Saturday, June 7, 2014

Showing Off: How to Do a User Demo


Rather than repeating what has been said elsewhere, here is a nice short post on agile-for-all that covers the basics.

Here are a few things for my own future reference and teams that I'm working with...

Try to keep each demo to 5 minutes or less.  

If it's longer than that, it's possible that you should be demoing more than one story.  More likely, you're just being too wordy.


TALK LOUDLY.  

No, louder than that.  Louder.  Do you feel like you're yelling?  OK, that's about right.  You need to put your voice in public-address mode for 5 minutes.


Focus on why your audience should care about the story 

This is particularly important for back-end work.  For example: Your story generates a feed of XML that will be consumed by another application. Show the output, and point to a couple of salient features in it.  Then be done.

The important part of the above is "show the output."  Showing the end users how to interact with your service is a separate sit-down, not part of demo.

At base, you want to remember who your audience is, and why you're doing a demo. 

Your audience

Usually, people come to a demo because they have a stake in the success of your software project. They're executives and end-users who want a preview of what they're getting.  The questions that are foremost in their minds are:
  • Am I spending my software budget wisely?
  • Is what the team is working on what I need next, or do I need to change their priorities?
What it does and why it matters are most important.  They do not care if you came up with a way-cool whiz-bang solution to a technical problem.  They do not care if you just learned how to use the MEAN stack.  Show off your skills to the rest of your team in a lunch & learn session later.

Why do a demo?

You're doing this to ensure that you're building the right thing.  Hopefully you have other controls in place (tests, business validation reviews, etc) to ensure that you're building the thing right.  This isn't the time & place to prove it.  You're here to give the business-oriented people a chance to judge the value of your work, so they can help you adjust if you're not giving them what they really need right now.

On this last point, it's important to keep an open mind and accept the feedback you get.  If you aren't getting any feedback, you probably need to adjust how you're doing the demo.

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Steps of a Code Review

Pair programming is better than code reviews, but sometimes you don't have a lot of choice and a review is your best option.  In such a circumstance, how should you go about it?

In my current context, we only do code reviews if another team owns the development, and we can't (or aren't ready to) enforce our coding standards.  That means we can't insist it was TDD'd, or even that it has tests.


  1. Does it work?
  2. Names & commit message
    • Does it have a commit message that describes what was changed?
    • Do the methods tell you what they do?
    • Do the variable names tell you what they're used for.
  3. Tests
    • Are there tests where appropriate?
    • Are there enough tests.
    • Is the test code clean with one assertion per test?
    • Is use of mocking appropriate?
  4. Style
    • Are methods shorter than 10 (or so) lines?
    • Are classes short?
You'd want to reject code for 1 no matter what.  Initially we'll reject it if 2 doesn't work as well.

We probably want to slowly start enforcing 3 and 4.

Saturday, March 22, 2014

Organizing teams for success: Horizontal or Vertical?

How do you organize teams for success?  Who do you put together with whom, and who will do their performance reviews?  I don't have answers, but I wanted to lay out the concepts more clearly as food for though...

A recent Java Posse podcast got me thinking about this.  Is it better to organize teams horizontally (backend, middle tier and front end) or vertically (one team creates a product or feature through all three tiers).

Horizontal

A horizontal team is organized where the team is focused on a layer that cuts across more than one application, like this.

Vertical

A vertical team is organized around getting their product or project done, and cuts across all layers of an application.

My experience in the past few years led me to believe that vertical is always better, but now I think it isn't quite that simple.  Consider this table:

Pro
Con
Vertical
  • Products get done faster because teams don't wait on each other
  • User experience is consistent through a product
  • Core services cost more (reinventing the wheel)
  • Inconsistent user experience between products
Horizontal
  • Services / products are more stable due to a consistent architecture
  • Performance is often better because team members build deep expertise
  • Products take longer to build (teams often wait on each other)
  • Individual team members can stagnate (work is done in silos)

You might want to call bullshit on some of my bullets.  Your list will certainly differ (and I'd really like to know what it is, so please leave a comment.)  You might be part of an organization that fails to reap the benefits while experiencing all of the negatives of both models.  Many do.

Each choice has it's own set of costs and trade-offs.  There are a multitude of "hybrid" solutions that can eliminate some of the costs and increase some of the benefits.

Another Type of Horizontal / Vertical

Reporting relationships affect how we get things done as well.  You can have every member of a team report to one person regardless of their specialization, split them by their specialties, or do a mix.

For example, I work in an organization where all of the QA people report to one director, all of the business analysts to another, and all of the software engineers to a third, with some managers in between for the larger groups.  There are other roles like content production and product development who have their own reporting structures.  That means members of a project team might report to 4 or 5 different people.

Our structure supports consistent practices by role, but lacks focus on individual products.   Individuals don't report to someone who is accountable for delivering products or projects. We have to make up for that by assigning people to projects with responsibility for delivering them.

There are plenty of other ways of going about it.  You could have people report to a manager who is responsible for a product.  That has the advantage of stronger accountability baked-in to the reporting structure.  It has a few drawbacks, such as making it much harder to move between teams and an "us vs them" attitude becoming prevalent.

My conclusion is that there is no one "best" team or organizational structure.  You really need to try more than one to learn what works, and be willing to change them over time.  This can be a very expensive proposition.  Particularly if your employees expect to have one "perfect" structure for all time.  In that environment (which I think is most office environments), every re-org feels like a failure on someone's part.

Refactoring Organizations

If you work in an agile development shop, you understand that it's good to have an inspect-and-adapt loop without your team.  What if we applied that to the organization as a whole, though?  What would "fail fast" look like if we wanted to do it with team and management structures?

I don't know yet, but I believe there are some preconditions.  The main one is to ensure that you can keep a fairly consistent culture in spite of how teams are organized.  People - software developers especially, need some sort of bedrock reality for their day-to-day work if you want them to accept change without losing productivity.

A company to watch in this space is Spotify.  They have deliberately addressed culture and the need for communication through informal networks with their squad / chapter / guild / tribe concepts.  It is a supporting structure for pursuing excellence of craft in software, which lives inside an organization focused on getting product out the door.

We've kicked their concepts around for a while at my workplace, but I can't help feeling that we're missing some key elements.  Guess I'd better read that slide deck again.  Maybe you should too.


Windows 10 Driver Issue with Falcon / Z-77 Keyboard

Windows 10 has an issue with this mechanical keyboard (which works great, BTW).  It's a Chinese-made keyboard (aren't they all?), bu...