Agile Fables

Aesop_woodcut_Spain_1489

I love a good fable. The kind that Aesop used to write with animals acting out human morality tales. Of course, if you do the research, you quickly find out that Aesop didn’t write most (if any of the fables) we ascribe to him and like Shakespeare he probably never existed. I don’t let reality like that spoil my appreciation for Aesop’s work.

For Scrum Masters, Project Managers, and fans of Getting Things Done there is nothing like the fable of the Tortoise and the Hare. The slower, but diligent tortoise wins the race over the quicker, but arrogant hare. The only problem Agile process lovers have with this fable is that it’s not true! The tortoise (Waterfall) always loses to the Hare (Agile).

But we have a paradox: Most chickens (managers, stakeholders, investors) and even some pigs (engineers) agree with Aesop! The tortoise always beats the hare because the tortoise makes a plan and executes it well, even if he is a bit slow. (If the tortoise fails it’s because a chicken yells at her to hurry up and so she speeds up and screws up. Call it the “Fable of the Spineless Tortoise and Impatient Chicken.”)

To resolve this paradox I’d like to tell the “Fable of the Tortoise, Hare, and Monkey.”

A Hare one day ridiculed the Microsoft Project plans and change control documents of the Tortoise. The latter, laughing, said: “Though you be swift as Google Go, I will beat you in a race to deliver working software.” The Hare, deeming her assertion to be simply impossible, assented to the proposal; and they agreed that the Fox (VP of Product Management) should choose the requirements, and define the release. On the day appointed for the race they started together. The Tortoise never for a moment stopped, but went on with a slow but steady build cycle straight to the end of the course. The Hare, trusting to his native widgets, cared little about unit testing and user feedback, and lying down under his desk after long night of coding, fell fast asleep. At last waking up, and logging on as fast as he could, he saw the Tortoise had reached the goal, and was demoing to the Fox.

But the story doesn’t end yet…

By the time the Hare caught up with the Tortoise and the Fox he saw the Tortoise slam her laptop shut and slump away. The Hare asked for an explanation. “Why didn’t he Tortoise win?” The Fox explained that what the Tortoise delivered was very late to market and the requirements were were out of date. “But,” the Fox said, “Happily for all, the Monkey has delivered working working software that meets most of our customer’s high priority needs!”

“Monkey? Where the hell did the Monkey come from?” Exclaimed Hare.

“Ah yes,” sighed the Fox, “While you were crashed out under your desk, the Monkey came and delivered a working prototype. I told her that it wasn’t quite right so the Monkey went away and came back a little while later with a revised prototype. It took a few tries but eventually the Monkey got it right and won the race. In fact the Monkey’s working prototypes helped me understand what I was asking for. You see when I gave the requirements to you and the Tortoise, there were a few stories I missed and during the race a new competitor entered the market. Even if you hadn’t fallen asleep you would not have won as I had to keep moving the goal. Our customer, Mr. Zeno, is a hard man to please!

Just in case you’re not into reading between the lines here’s my analysis of this fable (since I wrote it my analysis should hopefully be accurate).

The Hare lost the race because he had to fight the Law of the Handicap of a Head Start. This principle states that pioneers and innovators lack a clear signal. They are out in front, they have no one to follow, and so their advantage becomes a handicap. Often the first movers are stuck building their software on immature technology that becomes obsolete before it is finished. The United States has this problem with its Internet and telecommunications infrastructure. We got there first but now we are lagging in connectivity. The Hare development process, starts out fast and light but never stops to get feedback–its one big long sprint. A lot of code is written. Little of it is ever used.

The Tortoise lost the race because we no longer live in the world of the 4th century BC. Slow and steady hasn’t been a winning strategy for a long time. The goal keeps moving. Actually the ancient Greek philosopher Zeno wrote his own fable where he counters Aesop. In Achilles and the Tortoise, the Hare-like Achilles can’t catch up to the Tortoise (who has been given a head start) because every time Achilles reaches the spot where the Tortoise was, the Tortoise has moved on. This is the problem of accomplishing an infinite number of tasks in a finite amount of time. Somehow we do it every day (but if you really think about it your brain hurts). The Tortoise development process, creates dichotomies every step of the way: Design, Development, Test, Release, Post Release, et etc. Dichotomies are full of infinite regressions and thus are never finished.

