I'll do a demo of my code to slightly non-technical audience, and I need to show them what I've got in my project (about 15K lines of code). I'm trying to convince them that I've spend time on the project and it's in a good state.
These guys planning to invest money into this product. Therefore I should convince them that this app worth the price that they are going to spend and justify the time I've spent, secondly they should see that this is something takes time and I know what I'm doing (basically I need to win their trust) .
What metrics I can use other than "lines of code"? (Maybe lines of comment?)
What are the best tools (preferably free) to generate a report from .NET Projects?
UPDATE :
Also a way to provide "project cost - cocomo" would be cool, like this one :
FOUND:
http://www.cms4site.ru/utility.php?utility=cocomoii will help you to calculate an estimated cost for your project.
If they're non-technical, it won't matter. It will be like trying to sell a high-end bike to people who don't know a bike from a car. 15k lines of code won't matter to them any more than 300k lines of code will.
You need to find something other than the actual code to wow them with.
Can you code up some demos and tell them how short time it will take them to build similar applications with your code? Like "If you use my code, you can build this multimedia application in 15 minutes without writing more than a few lines of code". Non-technical people generally love saving time and money.
It probably depends on how "slightly" they are in the non-technical department.
An investor only cares about money. Investors start at the exit and work backwards. Knowing this, pitch your project in terms of the return they will get in their investment.
Key points would include:
Your expertise: Do you know the market you want to sell in to? Are you leveraging your expertise in some way to make the project a reality?
Risk: Using your already existing code base lowers risk in terms of both time and money. They will probably do technical due diligence to validate your claims, so be honest here.
Time to Market: Having a code base in place will reduce their time to market, which may be significant.
Vision: They need to know that there is a future for your product. This is your chance to get them excited!
Investment is about the future, not the past, so understand that you need to achieve what you are promising. The path you trod to get to where you are now may be interesting, but largely irrelevant to the investor. What I'm trying to say is sell the vision, not where you are now or where you've been.
Good luck and hope you get what you need!
It's not clear to me from your question whether you're talking about people who would buy the use of your product or ownership of your product.
In either case, ask yourself these questions:
"What problem(s) does this product solve for my users, from their point of view?"
"What does this product let the users do, that they already want to do, but can't do without it?"
"What does this product let the users do, that they already want to do, but can't do as easily without it?"
Features don't matter. Menus and dialogs don't matter (unless they require explanation, in which case they matter in the negative sense).
If you want numbers that interest a potential buyer of (an instance of) the product, talk in terms of how much time or money the buyer can save by using your product.
If you want numbers that interest a potential buyer of shares in your company or product, talk in terms of the size of the market, how you've analyzed that market's needs, and the ROI of any investment.
I've had success showing potential customers our automated build cycle, in slideshow form. I took them through our "production line" as if it was a factory tour, and showed the nice colored bars of coverage reports, uptilted lines of historical lines of code, pie charts of breakdowns of lines of code per module.
Then I did the same for everything aroung the actual building. So there's a requirements pipeline where they are involved, and a test/validation cycle where they are again involved.
It may not mean anything to them, but it shows them you have control over your process, and control over the quality of the delivered end product.
Please note that although people may be non-technical, try to be as honest as possible. As soon as they discover one single tiny lie in your story, you're lost. And chances are that there's that one technical guy in the back who can ask that one question which makes your house of cards fall down.
Happy sales!
"good code" doesn't matter unless you are demonstrating the medium and long term advantages of it - enhanced flexibility, simplicity, which saves customer time/money while adding agility.
I think explaining the more complex aspects of the code and the work that went into it to any audience will help show how much work and effort have gone into a project.
Hours spent coding could be a good metric to give them.
Talk about the features. Explain what you have working or almost working. Go at it from what they are interested in.
Try to show them visuals that they care about if you can. I think a few minutes doodling on a board would be better than showing lines of code.
The only thing that is likely to matter to a buyer (particularly a non-technical one)is functionality. I would concentrate on selling the features. You might consider discussion how you have tested it to verify that it performs as you claim.
I wouldn't use code per se, since a non-techie wouldn't understand it. Boasting about quantity is probably meaningless (how does a non-techie know that a 1MLOC project is significant? As for quality, you can present, e.g., maintainability metrics, test coverage, things like that. Feel free to show off your excellent toolchain too (continuous integration and all that), your mastery of various performance-testing tools. Also, showing things like Workflow Foundation helps - customers like to see how their business processes can be turned directly into code with a diagram notation.
