f3yourmind

I came across this tweet by Karen Greeves.

Scrum Master fail… Improvement action: Bigger stories where only few members can participate should be scheduled to run over 2 sprints.

After a quick twitter conversation, Karen explained.

It removes the ability to measure progress via working software at the end of the sprint

My response was

Working software is not the only way to measure progress in a sprint. And what if it works? I think it can.

It may well not be the ScrumMaster that failed when it was decided to have a bulkier story span two sprints.  I appreciate that it is a whole lot better when a story is in one sprint, and that should be our default objective.  However, it’s often not so trivial.  Given that I don’t have a lot of context, I will be assuming a lot.

In this case, it is more likely a failure of the team that they (a) accept a story to develop over 2 sprints, or (b) was unable to do enough analysis to consider what can be done in one sprint.  It can also be a failure on the product owner for not entering into a meaningful conversation on the details of the story, and then, again, a team failure on not engaging the PO significantly to take the problem forward.

If I encounter a story that spans two sprints, and that is more often than you think (often discovered mid-sprint), then I’m not interested in working software but seek clarity of understanding in that sprint.  The outcome at the end of the immediate sprint is an unambiguous story (or maybe several stories) which is a statement of the problem domain, or even better, the solution domain.  That is what I mean by working software is not the only measure of progress in a story.  It is more important to “measure” increased understanding in each sprint, and good statements in the solution domain is at the heart of knowledge crunching.

The most neglected aspect of working software is a measure of understanding of the solution domain.  In my experience, many teams are great at expressing the problem domain in software and their code reflects the analysis of the problem.  Consequently, the code does not reflect the understanding of the solution.  The end result is a weak design.  Over many sprints that require work in the vicinity of the weak design, there will be a degradation in velocity because the code is just baking in the problem statement, and not a well crafted solution to the problem.

Next, let me deal with the case of just a few team members participate and not the entire team.  I think that is completely feasible approach.  I’ve done it many times to great effect and with great efficiency because the conversation is a lot more direct and contained.  It is later that the distilled knowledge is shared with the team.  This is largely crunching in the problem domain with some rough models in the solution domain.  When I’ve included the entire team in the analysis, then the effect is one of dilution and inefficiency – too many people over a longer period.

Lastly, I asked “What if it works?”.  While this may seem to be brash or provocative  question, it is meant literally.  What if it really does work? Hey, then what we’ve achieved as an odd case of delivery over two sprints instead of one.  If it happens often enough, then we need to adapt accordingly: increase sprint duration, have people dedicated to analysis (oops, bite me ‘cos I’m creating a silo) and maybe more if we just think a bit about it.

So, in my opinion, it is absolutely OK to attempt the proposed solution because it is an admittance of ignorance, but if the team does not understand the actual situation they’re in, then it is the failure of the team not the ScrumMaster.  I also think that we should understand the rules of the game a lot more deeply.  Like I’ve said in the past:

It’s not the rules that matter, it’s what we do with the rules that counts.

To each their own, and life goes on.

I will be hosting a 3 hour session at the South African Scrum Gathering titled “Live your principles or stay in bed”.  You can read the abstract here.  In my opinion, there is far too little focus on software development itself in Scrum.  So, this is unashamedly a developer session.  I will be present various snippets of code, and we will “live our principles” to transform the code into something that is less messy.

I often hear developers, and managers too, saying “It’s so much easier without, so why bother?”.  Well, design is hard.  Applying principles for life is harder.  But if you are professional developer and have a conscience about your design, your code, and your product then “an easy life without principles” is not an option.

If you are planning to come along, bring your laptop with your development environment.  I will likely have code samples in Java, C#, Ruby, Javascript, and even, yup, Basic (well, maybe).  All the samples should be very readable and you could easily translate them to something equivalent in your language pretty easily.  Better still, bring some of your own code along, that you want to share.

In reality, this is stuff that Scrum does not teach you, but need to know to avoid Scrum burnout.  Looking back, I should have done something like this sooner.

Scrum people like to use points for estimating and measuring velocity.  I won’t go into detail about how points work and how to play those poker estimation games.  Just search around and you will find a ton of stuff.  So, back to this points stuff.  I have a divided relationship with the humble point.  I like it when a team switches to using points for the first time, because it gives them a chance to think a little bit deeper about what they want to do.  I don’t like it when we start inventing rules around points (and you can lump guidelines and best practices into the rules pot too).  When the rules appear, the thinking disappears.