The Monkey won the race because he used an Agile development process. First the Monkey took a prioritized subset of from the list of infinite tasks (and every project has a never ending number of bugs and feature requests) and delivered them to the Fox (Product owner) as working software. It was was rough but the Fox had the results in plenty of time to give feedback and course corrections. Thus the Monkey was not subject to the Law of the Handicap of a Head Start. Second the Monkey kept repeating these short sprints of implementing the high priority tasks and getting feedback on a real working system so that as the goal moved she could quickly change course. The Monkey development process, done right, treats every sprint as a whole, where no dichotomies are created. The software is released to the user, it does what it does, feedback is gathered, and the process is repeated until a winner is declared.

Managing the De-Motivated

cute-sad-kitten

It still amazes me how a process created by engineers for engineers can make so many engineers so unhappy.

I’ve seen all kinds of responses to Agile from engineers. Some are immediately enthusiastic. Others are cautiously optimistic. Many are amused and cynical. And some are down right hostile. Over time the responses polarize and the body of engineers undergoing an Agile process split into two camps: Those for whom Agile is working and those for whom it isn’t.

I’d like to point out that I’m not talking about Fragile (Waterfall Agile) or Badgile (just a plain bad Agile implementation). Fragile and Badgile don’t work for anyone, not the Agile fanboys nor the management types that mistakenly create these processes. (If your boss says, “Agile yes, but we must have controls!” then you’re headed down the road to sadness.)

Unfortunately in my experience there are really good engineers out there for whom Agile in all its manifestations, from Scrum to XP, just doesn’t work. I’ve done a fair amount of work to figure out why and what to do about it. I’m going to use Scrum in my examples but this isn’t a problem of flavor. However you enact the principles the problems are the same for this segment of the engineering population. Also note this isn’t a generational thing. Agile-challenged engineers come in all shapes, sizes, sexes, IQs, and ages.

The top four reasons why Agile doesn’t work for some engineers:

  1. You have to like to talk to people. Engineering as a profession self-selects for people who find human-machine interactions more interesting then human-human or human-animal interactions. People who like to talk to people become salesmen or lawyers not programmers. But for some engineers human-human interaction is down right painful. If you are not into face-to-face communication Agile is not for you.
  2. You have to need and accept help. I love to remind people that intelligence is a side effect of evolution not its goal. (The gold of evolution, if there is one, to enable a species to adapt to a changing environment. Intelligence is just one experiment in adaptation and probably not the most successful one since it’s only worked for one species.) I’ve found that some really intelligent engineers are so smart that it’s difficult for them to accept help (like a prioritized backlog or a bug report) from people they view as obviously less intelligent. You can call this arrogance but then would Mozart have accepted help on his symphonies?
  3. You have to embrace change. Many people from all walks of life have difficulty handling change—rapid or slow. They just don’t like the idea that the world they have finally gotten used to and mastered no longer exists. Some of these change-adverse people happen to be engineers. You can spot them easily. They are programming in languages and paradigms that are no longer on the leading edge. I often have to say to them: Yes, you can still write desktop applications but nobody under 40 is going to care.
  4. You have to like focusing and working on a schedule. Whether your sprint in two weeks or two months isn’t important. What is important is that you stick to it—even it means, and it usually does, modifying your work to fit the time window. For the Agile-challenged engineer this is a blasphemy akin to chopping eight inches off the left side of the Mona Lisa. They see their software as a whole that isn’t finished until it is finished. Scrum’s timing boxing technique is admittedly arbitrary. The creative process cannot be bounded by deadlines without losing its integrity. At least that’s their argument. I see it differently, and can give lots of contrary arguments, but rational argument has little impact on personal preferences. These engineers find sprinting to be stressful where the Agile-friendly engineer finds sprinting to be liberating.

At the end of the day it’s a waste of time to force people to do something they simply don’t want to do. Unenthusiastic people need to find something they are truly enthusiastic about. There is nothing wrong with the Agile-challenged. They are master craftsmen, they are very smart, they are mavens, and they are artists. So what is an Agile organization to do with them?

The first thing to do is get them out of Agile. These engineers are wasted on Scrum and will simply quit and make a lot of other miserable on their way out. Smart unhappy people can make a lot of mischief!