EDIT modified to reflect OP's clarification (in comment here) that these potential buyers are looking to re-sell the software
Re-sellers are going to be looking for three things:
Is anyone going to make something better, cheaper or more quickly?
Is this guy going to be able to use our investment effectively to produce more?
Can we sell what this guy has produced, and will produce?
How to address points 1 and 2 have been very well addressed in other answers, but it's question 3 which is the hardest to prove for us techie people. It's also extremely important - if you can go to these buyers and hand them 3 killer benefits which they can repeat with more flair and Powerpoint when they're doing their sales calls, you'll be off to a good start :)
The main thing you have to do is to take a step back from your work and look at the:
features: what does it do
advantages: why is it better
benefits: why should the customer care
Features are closest to what you care about as a developer, but are pretty much irrelevant to non-technical buyers. Advantages are an essential step in understanding your competition and the customers' alternatives.
By putting features and advantages together, you can hit the customer with a number of benefits, e.g.:
using my software will save you $0.01 per transaction, or $40,000 p.a.
my software will increase customer retention by 5%
your admins will need 15% less time to deploy changes using my software
These are the things that customers care about: what's going to be good for the company, and good for them.
To be brutally honest: the end customer don't care how much effort you put into it (LoC or any other metric), they don't care how well it's written (comments, tests, any other metric), they don't care how hard a problem it is to solve, they don't care about features.
Their only requirement is that it will save them time / effort / money. You know that how hard you've worked to solve the problem, and solve it well, is key to their requirement, but it's secondary. You need to make it perfectly clear why them buying their stuff will mean they'll get promoted.
For COCOMO - Project Cost Estimation
I found this website, it's kind of a manual process but it'll do.
http://www.cms4site.ru/utility.php?utility=cocomoii
Related
There seems to competing best practices for user stories that I have not been able to come up with a way to deal with. Mainly:
Keep user stories small.
User stories should deliver customer values and therefore engineering focused item such as refactoring should not be separate user story and should be part of on-going work.
I feel like it's hard to achieve both of these at the same time.
For example, sometimes you need to refactor things. Some code is complex and just takes time. If it's done as part of the feature user story, then that user story will get bigger. But the refactor should not be a user story since it doesn't deliver customer values. You could argue that maybe we shouldn't let the code got checked-in in the first place, but requirement changes and therefore assumption changes so I don't think that's realistic expectation.
Another example could be dealing with starting a new project; we need to setup the repository, the project, the CI/CD pipelines. All of these are infrastructure work items and does not deliver any direct customer values. I guess in this case, we could use "engineer" as the customer but there are some debate out there whether that's a good practice or not.
Now I could bend the rule and have these as user stories. But I am curious if people are following the scrum rule strictly, is there tips and tricks to achieve both of these requirements?
Scrum does not prescribe any format for the Product Backlog items. So your Product Backlog can contain user stories but also any other kind of items.
As you are saying user stories should deliver value, typically meeting the INVEST acronym but your Product Backlog can contain items related to make functionality possible, such as upgrading libraries, implementing a log system or whatever help the team to potentially release the product. Taking into account that in your Product Backlog there will be bugs too, so it´s not just about new functionalities. So don´t fool yourself making up users who don´t exist.
Being saying that, usually a big refactor is a smell of a problem not tackled at the proper time (generating a high technical debt, a weak DoD and so on). That´s the reason many authors say that you should refactor at the same time your are developing new functionalities (your code should be in good form).
Finally, if you are in such a scenario that you need a big refactor, my advice is to try to decompose the refactor in small pieces and create a good harness of test to refactor with confidence.
I can think of several ways you can cut stories. However, keep in mind that these are ideas that can work but can also make no sense depending on the work. I only want to share my experience.
think about the three basic areas: User Interface, Data Calculation, Data Retrieval, try to cut the story along these lines
if you have to do repetitions, create a story for each iteration
try to do the first implementation as basic as possible, then create more stories for upgrading and fine tuning
even if a story seems to be straightforward, try to cut it; it is amazing how much better you can discuss as a team about smaller items and how much better you can refine it, and you it forces you to think about the details and this really can make a difference
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
My organization has been experimenting with the introduction of more "Agile" methods. We've been trying the Scrum approach for a short while, and most of the team has, more or less, adapted to it. I like it as a whole, but I'm concerned about one potentially severe impact of the methodology: as teams are consistently focused on features and backlog items, and testers are more integrated with the overall development process, it seems like skill sets are becoming blurred, and people are sensing less respect for their individual abilities.
