There is a time to be an Agile Purist

agile purist
There is always another mountain to climb, and there is always something to improve on – by an agile purist 🙂

As someone who is conscious of other people’s needs, I don’t see myself as a dogmatic agile purist. Instead, I pride myself of the ability to handpick practices and tools for clients based on their maturity and environment. So you can imaging the surprise I had when one of a close client team member called me an agile purist in a half joking way. Knowing that any joke is based on some kind of truth and being the curious yours truly, I convinced her to tell me more about the reason. It turns out she and some of the other team members think I have been advocating things that is “out of their control”. Things like signing up for their own tasks and stories are difficult when there are more than one manager on the team that doesn’t want to let go of control totally. Stopping the habit of over-committing work into the sprint were also met with resistance as the project manager has a schedule based on WBS to follow and development manager would commit on behalf of the team all in the interest of keeping things on schedule. So, how can I, as a coach, push them to do these things when they are not allowed to do so? These are all real issues and I felt terrible for putting the team in that position. Then the thinking started – why are we in such a situation and what can I do about it. That’s when I realized that I have done something about it already. In fact, I have had private conversations with various managers regarding the topic of self-organization. There are just so many hesitation because the team is relatively new and not familiar with the product. So the reality is this change is going to take time. Now should I stop advocating it to the team members in the meantime? The conclusion is NO. Because we need to get out this victim mentality to make any sustainable change. Should we always wait for the organization to change first? Should we wait for a memo from the CEO’s office before acting? If you ask yourself these questions, the answer will become fairly evident. Each of us controls a part of our destiny. Like Sir Sultan Muhammad Shah Aga Khan III said “Struggle is the meaning of life; defeat or victory is in the hands of God. But struggle itself is man’s duty and should be his joy.” Each of us, from top to bottom in the organizational structure has the right and responsibility to voice your opinion. Each of us is part of the problem domain just as much as your colleague and manager. So, keep voicing your opinions and when a lot of us does that, something amazing will happen.

Now, this is not to say our leaders gets off free. Change is most effective when it is supported from the top. Leaders bear additional responsibility because you are not just responsible for yourself but also others. A successful agile transformation requires push from both top and bottom.

So, I will continue to be an agile purist in mindset and a pragmatic and practical agile practitioner. What about you?

How to start your own agile transformation in a large enterprise

In my last blog, I talked about the emphasis of large enterprise world toward lean agile software development methodologies. In addition, people are favouring “owning” their agile transformation rather than relying on external consultants to hand them one!

What does that mean to all those people out there still looking for help and answers on their quest for agile transformation, lost in the vast sea of enterprise IT? First and foremost, define your needs/challenges. What is the problem we try to solve? Defining the right problem has several advantages, one of which is easier to get management buy-in. Then get enough management support! This is another one of these crucial success factors. While it is possible in small organization for grass root agile movement to take hold, it is almost impossible to do so without management buy-in within a mid-large organization. You don’t necessarily to ask for “Agile” transformation, but ask for a chance to explore possible solutions to your needs/challenges in the first step. The next step is to find that guiding light. As with many other things, Google can be your friend or foe. You may decide to do the research yourself and start the transformation from the things you learned. Internet is full of resources on this, but information overload and misleading opinions also makes it very dangerous to place your bet on any literature you read online. As a sports enthusiast, I can assure you that the difference between learning any sport with or without coach is night and day. The top problem is that it is hard to unlearn bad habits. The time and money wasted on learning and then unlearn the bad habits is way more costly than paying for a good coach even before considering the damage done by the bad habits. So, getting someone to help you start the groundwork getting everything moving is the next critical step. Now, be aware of anyone or organization that promised the silver bullet solution. That doesn’t exist. Just like there is no magic herb that can treat all diseases, there is no one agile methodology or technique that can fit your organization right out of the box. If you have bought any COTS solution that supposed to work “out of box” for enterprise, they never do. Instead, look for someone with deep knowledge, patience, listening skills that can ask the right questions! As Peter Druker, father of management consulting, had proven time and time again, you hold the key to the true answer, consultants are just the torch to help you find the right door to open.

Hopefully, once the right help is found, you would have a great trip down the agile lane. But what happens when the Coach leaves, as they suppose to? I will follow up with my next blog.

Is #scaled-agile frameworks the next step or a mis-step?

Agile software development has become the mainstream for a few years, now. With the help of its successes in smaller and younger companies, larger and more traditional companies like banks are starting to experiment with them as well. Lately, scaled agile seems to be a hot topic. More structured frameworks like SAFe and DAD are becoming more popular by the day. Yet, there is strong resistance, and sometimes almost resentment, towards them from some agile practitioners. Everyone agrees agile needs to work at scale, the disagreement is whether that needs to be done under a seemingly more waterfall-like framework.

Interestingly, both frameworks mentioned above are started with people used to work in a large enterprise environment. Should we trust frameworks that came out of such traditionally non-agile settings? We all know that one of the major reputation issues with agile is people practicing wagile (waterfall agile) or scrumbut. What makes these self made frameworks better than the rest that people look down upon? Well, it turns out, a lot of the original Agile Manifesto signers worked in large enterprises. That proves good things can come out of these environments. In addition, having consulted in one of these enterprises, I can say that people who work in large enterprises are just as talented, creative, and sometimes free spirited as the rest. However, they also constrained by a lot more external factors like regulations, industry rules and standards, social pressure.

An experience agile coach Joe Little had an interesting correspondence with James O Coplien through one of his blog post on this very subject.  While James is obviously very knowledgeable in agile and especially Scrum, I agree with Joe’s point that explaining, much less convincing, most people about expanding the agile practices in a self-similar pattern is a quick way to send people to the clouds. It will be even worse talking to business executives like that who already have a preconceived notion that structure and rigid processes provide security and quality.