The second thing to do is to create a lab, give them a mission, and turn them lose. It’s interesting to note that many of famous labs in the history of computation have been notoriously bad at implementing and productizing their creations. Xerox Parc invented most of what we use when we use personal computers yet it is in decline. It’s too bad that Xerox Parc didn’t merge with Apple or Microsoft, organizations that are good at creating markets and feeding them incremental improvements. Instead Apple and Microsoft developed R&D labs of their own so that they have a never-ending fountain of new ideas and home for their dreamers.

You can’t and shouldn’t manage the lab with Agile techniques and you must not staff it with Agile-friendly engineers. The engineers who thrive under Agile get lost in lab, their ideas can’t compete with the Leonardos and Michelangelos.

In the end the secret to managing the de-motivated is finding a place for them in the organization where they are motivated to be. Agile is great but it cannot be applied to all problems.

In Search of the Motivated

search10in10K

I’m doing a lot of hiring right now. So much that I’ve had to form a hiring scrum and treat it like an engineering project. The scrum is doing a great job. We now have a systematic way to write job descriptions, assign interviewers, evaluate resumes, perform phone screens, and conduct interviews. All this to find the needle in the haystack: The motivated individual.

There are other requirements: The ability to code with grace and manage with charm is appreciated. Good manners and excellent communication skills a plus. Experience with open source, P2P networks, and super-scalable n-tiered web stacks don’t hurt your chances.

But all that means nothing without the man on a mission to drive it (or woman on a mission. I hear there are female programmers out there. There should be a lot more. Something is wrong with the world when less than 25% of programmers are women. We need to fix that).

Why is motivation so important? Let’s turn to the Agile Manifesto to find out. Principle 5 states:

Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and support they need, and trust them to get the job done.

This principle is in the form of a imperative. No reasons are given and a lot is asked of management. Shouldn’t the framers of the manifesto give us a few hints as to why we chickens should obey this command? It’s almost as if they expect us to know the basis for this principle a priori. Anyone with even a few months of experience in software development knows why the motivated individual is so important that you give him (or her) the keys to the executive bathroom, a company car, and the employee-of-the-month parking spot:

  • Unmotivated people, no matter how good they are at coding, managing, manners, communication, open source, p2p, or n-tier architectures get nothing of consequence done.
  • Motivated people, work wonders no matter how poorly they code, manage, or communicate! And if you find highly motivated l33t hax0rs then the world is your osyter iPad.

I don’t know of any organizations that don’t strive to hire the motivated. They put up all sorts of road blocks to filter out the underachievers. 12 hour interviews, brain teasers, reference checks all designed to make sure you really want the job. One startup I worked at would call applicants late on a Friday and ask them to prepare a presentation over the weekend and present it early the Monday morning as part of the interview process for salespeople. This was a brilliant filter. Only those  hunter/farmers who really wanted to work for the company would put up with this kind of hazing.

But here’s the rub: That same startup did not follow the rest of the Agile plan: They did not give the newly hired highly motivated salespeople the environment and support they needed nor did they trust them to get the job done. Nothing is more frustrating to the motivated than to be treated like slackers and held on a short leash. There was high turnover and poor sales. Management had to result to clever motivational hacks: Contests, awards, and threats to keep sales on track.

But every good manager knows the motivated out performs the unmotivated 10 to 1. The motivated need only a license to kill. For the motivated the journey is the reward.

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!

A product owner and his developer

What can we learn from Dr. Peter Venkman about the Agile development process? It’s true that Venkman was the less technical member of his team. Clearly Dr. Egon Spengler was the blue-sky researcher while Dr. Ray Stantz was the practical engineer.  But Venkman brought a lot to the table: Charm, business acumen, and the ability to spot an opportunity. In short, Venkman was the product manager.

Egon and Ray focused on arcane reference books and ecoplasmic gadgets. It was Venkman first used their technology to get results in the marketplace—or at least meet girls. Venkman was usually critical of Egon’s and Ray’s “out of the box” ideas but once won over Venkman stood behind his team and rallied them when the chips were down (as when Gozer the Destroyer took the form of the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man).

Perhaps Ghost Busters is not a textbook example of product management in action but it’s a funny movie and I’ve worked with far less amusing product managers than Bill Murray’s lovable but obnoxious Venkman.

For all his faults Venkman obeyed the 4th principle in the Agile Manifesto:

Business people and developers must work 
together daily throughout the project.

