Category: Building Software

  • Making the Most of The Implementation Phase

    Making the Most of The Implementation Phase

    The amount of time spent on each step of the software development life cycle varies from project to project.  However, the implementation phase is always the most significant portion.  That means this is the area where projects can fail or succeed.  We can ace all of the other steps in the life cycle, and a mediocre implementation will wipe out all that good work.

    Balance The Effort

    In my experience, the most impact during implementation is to try for a balanced effort from start to finish.  Avoid a slow start and then hectic finish to hit deadlines.  Particularly for longer stretches of implementation and big projects.  This is a killer of productivity and quality.  I have seen project after project that burns out team members with a hard push at the end that could have been avoided.  The way to accomplish this is to set proper milestones and goals that balance the effort throughout the phase.  When you keep the goals in sight, it is easier to keep everyone focused and avoid the lazy drift big projects see at the start.

    Regular Sanity Checks

    Another essential trait of a successful implementation phase is regular checkups.  These are not progress focused as much as they are about requirements.  There are a variety of ways to do this, but the result should be a review of what is being implemented to ensure it is still in line with the requirements.  This includes reducing feature creep as well as correcting design drift.  Short projects will not suffer from this too much.  However, long-term or large projects can see dramatic implementation problems and slipped dates from adding features or skewed solutions to requirements.

    The good news is that this task does not need to be done by the implementation team.  Team members from other phases (or QA staff) can perform sanity checks of features.  They can measure against requirements and then meet with the implementation team to correct problems.

    Frequent Code Commits

    This may seem minor, but regular code commits are critical.  I have come across numerous projects that tank because of impossible code merge needs, or a team member disappears along with their source.  Ideally, this is built into the daily regimen of the implementation team.  Regular merge and build steps are a big help as well.  Much like the sanity checks above, regularly testing that you have all you need for a successful build helps keep from drift.  This factor is a solid argument for best practices like continuous integration and regular builds.

    Test Early

    Testing has gotten better but still is too often left to the end of the project.  This is when the cost to correct errors is at the highest level.  It has been established over the years that the earlier a bug is detected, the easier it is to fix.  There is a bit of a challenge in early testing as (by definition) the implementation is not yet complete and ready for full testing.  This timing also means that there will be more time spent testing than when it is held until the end.  That is entirely ok.  The more testing that can get done, the more likely bugs will be found and squashed.

    When you combine early testing with regular builds and commits you get feedback early, and quality is built in from the start.  This approach even makes the testing process better.  The test scripts and tools can be used and refined during the implementation phase to improve coverage and confidence in the results.

    Note that none of these improvements are substantial on their own.  These can be implemented as part of the process and pay worthwhile dividends when the project completes.  All of these can also be tried out to see how they work for you.  When in doubt, give it a shot and verify for yourself whether these are good for your team.

  • Back To Basics – Getting A Project Back On Track

    Back To Basics – Getting A Project Back On Track

    When you listen to a professional or college sports team discuss a bad stretch, they often mention that they will get back to basics.  These statements are not a knock on the players.  They understand the basics.  It is instead a focus on doing the things that have to be done.  It is a return to their foundation so they can simplify and then work on building again.  This approach happens to work well for software projects as well.

    Spinning Out Of Control

    The good and bad news is that software projects almost never go just a little off-track.  A slight stumble in a project either gets righted quickly or it starts to spiral away.  Thus, it tends to be easy to see that a plan is out of control when you look at it on paper.  There will be features that are not implemented, slipped dates, and requirements that have been ignored.

    Like the coach of a team struggling to succeed, we can simplify without getting bogged down in blame or questioning the skills of the team.  This approach is not just saving the feelings of the team members; it also happens to be an excellent way to triage the situation.

    Back To Basics = Simplify

    I think the best benefit that comes from this approach is that it forces us to simplify and focus.  The first step is to look at the requirements and assess where the software is about them.  When I say requirements, I am talking about the original, not the ones with a pile of change requests.  Those change requests may be vitally important, but let’s ignore them for now.

    Once you have the gap analysis complete on the software and the starting requirements, it is time to tackle the scope creep and change requests.  As you move through these items, start each one by asking if it is required.  Nice-to-have features often show up in early change requests because we have a lower bar of entry.  When things are on schedule and expectations are met, we are happy to add a feature or two.  That changes once we are behind schedule or on a death march.

    The Baby and The Bathwater

    There will almost always be changes that can be made to the scope at this point.  Things have gone for a reason.  There are cases where a technical issue or challenge causes a project to go off the rails.  However, I have rarely experienced this.  It is far more prevalent to have a project die due to a thousand cuts.  There are all sorts of little slips and additions that have led us to this wreck.