Some of our developers are excellent at server-side technologies and optimization of heavy-weight data provisioning. Others have invested a large amount of their careers learning GUI technologies and have developed a fundamental understanding of users and usability in an application. Neither skill set is better than the other, but they are certainly different.
Is this an inevitable result of the Scrum process? Since everyone on the team (as I understand it) contributes to satisfying the next feature/requirement, backlog item, or testing goal at hand, the underlying philosophy seems to be "anyone can do it." This is, in my experience, simply not true. Most engineers (developers, testers, etc.) have a particular skill set they have honed over the years, and the Scrum methodology, in my mind, tends to devalue those very abilities they were previously respected for.
Here's an example for clarification:
If a sudden change of technology occurs on the server-side data provisioning, and every item on the to-do list for the sprint is based on this new change, the GUI developers (who likely haven't had time to become acclimated with the new technology) might not be able to contribute to the sprint. At the very least, they will need to invest time to get ramped up, and then their code will be suspect because of their lack of experience.
I understand the need for rapid development to discourage "role silos" but doesn't this discount one fundamental reality: people develop skills in accordance to necessity, their interests, or their experiences. People seem to be less motivated when they perceive their position is one of "plug-ability" (e.g. we can "plug" anyone in to do this particular task). How does Scrum address this? If it doesn't, has anyone addressed this when adopting the Scrum methodology?
The short answer is an emphatic NO! Scrum does not blur or depreciate the skills required for specialization. Scrum does not promote generalization.
The long answer is that in Scrum, the most important thing is to get the work "Done". The team, as a team (as opposed to a collection of individual "stars") collaborate, as needed, in order to get the job done. Whatever it takes - however they want (Scrum is about self managing, self motivating teams, right?).
What this means is that a scrum team may be composed of several specialists, who primarily do what they specialized in (DBA, Graphic Design, even technical writers). The team, as a whole, should have all of the skills required to fulfill the requirements. This is not the same as saying that each team member has to have all of the skills aforementioned.
That being said, it is often desired - often by the members themselves - that members other than the specialists be at least adequate in skills different from their specialty. Another poster already mentioned Scott Ambler's "General Specialist". This helps the team when there's too much work of one kind, when the specialist is absent, and it helps the member when he really would like to gain experience outside his specialty.
Given that the team is self organizing, if for some reason a specialist finds himself in the middle of the sprint, without any work to do in his specialty, the best way to deal with it, is to simply ask the specialist what he wants to do. Let the team decide. The specialist can decide to help in his other areas of adequacy, do a POC for the next sprint, "shore-up" the defenses by fixing some long forgotten technical debt, or shine the shoes of the members who are working.
Yup. I don't know if this is the long answer. But it definitely was a long answer.
:-)
The point of Scrum is for the developers to self-organize. We use scrum where I am, and jobs get passively sorted by a person's focus. We don't do it on purpose with a chart and list, it just happens. We all know who's best at what, or what their main/secondary focuses are. If the 'main' person needs help, they get the person/people with a secondary focus in it to help. We do get plenty of tasks not necessarily in line with whatever our particular focus is, but you always know who to ask for help then.
For your example - I don't know that if you say had 3 server guys and 5 gui guys, that you'd expect to get all the work done in that sprint (if the server guys + some help from the others wasn't enough). The way the sprint is supposed to work is that from a prioritized list, the developers pick what they think they can get done in that 30-day timeframe. If that meant the GUI guys needed 2 days of server-side training in order to help, that's what it'd mean. Unless there were concurrent things also high up the list that they could do instead. The sprint tasks are not supposed to be dictated by management as a psuedo-deadline.
If you have a Safari account, there's an interesting mostly case-study book by one of the guy/s who invented scrum.