Venkman did not separate himself from his team:

  • He lived in the Ghost Busters HQ (Hook and Ladder 8 ) with Egon and Ray.
  • He took his turn driving the ambulance that served as the Ectomobile (Ecto-1).
  • He even wore the overalls and shouldered a Proton Pack.

Clearly Venkman, Egon, and Ray worked together daily as equals on each project, whether it was ridding a fancy hotel of a noisy poltergeist or cleaning ectoplasm off a hapless victim.

Too often in semi-Agile development processes product management (the business people) function as the boss. They make the decisions. They are the “decider guys” stepping into the problem space for a moment, asking for the summary, and making a quick decision without context or technical expertise (like Walter Peck from Environmental Protection who demands that the Ghost Busters shutdown their “storage facility” and inadvertently releases hundreds of ghosts into Manhattan).

The problem here is that software development is a complex, subtle, and sophisticated problem. It doesn’t sit well with summaries and snap decisions. To really make a good software product decision you have to get into the details. You don’t have to be a programmer but you do have to live with one. Any complex, subtle, sophisticated process benefits tremendously from people who work so closely together they know each other’s strengths and compensate for each other’s weaknesses.

To ensure the cats and dogs are living together I recommend the following four “Make Sures” (as usual based on the bitter pill of experience):

  1. Make sure the product owners (product managers, business people, what ever you call them) sit with the engineers. It’s good if they eat lunch with them and go out for beers once a week.
  2. Make sure the product owners and engineers understand that they are all pigs. The product owners are not “management” and the engineers are not “labor”. This means product owners must participate in the development process in real time.
  3. Make sure the roles and responsibilities of the product owners and development leads are clear. PO’s own the backlog and priority. DLs own the sprint backlog and technical strategy.
  4. Make sure the team makes all decisions though rigorous debate. There is always a business trade off and a technical trade off that has to be resolved—If not you’re not innovating. Software development is not a democracy and everyone does not have to agree. But the best path, not the most obvious one, has be discovered.

Improving Your Whuffie with Agile

Whuffie Burn Up Story Point Burn Down Chart

Virtual currency like Cory Doctorow’s concept of Whuffie will probably replace real money in the next 100 years. Maybe sooner with the way our current economic crisis is going. Once all the hard currency in the world is spent it’s Gresham’s law FTW!

You can get a head start by using Agile development principles to min-max your Whuffie earning potential.

Cory shows us how in his seminal book Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom. (Released under a creative commons license.)

I’m not sure if Cory meant to illustrate the principles or Agile development or he just stumbled into them. Since principles are laws of nature that exist independently of people I like to think that Cory was just observing how collaborative projects tend to take longer than expected or turn into epic failures. Some truths are self-evident as the founding fathers liked to say.

In Down and Out the protagonists are trying to quickly refurbish Disney’s Haunted Mansion with cool new robotic effects. They ask the head Imagineer (Still the coolest job title in the world!) how long it will take:

“Okay, so tell me, if we came to you with this plan and asked you to pull together a production schedule — one that didn’t have any review, just take the idea and run with it — and then pull it off, how long would it take you to execute it?”

Lil smiled primly. She’d dealt with Imagineering before.

“About five years,” he said, almost instantly.

Our heroes don’t have five years. A rival team is updating the Hall of Presidents with leet virtual reality spam in just a matter of weeks. So our plucky protagonists demand an explanation:

“Five years?” I squawked. “Why five years? Debra’s people overhauled the Hall in a month!”

“Oh, wait,” he said. “No review at all?”

“No review. Just come up with the best way you can to do this, and do it. And we can provide you with unlimited, skilled labor, three shifts around the clock.”

He rolled his eyes back and ticked off days on his fingers while muttering under his breath. He was a tall, thin man with a shock of curly dark hair that he smoothed unconsciously with surprisingly stubby fingers while he thought.

“About eight weeks,” he said. “Barring accidents, assuming off-the-shelf parts, unlimited labor, capable management, material availability. . .” He trailed off again, and his short fingers waggled as he pulled up a HUD and started making a list.

Five years? Eight weeks? Our heroes are perplexed. It seems outside the realm of sanity that a project could take either Five years or eight weeks. (But not if you think about Windows Vista or Apple’s System 7.)