    That being said, our gap analysis will almost always highlight opportunities for removing features and simplifying the project.  When we tackle these, it needs to be with discretion.  Some features can be turned off to reduce scope without much effort.  However, many will have tentacles reaching into other areas.  Thus, unlike a sports team, we may have features that we need to keep due to the complexity.  Of course, if we have good adherence to version control best practices, we should not run into this problem.  If you just fell on the floor laughing, you are not alone.

    It is important to note that this is a perfect example of where good version control practices can help.  You can use branches and tags to group and categorize the features as you remove them.  This will allow you to attempt merging those features back in for a future release.

     

    The Bottom Line

    When you find yourself in the middle a project catastrophe, get back to basics.  Focus on the requirements you have to meet and a simplified target.  You do not get to cut out some of the basics.  Thus, testing, code reviews, comments/documentation, and those other areas of the SDLC we like to skimp on are not valid targets for getting on track.  You may do these in a less flowery way and simplify some of those processes, but throwing them out is only going to get you back to this position in the future.

    Are you struggling with a project today?  Take a shot at going back to basics and see if that doesn’t quickly give you a path to success.  This is not a silver bullet.  There is still work to be done and corrections to be made.  However, this can get you headed to the light at the end of a tunnel instead of the next oncoming train.

  • Winning With Agile

    Winning With Agile

    The Agile methodology has a lot of pros and cons.  In fact, it is one of the most common argument/discussions I have with a mentor of mine.  He likes to point out (correctly in most instances) that the Agile approach skips out on important design.  It causes a lot of re-work because of that lack of up-front design.  This re-work is only partially a problem.  The Agile method assumes that changes will come during the implementation of a project.  Instead of spending time up front in design on things that end up being thrown away, Agile takes a just-in-time approach to all phases of a project.  I have witnessed a lot of good and bad in these type of projects and found a few ways to help your Agile project improve its success rate while still delivering quickly.

    Design is not an Option

    Although the design phase is not front loaded for Agile like it is for Waterfall it is still required.  Coding without design is like driving without a map.  You might have an exciting journey, but it will almost never be the most direct route.  Teams that have seen success using Agile also have a design portion of every sprint.  This step does not have to be highly formal, nor does it have to take long.  A day or two of design at the front of a two-week sprint will do wonders for quality and help you meet the estimates.  Do not take my word for it, give it a shot for a couple of sprints.  This period does need a quick turn around though as there will likely be clarification requested of the business side or critical stakeholders.

    Testing is not an Option

    In the same vein, testing along the way is critical to Agile success.  A primary aspect of this approach is that things will change.  A good bed of unit tests and regression testing will allow the changes to made while minimizing the impact on quality.  Yes, the tests will have to change and might even need to be rewritten.  However, they will be critical for assessing that a change has not broken other areas of code.  A team that uses Agile and regularly has to “refix” a bug from QA can help themselves with a good set of unit tests.  Of course, tests must be run to be useful so incorporate them into the build process.

    Ask About Always or Never

    Since Agile assumes requirements will change we need to do our best to limit the impact of those changes on implementation.  When processes or objects are being designed that means we need to be careful of our assumptions.  Simplicity and performance may imply that we take a design path because of certain assumptions.  However, when those assumptions prove incorrect we can find ourselves coded into a proverbial corner.  Thus, when faced with the possibility of coding a tight solution based on assumptions it is good to ask the “always or never” question.

    This takes the form of “are you sure this will never happen?” or “are you sure this will always happen?”  It is worth it to emphasize the question and the assumptions to assure you that the right approach is being taken.  When in doubt, avoid coding yourself into a corner.  Functionality correct, but less than perfect performance is better than non-functionality.  That is what refactoring is designed for.

    What This Looks Like

    There are many ways to follow these guidelines in practice.  Of course, Agile is all about limiting documentation and speeding implementation.  I have found that pseudo-code and comments at the start of implementation help enforce both design and testing.  When you insist that all functions and methods include comments about inputs, outputs, error-handling and a brief description of functionality all of these concerns will be addressed.

    It is not a perfect solution.  Nevertheless, it will help with documentation while asking the developer to think about the code before they write it.  I have not seen it done, but I think you could even do a comment task on implementation items early in a sprint.  Ask the developers to write out the comments, test conditions and parameters for everything first, then the code can follow.  This is much like test-driven development.  In a similar fashion, it pushes implementors to think about design before they get into the coding.