In every team trying Scrum, there is bound to be a rule about points.  I dare you to put up a hand and say you have none.  These rules are things like “We can’t take anything over 13 points into a sprint”, “Our epics are 100 points”, “The login screen is our baseline of 3 points”, “Anything over 40 points must be broken down”.  So, I double dare you

I have different view of the humble point. A point may seem like a one dimensional thing, but it has a some facets built into it.  One facet is the “amount of effort to build something”.  Another facet is “amount of ignorance” and this has an inverse – “amount of shared knowledge”.  Sometimes I find it useful to make a judgement based on what I don’t know as opposed to what I do know.  Regardless of whether I choose to view the cup as half full or half empty, I cannot estimate effort to build something based upon what I don’t know.  So, effort tends to track the amount of knowledge, not ignorance.  As knowledge increases, my ignorance decreases and each point starts representing more and more of pure effort.

However, if I am in a state of complete ignorance, then it is completely impossible for me to make any judgement on effort to build.  I’d be simply speculating.  What I can do, though, is create a time box to explore the unknown so that I can start moving out of my state of ignorance.  This is also an estimate and I am not making an excuse for non-delivery either.  I need to understand some things and also show my understanding in some code.  Yes, the code that I produce may not have a visible user interface or some other convenient demo-friendly stuff, but I need to carefully plan my sprint review to express my understanding.

It’s all about gaining a SHARED understanding. This understanding is body of knowledge that I have learned which I need to confirm with others.  This act of confirmation can happen in several ways.  I can have a conversation and explain what I understand, I can draw a blocks and lines picture, or show a spreadsheet, and so on.  Regardless of the method of communication, I still use the opportunity of discovery to express my understanding in code as tests.  Another powerful way of expressing my understanding is to write out a story and a few scenarios.  Using BDD style grammar can be a great way of concisely expressing some things, that can be easily shared.  Yes, you heard me correctly – as a developer, I write the stories and scenarios.  When I am given a story and scenario by someone and asked to estimate, then I am attempting to estimate based on  another person’s expression of their understanding and my assumed understanding.

In a recent discussion with Jimmy Nilsson, he said that he prefered to call scenarios “examples”.  That really resonated with me.  I also do a lot of discovery by example, and then gradually introduce more a more into the examples, as I get more and more confident of my knowledge.

How do I know how much I don’t know? That’s a tough question.  What I do comes straight out of my TDD habits.  I create a list of questions – my test list.  For some questions, I will know the answer easily, some not all, and some are debatable.  The more that I can answer, the better I can estimate effort.  I can then turn the questions that I can answer into statements of fact.  The more facts I have, the less ignorant I am.

Recently, I worked with a team that wanted to get TDD going, and the most significant change that I introduced was in backlog grooming and sprint planning.  During these two ceremonies, we (as a team) threw questions madly at a requirement, regardless of whether we knew the answer or not.  We then worked through the questions (as a team) to establish how much we could answer.  The trend that emerged was that the original estimates where either half of the new estimate or double of the new estimate.  When they where halved, it was generally because we were able to negotiate some of the unknowns (the ignorant areas) to a future sprint with the product owner.  In some cases, the product owner was equally ignorant, and was reacting to the “business wants the feature” pressure.  When they were doubled, it was so much more was discovered than originally assumed.  At the end of the session, we always asked the meta-question “If we answer all these questions sufficiently, will we be done?”.  I call this style of working “test first backlog grooming” or “test first sprint planning”.

Often I discover more things I don’t know. Annoyingly, this happens in the middle of a sprint, but if it did not happen in that phase of work, then perhaps I was not digging deep enough.  When this happens, I just keep on adding them to my list of questions.  These new questions are raised at any time with others on the team, the customer or with whoever can help me understand a bit more.  Sometimes, it’s put on the table for negotiation to be dealt with at another time.  Nevertheless, standups still seem to be a good time to put new questions on the table, for discussion later.

There are several ripple effects of thinking about points in this manner – this notion of ignorance and shared knowledge gauges.

The first is about the possible shape of your sprint backlog. If you have deep understanding, then it is likely that you will be able to decompose complex problems into simple solutions, that take less effort.  The effect is that low point stories are in greater number in a sprint.

