some reward for the code reviews.
Change in process : Make sure that code review should be happen and properly. It can be done using checklist and part of release process.
Do not try to change completely. Slowly introduce newer changes. Create small group to observe and discuss the change in code review process.
Provide the solution instead of create problem. Process should not be overhead. It comes automatically. Provide solutions to peoples problem related to the process.
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 10 years ago.
Improve this question
How can our team gather requirements from our "Product Owner" in as low friction yet useable of a way as possible?
Now here's the guidelines- No posts that it can't be done or that the business needs to make a decision that it cares about quality, yada yada. The product I work for is a small group that has been successful for years. I just want to help them step it up a notch.
Basically, I'm on a 6 or 7 person team with one Product Owner. She does a great job but is juggling a few different roles (as I believe is common on extremely small teams). Usually requirements are given at sporadic times (email convos, face to face discussions, meetings, etc). They are never entered into a system and sometimes this results in features missing a release or the release getting pushed back since everyone forgot about the necessary feature.
If you're in a similar situation but you found a way to overcome this, I'd love to hear it. I'm happy to write code to help ease this situation but it can't be a web site that the Product Owner has to go to in order to get anything done. She is extremely busy and we need some way of working together as a team in order to gather these requirements.
I'm currently thinking of something like this: Developers and team members gather requirements discussed in face to face meetings and write some quick notes on the features discussed on a wiki page. Product owner is notified whenever these pages are updated and it then becomes her responsibility to ensure accuracy.
Pros: We'll have some record of the features. Cons: The developers are taking responsibility for something that they ordinarily wouldn't. I'm okay with that here. I think in this situation it's teamwork.
Of course once we do this, then we're going to see that the product owner probably doesn't have enough time to ensure feature accuracy. Ultimately she is overburdened and I think this will help showcase that fact, but I just need to be able to draw attention to that first.
So any suggestions?
P.S. her time is extremely limited so it is considered unreasonable to expect her to need to type in the requirements after discussion. She only has time to discuss them once and move on.
Although the concept of "product owner" is a littl ambiguous to me, I think I am working in very similar circumstances: the customer is extremely buzy and always is a bottleneck in developing requirements.
On the surface, what we try to do in this situation is quite obvious and seemingly simple: we try to make sure that the customer is involved in "read-only / talk-only" mode. No writing. Minimum reading. Mostly talking.
The devil, of course, is in details. So, here are some specifics about our process (in no particular order):
We often start from recording problem statements, which are the ultimate sources of requirements. In fact, sometimes a problem statement is all that we record initially, just to make sure it does not get lost.
NB: It is important to distinguish problem statements from requirements. Although a problem statement sometimes clearly implies some requirement, in general a single problem statement may yield a whole bunch of requirements (each having its own severity and priority); moreover, sometimes a given requirement my define a solution (usually just a partial one) to multiple problems.
One of the main reasons of recording problem statements (and this is very relevant to your question!) is that semantically they are somewhat "closer to the customer's skin" and more stable than requirements derived from them. I believe those problem statements make it much easier and quicker to put the customer into proper context whenever he has time to provide feedback to the development team.
We do record all the requirements (and back-track them to problem statements), regardless of when are we going to implement them. Priorities govern the order in which requirements get implemented. Of course, they also govern the order in which customer reviews unfinished requirements.
NB: A single fat document containing all requirements is an absolute no-no! All the requirements are placed in "problem tracking database", along with bug reports. (A bug is just a special case of a problem in our book.)
We always try to do our best to minimize the number of iterations necessary to "finalize" each requirement (or a group of related requirements). Ideally, a customer should have to review a requirement only once.
Whenever the first review turns out to be insufficient (happens all the time), and the requirement in question is complex enough to require a lot of text and/or illustrations, we make sure that the customer does not have to re-read everything from scratch. All the important changes/additions/deletions since the previous reviwed version are highlighted.
While a problem or requirement remains in an unfinished state, all the open issues (mostly questions to customer) are embedded into the document and highlighted. As a result, whenever the customer has time to review requirements, he does not have to call a meeting and solicit questions from the team; instead the customer can open any unfinished document first, see what exactly is expected from him, and then decide what's the best way and time (for him) to address any of the open issues. Sometimes the customer chooses to write a email or add a comment directly to the problem document.
We try our best to establish and maintain official domain vocabulary (even if it gets scattered across the documentation). Most importantly, we practically force the customer to stick to that vocabulary.
NB: This is one of the most difficult parts of the process, and customer tries to "rebel" from time to time. However, at the end of the day everybody agrees that it is the only way to make precious meetings with the customer as efficient as possible. If you ever attended one-hour meetings where 30 minutes were being spent just to get everybody on the same page (again), I'm sure you would appreciate having a vocabulary.
NB: Whenever possible, any changes in the official vocabulary get reflected in the very next release of the software.
Sometimes, a given problem can be solved in multiple ways, and the right choice is not obvious without consulting with the customer. It means that there will be a "menu of requirements" for the customer to pick from. We document such "menus", not just the finally chosen requirement.
