anthony galvin

I’m sure you didn’t mean to create this problem. It probably seemed to make a lot of sense at the time. The client was a pain, you were under pressure to deliver - producer over your shoulder, asking “is it done yet”. As for that Tech Lead, he couldn’t code review his way out of a paper bag.

A project that nobody cared about. Ship it. Move on.

And it shows. Because 2 years later we are staring at the code. Trying to fix up some problem or other. It’s hard to know where to start because, well, there’s not many comments, the commit messages are garbage and the little documentation that there is makes no sense.

I understand that you didn’t think anyone would download that app, but people have. And the client, despite what you thought, thinks this is quite a good product and would like to promote it, if only it wasn’t so buggy. So now it’s over to us.

It’s OK for you, and the rest of the team. You left. A contractor. Got fired. Who knows, but you’re not here now as a couple of us go toe-to-toe with your lack of error handling and crazy re-invention of the most common design patterns.

And you know what, I know that we could all write better code, that I don’t have the context of those meetings and planning session when it all made sense. I wasn’t there.

But next time just write a few bloody comments and maybe some documentation that doesn’t assume you know the app inside out already. And think about those of us who have to up pick your pieces…

How sizing stories (points, t-shirt sizes, days & hours) is more than just Numberwang.

For (digital) agencies who use agile techniques for managing the design and development process there are some added complexities hidden in the abstractions of the story sizing.

Depending on the nature of the development project, a typical agency team might run the gamut of disciplines, from Interaction & Visual Designers, working in Illustrator and Photoshop through to Python engineers coding in Vim and living in the command line. And each with a (subtly) different understanding of the complexities involved.

Planning poker is the technique of getting multiple people on the team to independently size user stories, whilst trying to avoid the risks of ‘anchoring’. It’s a great method for driving cross discipline understanding of those tiny assumptions that can threaten to derail a project further down the line.

Which looks something like this:  Sat in a circle, post-it notes scattered across the floor and walls, someone is describing a level understanding of a particular user story — it’s pretty simple on the surface “As a user I can sign-in to the platform, so I can register to use the service”. People scribble on the post it notes, using the Fibonacci sequence to size stories based on the relative complexity involved for the UX (interaction and visual design) and technology teams. After a few seconds everyone stops writing and holds up their post-it notes. It’s near the start of the meeting so people are still getting a little warmed up, even so the variance in the numbers is quite high. Not just between disciplines but also between team members who work in the same area. This is where the interesting bit starts.

The discussion that follows is the bit I find fascinating. The cases where someone in tech misunderstands the complexity of a design challenge or someone missing the difficulty of integrating with a third-party (“it’s just an API call”) is understandable — that’s why we are doing this as a cross disciplinary group. These are easy to flush out and correct.

The real area of interest is where people explain the assumptions behind the scores they’ve given. At this point we are into the details, and it’s great for the momentum of the project. Weeks of thinking, sketching and notes come tumbling out in the conversation — no amount of ‘annotated wires’ can accomplish the benefit of someone challenging why “that’s only a 3".

Capturing these assumptions is key — they make up the real scope and difficulty of a story. Often it’s also the risk factor that you’re gathering “I gave it a 21 because we just don’t know exactly how that’s going to work”. Whilst all forms of planning and project management are probably inherently flawed, you’re unlikely to get this level of collaboration and discussion whilst scoping out a typical waterfall build.

Agencies running agile are usually working with more constraints than a development shop. The client will probably have a fixed budget and timeline, so the only area of flexibility is scope. Whilst the aims of the project are (hopefully) going to be clearly documented and contractually agreed, these small instances of scope and the relationship between a ‘must’ and ‘could’ are the area of flex that teams are going to need deal with the reality of ‘unpacking a story’ and finding it’s more of a nightmare than a fairy tale. But that’s probably something to add to the backlog for another post…

I’d started drafting these tips for the R/GA tech blog when Bobby Schultz beat me to it with his post “The 5 pillars of remote collaboration”. Despite this I thought I’d post my thoughts here anyway.

It is certainly not a recent trend for organisations to be looking to work with remote software teams. Whilst previously this was primarily motivated by a move to reduce costs and offshore development, increasingly there’s also a desire to harness technical talent irrespective of location. The growing R/GA network means that we are often reaching across offices to staff projects teams and leverage talented technologists. 

Here are a few tips that help those projects along.

1. Daily stand-up has to run like clockwork
Even if you’re not running an agile or adaptive planning process it’s important that everyone is committed to making ‘the daily’ a success. This is your most important meeting of the day. It needs to be professional, effective and run to time. Time is important, on projects with a wide geographical span as someone is going to be getting up early or staying late to contribute to the daily, so everyone needs to respect that.

2. Keep an open line of communication for all developers
Informal communication is essential between the development team, what my colleague @philhawksworth calls a 'back channel’ for open discussion, questions and banter. This is where 'the culture’ of your team is going to be fostered.

3. Use video
Make all calls video calls, even though we can get by over the phone the psychology of video calls helps to re-enforce relationships. Where there are a group of people in a single location use a dedicated meeting room computer and gather round a single large screen so that remote workers take up a disproportionate amount of space in the meeting room.

4. Have a robust, repeatable build and deploy process
Whilst continuous integration and continuous deployment may not be appropriate for all projects, when working with remote and distributed teams a bullet proof build and deploy process is essential. If you’re running a semi-automated build system everyone should be able to run a build regardless of location - without this you’re going to start having bottle necks and some users are going to be more equal than others. With an automated build process all developers are have equal ability to break and fix the build. 

5. Be location agnostic
If at any point the team start thinking about people who are 'offshore’ or 'in New York’ then that’s the start of a problem. Everyone on the project may not be equal, but the source of the inequality should not be location. 

This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t  be sensitive to different locations and cultures - if it’s a public holiday in London, then it’s a public holiday in London. These things tend to equal themselves out and there are no surprises - you don’t often get short notice public holidays. The key thing is that you’re being equally sensitive to location and culture regardless of location.

6. Let remote people lead parts of the project
This sounds slightly counter intuitive when working with a group of remote developers or a distributed team, but if you want to embed a location agnostic culture don’t be precious about having all parts of the project led from the largest or main location. If you’ve got a fantastically talented front end tech lead on the project who is based in South America and you’re in Chicago, then there’s few reasons not to let that person lead the front end development.

7. Make time for a 1:1 
If you’re leading a project and you have remote developers, make some extra time to have a one-to-one session with each individual. You won’t be to recreate that hallway conversation you might have if you were on the same corridor, but once you get a cadence to these conversations, it’s amazing how productive they can be.

8. Face to face buys you time
There’s an internal saying @RGA “that face time buys you 6 weeks”. Whatever the number for your team take advantage of any face time you can get, both from a work perspective but also from a social “let’s go to the pub point” of view. It’s worth it’s weight in something heavy and valuable.