I've been working as a ScrumMaster for about 18 months and have worked with two different teams. I initially expected to experience the potential issues you raise but this has not been the case. What I generally observe is that the team evolves into a mixture of specialists and generalists as people find the appropriate role for themselves - one that they can enjoy and be successful at. This is self-organisation at work. I have never had a case where our specialists were sitting idle.
If this did occur, I would expect it to be raised as an issue in Sprint Retrospective and the team would discuss how to improve the situation. The most obvious (and brutal) conclusion would be to change the team composition.
I am not sure why skill set will get blurred. There is a fair amount of confusion in the agile world. Scrum is a project management process and not a software development process and should not be seen as one. The engineers have to follow their own methodologies like TDD or extreme programming to add their own part to being agile.
Nothing goes away in scrum.
PM's still document as they go
Architects still architect their components. The only thing is they just delay some major decisions to more responsible point in time.
Developers should still follow best practices such as SOLID principles to enable for refactoring in a consistent manner as features change.
I think Scott Ambler addresses this issue very thoroughly in http://www.agilemodeling.com/essays/generalizingSpecialists.htm...
His concept of a Generalizing Specialist is exactly the thing Collective Ownership / Scrum Team calls for, and makes total sense to me.
Its hard to achieve in real life though ;-)
If you find for any reason ('sudden change of technology' or not) that the amount of work required for a system over a sprint is greater than the amount available then there's a problem with your scheduling.
One fix is that, as you suggest, you take programmers from other areas and throw them onto the mix. How well this works depends on the skills of that person and how different the problem domain is, but treating programmers as generic units that can be farmed out as needed is generally not a successful strategy for developing software.
This is still a scheduling problem though.
The best thing about Scrum is exactly the fact that skills do get a bit blurred! The point is to avoid silos at all costs by spreading specialist knowledge across the team and letting people work a bit outside their comfort zone.
Obviously this is not for everybody. Some developers are happy in their own narrow specialist field and such people are more of a hindrance in a Scrum process than an asset, whereas well-rounded and multi-talented people who are determined to get the job done, usually adapt very very well to it and are far more productive.
One of the key benefits of Scrum is to get the whole team actually involved and invested into the project instead of tackling their own special tasks and then riding off to the horizon. I'd claim that for most people, this is a far more rewarding way of working than the conveyor belt -approach of waterfall processes.
So I'd advise to boldly embrace the mixing of skills and having people come together to take down nasty problems instead of relying on specialist silos. The result of teams consisting of motivated people can be surprising.
Sounds like this would lead to more well-rounded developers, and also allow those who are experts in certain areas to continue to contribute their expertise.
I haven't used Scrum much myself (yet), but from your description, these types of teams would lead to a team/organization that is also more well-rounded as a whole - and shouldn't that be the goal of any team?
Handling sudden changes is part of Agile and this may mean that some people have to go off and learn new skills. Course this is more within the general Agile philosophy than anything Scrum-specific. There may be some extreme cases where the customer or business decides to change the world by bringing in something new and thus has to handle the subsequent pain of those people ramping up but if this is what they want and the developers are overruled, then there are only a couple of choices: (Take your lumps and try to handle the major changes) or (quit and get out of there).
While there can be some cases where someone that has specialized in something may be able to do things faster, this doesn't necessarily mean much if that is just one person on the team that is an expert and there is enough work in that area for 10 people for the whole sprint. Should those not an expert simply not do that work and let that one person attempt to get through as much as he or she can? I don't think so but there should be something to be said for those that aren't the best at something still trying to get done what they can get done.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a developer on my staff that chronically overshoots deadlines, and estimates. On several projects the last week or two everyday I hear "It should be done by the end of the day". This developer does good work.
I have already spoke to him about his problems. He seems genuinely frustrated, and miffed about what to do to correct them.
My Questions are:
What kinds of punishments for passing a deadline are effective?
What ways can I coerce this employee to police his actions (time estimates, etc.,) himself?
UPDATE:
Based on the responses; here's what I have figured out.
Punishment is a bad idea.
It is natural for an employee to be unable to fix estimating problems without intervention.
Don't make deadlines unless there's company consequences (lost contract) for not being done by then.
Utilize available methods (Agile, Joel's checklist) to help the developer estimate better.
Thanks for the links and information. Also thanks for updating my thinking.
I don't think the problem is that he is missing these deadlines.
I think he has a real problem in estimating the amount of time it will take to complete a task.
