Skip to main content

Achieving Flow: Part 1

One of the central tenets of agile software development is the ability to quickly respond to change.  Instead of planning for months or even years at a time, as was common before agile, many software teams plan in short 2-3 weeks iterations. While that's certainly an improvement, to a much lesser extent there are even more nimble teams that deliver daily.

There are many things that impact a teams ability to deliver quickly. Technical debt, unclear business needs, and constant interruptions are a common few. However, by and far the largest one of them all is not widely recognized. It's all of the waste we have baked into our processes.

Let's examine a typical scrum sprint. The product owner comes up with requirements in the form of user stories. During the sprint kickoff the requirements are reviewed with the team. While many questions are answered during this meeting, ultimately more questions will come up afterwards. If the product owner is not immediately available to answer these questions, it introduces delays in the process. The developer either has to make do with the information that they have, and risk having to go back and rework things, or they will move on to something else.

Once a developer finishes a deployable piece of work, they will hand it off to QA. Often the QA person isn't immediately available to start testing. In the meantime the work sits in a queue until the QA person has the time. Most often issues are found, and the QA person kicks back this item to the developer. This essentially puts the work back into another queue, as in the meantime the developer may have moved on to another task. It's not uncommon to have a single item passed back and forth several times. When the communication is poor, is greatly exacerbates the situation.

Those are two common examples, but there are many others. The dev team hands off their work to a dev ops team for deployment. A UX person needs to review and sign off on the work, similar to QA. A senior developer needs to conduct a code review. A front end developer needs to wait to integrate their code with an API that is being developed by a backend developer.  The product owner, or someone above them, have to give final sign off before deployment. All of these hand offs introduce delays, including simply waiting for the next person to become available. And all of these are extremely common scenarios that software development teams face.

Changing gears for a moment, the manufacturing world has dealt with the concepts of queues and delays well over a hundred years. The history is quite fascinating, which I wont be getting into but I encourage you to look into W. Edwards Deming and also the Toyota TPS system. Many credit them with the rapid rise in the Japanese auto industry.  In the early 1990s some of these ideas were codified as Lean Manufacturing, with the elimination of waste being a central theme. These concepts can be applied to other fields as well; not just manufacturing.

Coming back to software, while a team member might see the bottlenecks in the system, they often have poor visibility to the larger organization. Even people on the team might not understand the impact that they have, let alone upper management. Lean manufacturing has a way to make these items visible in the form a value stream maps. I plan on going into value stream maps in more detail in a future posting, but here's an example of what one may look like.

Once you have identified the wastes in the system, and measured them, they can be visualized. Having this visual aid will go to great lengths to help convey that change is needed within an organization.

In Part 2 we will examine what a more lean software development process might look like. For now, I'll mention that Kanban is a tool in lean manufacturing to eliminate waste, and is now commonly used in software development. We'll cover more next time, but in the meantime feel free to read up on Lean, Kanban, amd muda (the elimination of waste.)

Until next time; onward and upward!



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Retrospective From Hell

Over the last 17 years of my career I'd like to think that I've learned a lot. I've learned from positive role models, from experience of what works well, by studying my craft, and from my own trials and tribulations. However, I believe the lessons that I have learned that had the biggest impact is learning from failures. One such failure occurred at a previous employer. By telling the story of a past failure, we can reflect and see what can be learned from it. No names will be mentioned, no embellishment or poetic license will be will used. As a matter of fact, I will make every attempt to be objective and accurate as possible. The truth of the matter the story doesn't need it; it speaks for itself. Some time ago I worked for a company that, among other things, had a software product. There was a small team of software developers, and someone that acted as the manager of the team. I was brought on board, as a software engineer, to help with the software product as

Value and Quality over Schedules

According to a study by CEB Research, 70% of software projects are delivered on time, but only on 38% meet stakeholder's expectations. In most cases the people that use your software will not even be aware of internal project deadlines. Case in point, think of all of the software the you use everyday. You are rarely aware of what the due date was. However, what you do notice is how well the software does it's job. It's it's of low quality, you'll very likely notice right away. Even if it appears to be of high quality, if it doesn't provide any major value to you, chances are you still stop using it. With that in mind, then why do many software projects today have a set scope and a hard due date? When building software for a customer, it's only natural for them to what to know what exactly they are going to get and what is will cost them. That is a very reasonable thing to want to know. Even when developing software internally, there are often similar expe

How to run your IS department

Over the course of being a software developer for the past 10 years, at 5 different employers, I've noticed a reoccurring problem at these organizations. The business leaders simply don't understand what IS does and the value that they can bring to the company. (The one exception being a software consulting company, where IS was their business.) Most organizations tend to see IS in a similar light as brick layers or plumbers. They are simply there to keep things working. Additionally they are there to build what other business leaders have envision. In this analogy the business leaders are the architects, coming up with the grand designs, while the software people are the construction workers, putting the pieces together. What the business often fails to realize is that role of IS is to help the business run more efficiently, increases company wide productivity, and most importantly be a strategic asset to the company. In all of my working experience, the software