“Wait,” Lil said, alarmed. “How do you get from five years to eight weeks?”

Now it was my turn to smirk. I’d seen how Imagineering worked when they were on their own, building prototypes and conceptual mockups — I knew that the real bottleneck was the constant review and revisions, the ever-fluctuating groupmind consensus of the ad-hoc that commissioned their work.

Suneep looked sheepish. “Well, if all I have to do is satisfy myself that my plans are good and my buildings won’t fall down, I can make it happen very fast. Of course, my plans aren’t perfect. Sometimes, I’ll be halfway through a project when someone suggests a new flourish or approach that makes the whole thing immeasurably better. Then it’s back to the drawing board. . . So I stay at the drawing board for a long time at the start, get feedback from other Imagineers, from the ad-hocs, from focus groups and the Net. Then we do reviews at every stage of construction, check to see if anyone has had a great idea we haven’t thought of and incorporate it, sometimes rolling back the work.

It’s interruptions that add months and even years to a schedule. Corry is not making this stuff up.

An Agile process like SCRUM recognizes this fact and uses the concept of the sprint to create a bubble of focus in an ocean of distractions. During a sprint nothing should change—if something does change (new business reality, a framework that doesn’t work as advertised) the sprint is broken. Sprints are kept short so that change can be accommodated in efficient chunks. Corry is simply pointing out why sprints lead to faster development cycles than non-Agile processes.

A few things are interesting to note:

  • The 12 principles of the Agile Manifesto don’t talk about sprints. The principle of time-boxing a problem seems to be missing. SCRUM and other Agile methods inspired by automotive process management married the idea of sprints or locked iterations to Agile.
  • In Corry’s book the Imagineers fall weeks behind schedule because they can’t handle their newfound freedom from stakeholder feedback. I’m pretty sure it’s because our heroes are too busy struggling through their own character driven plot to act as product owners and keep the Imagineers focused.
  • There is a big difference between stakeholder feedback (changing requirements) and product owner feedback (understanding requirements). SCRUM groks this. The Agile manifesto hints at it.

Using an Agile/SCRUM process to develop your projects enables you to deliver on time while incorporating changes. The net-effect is a dramatic increase in your Whuffie. You might as well start banking it now 🙂

The Shorter Timescale

Eternity (Sprints Not Drawn To Scale)

I’m reading a very scary book right now: Heidegger and a Hippo Walk Through Those Pearly Gates. It’s a funny and informative look at how philosophers and religious thinkers deal with death. I don’t want to be a spoiler but the basic message of the book is that most people live in denial of their own mortality and most philosophers are trying to wake them up. Them being us.

This is especially true in software development. Any experienced engineer looking at a 6-12 month project plan will tell you there is a lot of denial going on. I don’t want to sound overly melodramatic but the 3rd Principle from the Agile Manifesto

Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale.

…is all about waking up and getting out of denial.

I covered the idea of working software in a previous blog post but “preference to the shorter timescale” idea deserves some focused attention all on it’s own.

If you live life to a Tim McGraw sound track then you don’t waste a lot of time on planning or doing things that are simply not going to happen. The idea of a preference for shorter timescales come from the principle that risk grows with distance into the future.

This principle doesn’t mean you shouldn’t dream big! I’ve met many engineers who tell me “Agile is only for minor tweaks, not big initiatives.” (No I won’t name names but I dare you guys to a blog war!) Your backlog should be as big as forever. It’s just that you plan and sprint for what you can achieve as a human mortal. Zeus and Hera can execute a 12 month plan with a waterfall process–Agile is not for immortals.

I like 2 week sprints (with one week of planning in between) for three reasons:

  1. It’s been my experience that (most) human mortals only have vague capacities for planning and managing large chunks of future time. Today, tomorrow, Next week are  cool. We live in a bubble of now that trails 1-2 weeks behind and runs 1-2 weeks ahead.
  2. Engineers (and artists) are mostly monochrons. (Almost everyone else tend to be polychrons.) It’s part of the self selection process that leads people down the road of life to end up either alone in front of a computer (or piano or canvas) or in a group running around the planet making noise. Maybe it’s all due to Asperger’s Syndrome but the creative process seems to require that we focus on doing one thing at a time for a fixed period of time in a repeatable cycle.
  3. Engineers (and artists) get lost in their work (the music of the spheres as it were) and lose track of time. Short sprints mean they can’t go too far astray before they check in with home base! Once an brilliant engineer told me it took a month to fix an ad server bug because he first had to rewrite Math.c. Good thing I checked in when I did or he might have rewritten all of UNIX!