Have him start keeping a journal of what he says a task will take and how long it actually took him to complete the task. Eventually, this journal will become a sort of guide for him to create better estimates. Once he becomes better at estimating, he shouldn't feel as rushed or harried.
There is an interesting article by Joel Spolsky: Evidence Based Scheduling
1) Break ‘er down
When I see a schedule measured in days, or even weeks, I know it’s not going to work. You have to break your schedule into very small tasks that can be measured in hours. Nothing longer than 16 hours.
This forces you to actually figure out what you are going to do. Write subroutine foo. Create this dialog box. Parse the Fizzbott file. Individual development tasks are easy to estimate, because you’ve written subroutines, created dialogs, and parsed files before.
If you are sloppy, and pick big three-week tasks (e.g., “Implement Ajax photo editor”), then you haven’t thought about what you are going to do. In detail. Step by step. And when you haven’t thought about what you’re going to do, you can’t know how long it will take.
Setting a 16-hour maximum forces you to design the damn feature. If you have a hand-wavy three week feature called “Ajax photo editor” without a detailed design, I’m sorry to be the one to break it to you but you are officially doomed. You never thought about the steps it’s going to take and you’re sure to be forgetting a lot of them.
The main point is that he (and you) should learn from his mistakes, and take them into account on the next estimation.
Also, if you are a developer, I would do regular code review at the end of the day to get a better insight into his development process.
And, of course, smaller iterations and more granularity with tasks. Set the maximum task duration to 1 day. That's the rule we have.
If your first question is
what kind of punishments to be considering
I think you're on a loser straight off. If you feel he does good work you may have to look at the deadlines/estimates and see if they were realistic in the first place. Who set them, if the developer in question was not involved then that may be part of the problem.
I agree with #OTisler that pair programming and possibly a regular end of day progress review with yourself can help him through... although if the deadlines/estimates were unrealistic to begin with thats not where your problem lies.
Closer monitoring on a few specific tasks should highlight where any issues lie.
What kinds of punishments for passing
a deadline are effective?
None. If you anger him, he won't do the work, or he'll find another job. You should help him figure out why his estimates are off. There is a book by steve McConnell about making estimates. i would start there.
What ways can I coherence this
employee to police his actions(time
estimates, etc.,) himself?
By helping him find the right way to make estimates.
First, make sure you are crystal clear in your requirements.
I hate to say it, but in my experience, blown deadlines are just as often a matter of unclear requirements or weak specifications on the part of a supervisor. First thing to do is to make sure the problem isn't either originating with, or exacerbated by, you.
Also, make sure your requirements are realistic, as well as his estimates.
Make sure that your own expectations aren't pushing him to make unrealistic estimates in order to meet unrealistic requirements.
Remember, you do the requirements, but the developer ALWAYS does the estimates, and should not be swayed with "can we do this any faster" unless you are also specifying functionality to be dropped.
Then, make sure he is tracking his time/tasks accurately, so you can get a good view of what is going on with the project.
This process will show any lack of proper time/task tracking, which may end up being the first step to improvement. If you can't see after the project how long a particular item took, that is probably the cause of the problem right there - not enough definition in the estimate, or missing "dependency" tasks that are discovered mid-project, but never estimated.
You HAVE to know how much time was spent doing what, accurately, before you can find out where the creep was, or what can be done about it.
Then, see where his estimates are failing and figure out why. Go over an estimate of a blown project, make that into a project itself - a problem to be solved.
Once you've determined that his estimates are indeed the source of the problem, go over an estimate that went over with him, and perhaps another developer, and figure out why.
This will help you figure out what the cause of the problem is. A solid understanding of the problem will likely be the actual solution.
Lastly, if you actually reach a point where you have to try punishment or coercion, it's time to fire him and start over.
Punishment and Coercion are appropriate responses to willful wrongdoing in certain situations.
However, if this developer is actively trying to do a good job, then you would only worsen the situation by generating negative attitude and frustration.
If the problem can't be solved, and you are sure the problem is with him, and not you, then it's time to fire him and get a developer who can meet deadlines. Great work doesn't mean much when your costs are blown up and profit goes out the window.
Okay, this is fairly common--developers being optimistic. It's the job of Management to deal with it. If anyone should be punished, it's the manager (you?)