This may seem controversial and look like an unnecessary overhead. However, this approach saves a lot of time whenever the customer (usually few weeks or months down the road) suddenly jumps in with a question like "why the heck did we do it this way and not that way?" Also, it is not such a big deal to hide "rejected branches" using proper organization/formatting of requirements documentation. Boring but doable. :-)
NB: When preparing "menus of requirements", it is very important not to overdo them. Too many choices or too many choice nesting levels - and the next review may require much more customer's time than really necessary. Needless to say that the time spent on elaborated branches may be totally wasted. Yes, it is difficult to find some balance here (it greatly depends on the always-in-a-hurry customer's ability to think two or more steps ahead and do it quickly). But, what can I say? If you really want to do your job well, I am sure that after some time you will find the right balance. :-)
Our customer is a very "visual" guy. Therefore, whenever we discuss any significant user interface elements, screen mockups (or even lightweight prototypes) often are extremely helpful. Real time savers sometimes!
NB: We do screen mockups exclusively for the customer, only in order to facilitate discussions. They may be used by developers too, but in no way do they substitute user interface specifications! More often than not, there are some very important UI details that get specified in writing (now - primarily for developers).
We are lucky enough to have a customer with a very technical background. So we do not hesitate to use UML diagrams as discussion aid. All kinds of UML diagrams - as long as they help customer to get into proper context quicker and stay there.
I am talking about requirements-level UML diagrams, of course. Not about implementation-level ones. I believe that even not very technical people can start digging requirements-level UML diagrams sooner or later; you just have to be patient and know what to put on a diagram.
Obviously, the cost of such process greatly depends on analytical and writing skills of the team, and of course on the tools that you have at your disposal. And I must admit that in our case this process appears to be quite expensive and slow. But, taking into account the very low rate of bugs and low rate of "vapor-features"... I think, in the long run, we get very good payback.
FWIW: According to Joel's nice classification of software products, this project is an "internal" one. So we can afford to be as agile as our customer can handle. :-)
"Developers and team members gather requirements discussed in face to face meetings and write some quick notes"
Start with that. If you aren't taking notes, just make one small change. Take Notes. Later, you might post them to a wiki or create a feature backlog or start using Scrum or bugzilla or something.
First, however, make small changes. Write stuff down sounds like something you're not doing, so just do that and see what improves and what you can do next. Be Agile. Work Incrementally.
You might want to be careful of the HiPPO in the room. The Highest Paid Person's Opinion is not always a good one. We've tended to focus more on providing great tools and support for developers. These things, done right, take some of the hassle out of development, so that it becomes faster and more fun. Developers are then more flexible in terms of their workload, and more amenable to late-breaking changes.
One-Click testing and deployment are a couple of good ones to start with; make sure every developer can run up their own software stack in a few seconds and try out ideas directly. Developers are then able to make revisions quickly or run down side paths they find interesting, and these paths are often the most successful. And by successful I mean measured success based on real metrics gathered right in the system and made readily available to all concerned. The owner is then able to set the metrics, which they probably care about, rather than the requirements, which they either don't care about or have no experience in defining.
Of course it depends on the owner and your particular situation, but we've found that metrics are easier to discuss than requirements, and that developers are pretty good at interpreting them too. A typical problem might be that customers seem to spend a long time filling their shopping carts but don't go on to checkout.
1) A marketing requirement might be to make the checkout button bigger and redder. 2) The CEO's requirement might be to take the customer straight to checkout, as the CEO only ever buys one item at a time anyway. 3) The UI designer's requirement might be to place a second checkout button at the top of the cart as well as the existing one at the bottom. 4) The developer's requirement might be some Web 2.0 AJAX widget that follows the mouse pointer around the screen. Who's right?
Who cares... the customer probably saw the ridiculous cost of delivery and ran away. But redefine the problem as a metric, instead of a requirement, and suddenly the developer becomes interested. The developer doesn't have to do 10 rounds with the CMO on what shade of red the button should be. He can play with his Web 2.0 thing all week, and then rush off the other 3 solutions on Monday morning. Each one gets deployed live for 48 hours and the cart-to-checkout rate gets measured and reported instantly. None of it makes any difference, but the developer got to do their job and the business shifts it's focus onto the crappy products they sell and the price they gauge on delivery.
Well, ok, so the example is contrived. There's a lot of work in there to make sure that the project is small, the team is experienced, hot deployment is simple, instant rollback is provided, and that everyone's on board. What we wanted to get to is a state where the developer's full potential is not wasted, so that's why they're involved not just from the start, but also in the success. Start out with an issue like the number of clicks during registration is too high, run it through a design committee, and we found that the number of clicks actually went up in the design specification. That was our experience anyway. But leave the developer some freedom to just reduce the number of clicks and you might actually end up with a patented solution, as we did. Not that the developer cares about patents, but it had merit - and no clicks!