The biggest advantage I see in these frameworks is that it provides a more gradual transition path from waterfall to agile development. By implementing a more structures top layer (at portfolio or product line or business line level), they provides predictability and discipline required of public companies from the investor. That also gives more freedom to teams and business units to make decisions on lower level details.

It’s a balancing act. Just like one of my favorite quotes in agile, “take one bite at a time”. Doesn’t it make sense to approach agile at a large scale in the same way for some environments?

In a follow up discussion on this post, a number of very interesting points were posted here. Please continue reading the comments. The conclusion/ take away took a slight turn. Instead of evaluating the scaled agile frameworks, it is the detailed things we do and the ways we think that makes a difference. The frameworks, like a lot of other large frameworks, can be used as sounding board to reflect on our ways.

Enterprise Agility – How far would you go?

One of the sessions in the Agile Coach Camp Canada 2014, in open space format, was on Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe). The session attracted many participants who works in large enterprises. The interesting thing is that rather than talking about the specific implementation and experiences people had with SAFe, the discussion went directly to whether SAFe is agile enough to be called an agile framework. The specific arguments are outside the scope of this blog. The main argument (my interpretation) against it though is that SAFe seems to put an iterative, but somewhat sequential and hierarchical structure around accepted agile methodologies like Scrum and Kanban. The main proponent (my interpretation again) for this framework feels that the current corporate structure and external environmental factors like regulation is a real hard constraint just like any other technical constraint that agilists have to work with. SAFe is a very attractive way of building enterprise agility with what we have. This is very interesting to me as I am currently consulting for a big bank in Canada. Does this provide a structured way to finally bring large enterprises across the chasm over to mainstream agile community?

Incidentally, I got involved in a passionate online debate on LinkedIn group Lean and Agile Software Development – “QA organization with agile teams”. The discussion started with a question on whether you need a QA Director role in an agile software development organization of decent size. The replies converged nicely into a qualified “no”. While the managerial oversight is an overkill, the need of a voice in support of quality and quality practices is there. The need to nurture and care for QA professionals in the team also exists. Whether these responsibilities become job of one or more and whether they have a title of Director are implementation details. However, the discussion spiraled into whether a flat network system is better than hierarchical structure. While no one favours a deep hierarchy, people with senior management responsibilities, myself included, think there is a scalability issue with network systems within enterprises or public companies.   Sooner or later, hierarchy will emerge to manage external interaction and inter-dependencies between networks.

This brings me back to the original discussion on SAFe. If the premise of flat network systems can become a reality than SAFe may not be the most agile framework that can be applied. However, is it possible for an enterprise to undergo such a drastic transformation even if you have years or decades? How far would you go to move your or your large enterprise client’s organization towards that direction?

power of moderatioin

Does #TDD really need to be dead?

Test Driven Development (TDD) has always been a hard sell in many companies I have worked with. The resistance would come from all possible directions. Developers worry about extra overhead, managers worry about delayed project schedule, and finance worry about increased cost. However, since David Heinemeier Hansson posted his controvertial post “TDD is dead. Long live testing” more than a month ago, an already heated topic just got a lot hotter. For example, it has sparked agile heavyweights Kent Beck, Martin Fowler and David to have a series of hangout sessions to discuss and understand each other’s view. These are great discussions with lots of history and knowledge embedded. I highly encourage everyone to at least read up on the summaries of each discussion whether you agree TDD is dead or not!

Throughout these conversations, I detected a common theme though.  Whether the discussion is around test isolation or design damage; over testing or unit test runtime limit, the objections seem to be derived from observations or experiences of strict, or better dogmatic, execution of a believe. This reminds me how my son would insist something as universal truth because he has seen it once. It is very hard to convince someone otherwise of what they have seen or done. As someone specilized in software development methodologies and best practices, I have learned and still often remind myself the principles of Tai Chi. Water, one of the softest things on earth, will always erode away any type of rock in their way. Anything used in extreme can be harmful, be it a technique, methodology, medicine, or ideology.

This is also why I not only preach agile development, but also try to live an agile life. Life is a journey, we, as driver of our own lives, have to steer us out of trouble in order to reach the next stop. So, can  we declare TDD as dead but still be an advocate for proper testing? Yes. Do we need to declare it as dead in order to make that point? I don’t think so. What’s your thought?

What does the origin of DevOps teach us?

Recently, I read an interesting story on how the name DevOps came about.

http://blog.newrelic.com/2014/05/16/devops-name/?utm_content=5416574&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin

True enough, as an “afanaciado” of DevOps movement, I didn’t know this story. It even had a reference to the city I work in – Toronto. It is home to one of the two people that caused this name to appear! I am feeling proud, now:-) As I read the story, I was intrigued with Patrick Debrois and Andrew Shafer’s tenacity to pursue what they believe is important for two years in the face of seemingly indifference from the fellow community members. In addition, Patrick’s courage to organize the first #DevOps conference in 2009 on a brand new topic further proved that if you believe in something, follow it up with action, then you will be rewarded. That reward may not be success as in this case, but the experience itself will be reward enough.

That is one of the fundamental pillars of agile. Don’t wait for everything to be ready. Don’t expect all the documentations will be complete. Don’t even think you can spec out all the possible edge cases before building the software. Do execute on what you already know. Get feedback quickly and then build on top of that. You will be rewarded with information/knowledge that otherwise will just be a design/estimate/assumption/risk. As an added bonus, you might just get a working product that’s right for the customer. Isn’t that nice 🙂