I'm glad you at least asked, It looks like you got some good answers off this list, I hope they help and you find a way to actually implement some that work.
When I was young, my first good manager dealt with it this way:
First of all, he had me come up with an itemized list--breaking tasks down to hours, and estimating each one with a very liberal estimate--no period should be less than 4 hours regardless of how small the task was.
Then he looked at them and told me to double all my estimates. (Developers, especially younger developers, don't think about the fact that you are only productive for about 1/2 the day, if you're lucky--and half of that is spent at things you didn't expect to have to do).
Then, before creating his schedule, he doubled all my estimates (Without telling me).
He turned them in this way regardless of schedule requirements from above. A good manager should realize that saying it needs to be done in 2 days, doesn't make it possible.
As I got better at estimating we both noticed and adjusted accordingly.
A managers job isn't just to make a project, it's to build a team. More often than not that's going to require training of some sort. This is also the reason that an engineering manager that is not an engineer is unacceptable, they can't really help with this kind of thing.
Failure of a project or schedule is VIRTUALLY NEVER the fault of the developer (except in a few chronic cases where he isn't really fixable or of any worth and needs to be fired). The manager has made bad decisions either in hiring the developer, trusting him, managing him or staffing the project.
And really, what is fault anyway? I suppose if the manager isn't very good at making the project happen, he's going to need someone to point at... If HIS manager is any good, he'll ask why it got this far, what you did to fix it, etc.
Hiring a manager is hiring someone to solve the problems. To make the developers productive. If he can't make them productive, he isn't the right person.
To your questions:
If you choose to punish people for missing deadlines you will not get good results. They will be demotivated and feel belittled. If you keep pushing people to meet deadlines the quality of work will suffer and you will end up with a lot of time spent bug fixing afterwards.
To improve his time estimates you could try using Joel Spolsky's evidence based scheduling which has a nice feedback loop to improve the resulting estimates.
But I have some questions that I think you need to think about.
Is he later than everybody else? If so why - is it because he is an over optimistic estimator or a slow worker? Over optimistic estimates are easy to fix - just multiply all his numbers by a factor as per evidence based scheduling above. If he is a slow worker why? Does he get distracted? Is he very careful to produce very low defect code? Is he over engineering solutions? Is he not re-using code effectively?
Do the deadlines matter, or are they just arbitrary dates based on the estimates for the purposes of reporting progress up the management hierarchy? If the latter you can solve this by tweaking his estimates yourself.
What kinds of punishments for passing
a deadline are effective?
You stated the point and missed it. The obvious punishment for passing a deadline is death. If the developer is still alive after passing a deadline the "deadline" obviously was not a real deadline. Do you think it's funny to put developers under pressure using martial language?
Fix your wording.
Motivation
First of all: Read Peopleware
Next. Why do you think punishment will be an effective way to manage people that is supposed to be creative? I think you have to rethink the whole approach to management vs. team.
As I see it the managers first, and most important, role is to make sure that the developers can be creative and productive. Not that they are productive. There is a big difference in those small words. To be creative you need a safe environment. By being constantly under pressure from both deadlines and threats of punishment you create the exact opposite of safe.
Also, as a manager, you need accurate information on which to base decisions. This also requires a safe environment. If there is a risk for punishment for being honest and outspoken you are guaranteed to get lies and absence of information. A very dangerous base to take decisions from.
Estimates
As other as pointed out, estimates are estimates. In our team we don't do any individual estimates at all, we do estimates as a team. (I'm a bit reluctant to call what we do Scrum, but most of it tries to emulate if nothing less) I think this is a really great way to do estimates: Each team member is given a deck of cards consisting of numbers 0,1/2,1,3,5,8,13,20,40,60,100 and when estimating a task each developer picks a card (the cards are hidden until everyone has picked a card to avoid influencing estimates) and the average of the selected cards is taken as the estimate.
Notice how the numbers gets progressively less accurate. This is by design because large estimates are by necessity less accurate.
For our team we have opted to use the unit "ideal man days" for estimates. As far back as any of us can remember an ideal day hasn't occurred yet, but it is a good basis when you know how to translate calender days to "ideal man days".
As Scrum prescribes, development is done in sprints of two weeks after which the new version is deployed in the production environment. After each sprint we take the sum of the estimates of the completed tasks and divide that by the planned man days for the sprint. This factor is then the basis of estimating how many "ideal man days" the team can spend in a two week period.