So if we end up working together I will ask you to think in short increments that give us plenty of time to capitalize on the future 🙂

True Working-ness

A Bird in the Hand

Last week I presented to my team at Lime Wire Agile and Scrum in all it’s most excellent glory. Jason Herskowitz, Lime Wire’s VP of Product Management, and I ran though all the major Agile elements and vocabulary words. The best part of the presentation was questions asked by developers, testers, system admins, product managers, and even a couple of chickens. Many of these guys and gals have been the victims of bad Agile programs. It seems easy to play the Agile game but it isn’t. The most critical path to successful Agile isn’t to follow all the rules–it’s to follow all the principles.

The Agile Manifesto’s 3rd principle, Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale, seems to be often ignored. You can not really ignore a principle. A true principle is a law of nature, like gravity or the axioms of geometry. If you ignore the principle of gravity you’re going to get hurt. If you ignore the principles of Agile your project is going to fail.

I don’t know why the delivery of working software is often left out of the plan. Perhaps it’s that to recognize the truth of this principle requires more than just a thin patina of Agile paint on a waterfall process. Most Bagile (Bad Agile) processes do not understand that a milestone without working software delivered is a milestone not met. In Bagile working software is mutated into “ready for QA” or “all P1 bugs closed” or “works on my machine”.

I’m not taking an extreme view of working software! It’s just that “done” should mean “nothing more to do!” I’ve lived through the bitter experience of discovering that done doesn’t mean working software. Nothing is more discouraging than having to wait weeks for a so-called completed project to be ready for release.

If you think about it, delivering working software in this complex world of clouds, grids, restful APIs, and P2P networks, is daunting. It may even feel wasteful to go though all the effort to get the components integrated and tested every couple of weeks.

But true working-ness means you can get feedback before every iteration from actual flesh and blood users. Feedback like this is invaluable to avoid wasted effort.

True working-ness means you can focus on the future and get rational priorities for your backlog with each sprint.

True working-ness means if you want to go on vacation, you leave things in a good state and others can pick it up while you are gone.

True working-ness means true achievement. It’s pretty hard to make lasting, solid achievements in general, but delivering working software frequently means you have made a concrete difference in the life of your users today.

There is a 14th century English saying that taught me the same the principle as a kid: “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.”

Mac OS 3: User Center Design Exemplar

I nearly lost all my data a couple of weeks ago. Actually, I was in no danger at all of losing my data but the terribad UI of Apple’s Time Machine and Time Capsule made me think I did! Apple’s backup solution is like a good looking school yard bully with a hidden inferiority complex.

I used to back up everything manually and it was messy. To be fair Apple seemed to conserve all that backup mess with the Time Capsule wireless base station/terabyte network drive and its slick Time Machine backup application. It just seemed to work: No settings, no maintenance, no hunting for the disk with the 3rd season of Buffy on it.

On the rare occasion when I did need a missing or deleted file Time Machine made it easy, and entertaining, to find (nothing like zooming back in time to give lulz).

One evening last week my MacBook Pro died and upon restart got stuck at the kernel panic screen. I took it Tek Serve in NYC (where they are a million time smarter than Apple’s Genius Bar) and learned that a fresh re-install of Mac OS X was the solution.

To make a long story short, when I connected my revived MacBook Pro to Time Capsule it restored a backup from 4 months ago! That’s a generation in Internet years! Also it took over 12 hours! I was aghast!

With grim determination I started the whole process over and tried to get support from Apple. But nothing helped until I just gave up and accessed Time Machine to confirm it was operational. And lo and behold: There was my data from the previous week. Right up to 30 minutes before the kernel panic attack!

%*@:-(

Just before I joined Apple I got some coaching from Bruce Tognizzni (I was designing a set of never-to-be-released apps for Letraset back in 1991). Tog explained that good user centered design doesn’t just hide complexity–it enables the user to navigate it. Time Machine and Time Capsule are bad user centered design according to this definition since they are pretty faces and not much more.