If you are highly ignorant, then the estimation points reflect that and there are more medium to high point stories in the sprint.

Sprint backlog shape with high ignorance

The second is about what you value in a story. You will find less value in the ontology of epics, themes and stories.  It is no longer about size of effort but degree of understanding or ignorance.  Instead, the shape of the product backlog is something that is constantly shifting from high uncertainty (big point numbers) to high certainty (low point numbers).  That’s what test first backlog grooming gives you.

Shape of product backlog - higher knowledge items have smaller points.

The third is about continuous flow that is the nature of discovery.  When you work steadily at reducing your degree of ignorance, then you are steadily answering questions through answers expressed in code, and steadily discovering new questions that need answering.  This process of discovery is one of taking an example based on what you know in this moment and modeling it.  Then expanding that example with one or two more additional twists, and modeling that, and so it goes.

It also touches product ownership and software development. When you work in this way, then explicit estimation of effort becomes less significant.  Moments that have been earmarked as important  points in the life of the product become more significant.  Call them milestones.  These milestones are strategically and tactically defined, and become a dominant part of product ownership.  Software development becomes the act of having long running conversations with the customer.  Those milestones give context for the content of those conversations.  Ultimately, those conversations are then expressed as a set of organised thoughts in code.  If your code is not organised well, then perhaps you also don’t understand the problem or solution or both.

This is a long story for a short message. A high priority is to resolve the tension that exists in an estimation in the form of knowlege/ignorance fighting against effort.  When you release that tension through shared understanding, then you can deal with the tension that exists in the act of creating those significant milestones.  In my opinion, that’s the real wicked problem.

On 12 May 2011 I will be joining Kent Beck and Henrik Kniberg in a free webinar hosted by SD Times to take a deeper look at product ownership as described by the Scrum methodology.  I think we all have a lot of questions, especially Kent, but I will also put forward some things that I have tried and some opinions of what I think should be tried. As usual, I welcome critical comment.

For a long time I have been wary of the way product ownership is “taught” in CSPO courses, and the way it is implemented in Scrum teams. I think the fundamental tension of product ownership is not being addressed.  So, at the heart of my talk, I want to explore the tension that a product owner needs to resolve and, maybe, some ways of resolving that tension.

Regardless of whether we offer workable solutions, I think the webinar will raise questions that are well worth discussing in larger groups.

In my last post I said we should let Scrum die.  We can’t let Scrum die.  It doesn’t behave like that.  It will only die off its own accord if we die first and then it dies because it has no reason to exist.  So you got to kill it.  Here’s why (again?).

Software development is about people and the way people work alone and together.  People create code in software development.  Without that code, these people don’t exist; they have no purpose.  Code is the creation of the people, and people live off this code.  When the code is good, then life is good.  When the code is poisonous, then people start dying slowly.  When the smell of death is in the air, they look for help.  Some stare into the mirror called Scrum. They see themselves and the way they behave.  It’s an ugly sight.  They realise that they should behave better.  After all, software is about the way people work alone and together.

Regularly looking into the Scrum mirror, they improve their behavior over time, and everyone is happier than the moment before.  That’s a nice view.  Just look in the mirror and it looks good.  Very rarely do they also look again through the window into the fields of code that feeds them.  The poison is still coursing through their veins.  They will die, eventually … by the host that they created that was supposed to nourish them.  The only way to survive is to deal with the fields of code.  Get rid of the toxins.  There are two fundamental ways(*) that you can get rid of toxins: (a) eliminate duplication, and (b) make the code as you wish it to be.

If they just stare into the mirror and hardly ever look out the window, they will just exist on the plateau of complacency.  In order to avoid that state of being, they need to focus on the fields of code.  The urge to look in the mirror is strong, and as useful as it was, it becomes a very unbalanced state of existence.

So, look in the mirror, but look through the window too.  Create fields of code without toxins so that you provide nourishment for the next person.  That is ubuntu coding.

Actually, the only mirror you need is the person working next to you.

(*) Think deeply about these two fundamental things and try it out.  Everything else will fall into place from this. For example, the act of eliminating duplication forces you to consider where to locate a single piece of code, how it should be used and where it can be used, etc.  That is design and architecture.  With duplication, you don’t need to consider any of those things.  That’s toxic.