Actual work items done by an individual developer don't need an estimate. The first approximation is always 1/2 - 1 day to complete. If this estimate turns out to be false you just grab a fellow developer and do it together to get it done. Or you break down the work item in smaller tasks so it can be distributed better.
Set Milestones and try Agile as #OTisler suggested.
I don't think you should punish him. Just get him to understand how to make accurate estimates.
As a team lead I've had my team members tell me that it will be "no problem" to finish X feature by the deadline. Then I usually sit down with them and go over what tasks and sub-tasks I think need to be done in order for the feature to be finished, and how long the developer thinks each will take.
After we do this exercise, and add up all the task and sub-task estimates, it will inevitably take much longer than the developer thinks in their original estimate. I usually only have to do this exercise with them a few times before they start making more accurate estimates.
What amazes me is that you only have one of these guys.
Engineers are horrible at estimating how much time something will take. I bet if you look carefully at your other developers' estimates, you'll find a lot of padding. Sometimes the padding isn't necessary, but the task expands to fill the available time anyway.
The solution to this is to change around how you do estimates - for everyone. Developers may be bad at estimating absolute time, but they're pretty good at relative time. So on Monday, instead of "how long will it take to add a whoosiwhatsit?," ask "what can you get done on the whoosiwhatsit in less than a week?" That becomes their task for the week.
The following Monday you look at how it went. "Well, I got the floogle installed in two days but it turns out it impacted the mcphee...so this week I need to decouple those guys so the whoosiwhatsit files don't get overwritten." Ok, there's their task for the week.
You might think it won't help, because you still don't know when the whoosiwhatsit is going to be ready. That's true. You have two choices here:
If you need a deadline, then you have to force your errant developer to pad his estimates like everyone else. It won't take him long to get the hang of it, and in no time at all he'll be taking "2 weeks" to write something that should have taken a day.
Your other choice is to trade the fictitious estimates for more visibility. In the long run this approach gets you more productive and much happier engineers.
So the developer does good work, but is poor at estimating the amount of time for delivery? I'm not sure you have a punishment situation on your hands just yet.
Maybe going forward for some time, have him walk you through his process for estimating a delivery point. This can be an opportunity to ask him why steps X,Y, and Z take certain amounts of time. He may find himself revising his estimates simply by doing the exercise at what is almost certainly a slower pace.
ask yourself this: What entails your job?
If you're just blindly passing estimates from developers (who you know can't give good estimates) up the management line, and not deciding for yourself whether that estimate is achievable, then you're not doing your job.
Try to think in terms of "value-add" (One of my old employers used that term a lot , and I hated it, but it probably works for you in this situation). What value are you adding? If you're just passing stuff in both directions between upper management and the developers, then ultimately you're not earning your money. You could be removed , and nothing would change.
The best manager I ever had was one that looked through a set of requirements given to him by another team , and told them straight out that almost a third of them was bull, and had them removed, before I ever even saw the list. The worst one I ever had made me write all this extra management-type documentation which none of the other managers I'd ever had asked me to do (I really got the impression I was literally doing his job for him), didn't even give me project due dates, and hardly turned up to work. They were both in the same company , bizarrely enough.
90 hours is one common short project deadline. The easy way is instead of estimating "your time", you measure another. Computer programmers shoudn't make time estimates for their projects since evidence shows calculating one's own time results in larger error than observing another.
This is more of a business-oriented programming question that I can't seem to figure out how to resolve. I work with a team of programmers who have been working with BASIC for over 20 years. I was brought in to help write the same software in .NET, only with updates and modern practices. The problem is that I can't seem to get any of the other 3 team members(all BASIC programmers, though one does .NET now as well) to understand how to correctly do a relational database. Here's the thing they won't understand:
We basically have a transaction that keeps track of a customer's tag information. We need to be able to track current transactions and past transactions. In the old system, a flat-file database was used that had one table that contained records with the basic current transaction of the customer, and another transaction that contained all the previous transactions of the customer along with important money information. To prevent redundancy, they would overwrite the current transaction with the history transactions-(the history file was updated first, then the current one.) It's totally unneccessary since you only need one transaction table, but my supervisor or any of my other two co-workers can't seem to understand this. How exactly can I convince them to see the light so that we won't have to do ridiculous amounts of work and end up hitting the datatabse too many times? Thanks for the input!