I can’t think of any better example of user centered design than the original Mac OS (version 3) and apps like MacPaint and MacWrite. And since you can’t run it anymore (but you can see screen shots at the Vintage Mac Museum) I decided to bring the Mac OS 3 back to life in flash. Embedded above is version 0.1 of the Mac OS 3 Flash Sim. It don’t do much but I promise to whittle away at it as time permits. I’ll post the source code shortly as well. Right now you can selected the trash can and pull down the apple menu.

It’s funny but the constrained yet expressive capabilities of the original Mac OS are much more like the user experience of the iPhone and iPod Touch then the current Mac OS X. There is something to be said for the power of limitations.

The Name of the Game is Change

Slide1

The second principle from the Agile Manifesto is “Welcome changing requirements, even late in development. Agile processes harness change for the customer’s competitive advantage.”

I call this the Product Manager’s dream principle: “I get to change the requirements, even after development has started! Woot!”

First let’s break this principle down and see what it really means and then let’s talk about how to deal with it.

There are 4 ideas embedded in the PM’s dream:

  1. Welcoming changing requirements in general
  2. Welcoming changing requirements even late in development
  3. Harnessing change
  4. Customer’s competitive advantage

These ideas come from the grim realization that requirements are going to change, at any stage of the development process, and there isn’t a damn thing you or any process can do about it. We can pretend that we have control over change. We can ask business owners and product managers to sign an iron-clad contract but Mother Nature and Murphy’s Law are not going to stop working on our plans.

Given that change is inevitable we can either hate it or love it or just deal. If this principle was written from the hating change POV it would read “Abhor changing requirements, especially late in development…” On the other hand if the authors of the Agile Manifesto loved change the principle would have read “Encourage changing requirements, the later the better…”

“Welcoming changing requirements” is a positive way to deal with a problematic issue in the same way that many cultures have a tradition of adopting strangers. It’s a smart coping mechanism and recognition that shit happens.

Why do Agilists welcome change and not run the other way and lock the door? Because they are confident that Agile process and policies are setup to withstand change. They have accounted for change in the Agile process and thus change is not going to do much damage to the overall big picture.

Agilists also recognize, according to this principle, that they can “harness change”. Agilists can guide change instead of being driven by it. That’s a pretty tall order but with the right process, one that assumes the inevitable, Agilists take advantage of the opportunities that change creates. Change is where true competitive advantage comes from! Not from a carefully designed, well executed plan, but from a process that gives customers the chance to quickly capitalize on changing market conditions. Wiggle room beats precision any day of the week.

Stephen Jay Gould once wrote about how his interest in fossilized snails, from which he would derive many insights about evolution, came about completely by accident. Gould spent his life discovering and teaching how random events lead to advantages that life is able to exploit. That’s agility right there.

Working with Niles Eldredge, Gould popularized the theory that evolution works in cataclysms called punctuated equilibrium: Short periods of sudden change separated by long periods of relative calm. Agilists see a lot of punctuated equilibrium in software development. Everything in the project is going along as planned and then WAMMO! The market changes, a bug appears, or a forgotten requirement emerges! (This is in well run organizations. In poorly run organizations the change is constant and internally generated.)

OK, now that I have accepted change how do I deal with it? Each school of Agile development from XP to SCRUM has different foci for dealing with change. I’ve seen five patterns emerge that successfully welcome change (but I’d love to hear about others):

  1. Time boxing: Limit the amount of time you spend on any one task so that the cost of change isn’t devastatingly high.
  2. Locked iterations: Restrict change to outside development cycles. Once a dev iteration is started ignore change until victory can be declared. If you really must change requirements in the middle of an iteration stop and re-plan.
  3. JIT planning: Plan as little as possible and as late into the project as possible.
  4. Light design and documentation: Waste as little time as possible on design and documentation as it’s all going to change anyway.
  5. Measure and analyze: Don’t act on assumptions or intuition. Do what the data tells you to avoid surprises.

These solutions in isolation create as many problems as they solve. But when used together in a well thought out and integrated process they create a flexible fabric that can capture the energy of change and use it to gain an advantage. This is hard to do, not because it’s complex, but because many engineers (and normal people too) are uncomfortable with change. One strategy that helps people surf the chaos is to keep a central vision in place with a general roadmap of how to get there. As long as the vision is stable then change is the process of getting there.