Firstly I must admit it's not absolutely clear to me from your description what the data structures and logic flows in the existing structures actually are. This does imply to me that perhaps you are not making yourself clear to your co-workers either, so one of your priorities must be to be able explain, either verbally or preferably in writing and diagrams, the current situation and the proposed replacement. Please take this as an observation rather than any criticism of your question.
Secondly I do find it quite remarkable that programmers of 20 years experience do not understand relational databases and transactions. Flat file coding went out of the mainstream a very long time ago - I first handled relational databases in a commercial setting back in 1988 and they were pretty commonplace by the mid-90s. What sector and product type are you working on? It sounds possible to me that you might be dealing with some sort of embedded or otherwise 'unusual' system, in which case you do need to make sure that you don't have some sort of communication issue and you're overlooking a large elephant that hasn't been pointed out to you - you wouldn't be the first 'consultant' brought into a team who has been set up in some manner by not being fed the appropriate information. That said such archaic shops do still exist - one of my current clients systems interfaces to a flat-file based system coded in COBOL, and yes, it is hell to manage ;-)
Finally, if you are completely sure of your ground and you are faced with a team who won't take on board your recommendations - and demonstration code is a good idea if you can spare the time -then you'll probably have to accept the decision gracefully and move one. Myself in this position I would attempt to abstract out the issue - can the database updates be moved into stored procedures for example so the code to update both tables is in the SP and can be modified at a later date to move to your schema without a corresponding application change? Make sure your arguments are well documented and recorded so you can revisit them later should the opportunity arise.
You will not be the first coder who's had to implement a sub-optimal solution because of office politics - use it as a learning experience for your own personal development about handling such situations and commiserate yourself with the thought you'll get paid for the additional work. Often the deciding factor in such arguments is not the logic, but the 'weight of reputation' you yourself bring to the table - it sounds like having been brought in you don't have much of that sort of leverage with your team, so you may have to work on gaining a reputation by exceling at implementing what they do agree to do before you have sufficient reputation in subsequent cases - you need to be modded up first!
Sometimes you can't.
If you read some XP books, they often say that one of your biggest hurdles will be convincing your team to abandon what they have always done.
Generally they will recommend letting people who can't adapt go to other projects (Or just letting them go).
Code reviews might help in your case. Mandatory code reviews of every line of code is not unheard of.
Sometime the best argument is an example. I'd write a prototype (or a replacement if not too much work). With an example to examine it will be easier to see the pros and cons of a relational database.
As an aside, flat-file databases have their places since they are so much easier to "administer" than a true relational database. Keep an open mind. ;-)
I think you may have to lead by example - when people see that the "new" way is less work they will adopt it (as long as you don't rub their noses in it).
I would also ask yourself whether the old design is actually causing a problem or whether it is just aesthetically annoying. It's important to pick your battles - if the old design isn't causing a performance problem or making the system hard to maintain you may want to leave the old design alone.
Finally, if you do leave the old design in place, try and abstract the interface between your new code and the old database so if you do persuade your co-workers to improve the design later you can drop the new schema in without having to change anything else.
It is difficult to extract a whole lot except general frustration from the original question.
Yes, there are a lot of techniques and habits long-timers pick up over time that can be useless and even costly in light of technology changes. Some things that made sense when processing power, memory, and even disk was expensive can be foolish attempts at optimization now. It is also very much the case that people accumulate bad habits and bad programming patterns over time.
You have to be careful though.
Sometimes there are good reasons for the things those old timers do. Sadly, they may not even be able to verbalize the "why" - if they even know why anymore.
I see a lot of this sort of frustration when newbies come into an enterprise software development shop. It can be bad even when the environment is all fairly modern technology and tools. If most of your experience is in writing small-community desktop and Web applications a lot of what you "know" may be wrong.
Often there are requirements for transaction journaling at a level above what your DBMS may do. Quite often it can be necessary to go beyond DB transaction semantics in order to ensure time-sequence correctness, once and only once updating, resiliancy, and non-repudiation.
And this doesn't even begin to address the issues involved in enterprise or inter-enterprise scalability. When you begin to approach half a million complex transactions a day you will find that RDBMS technology fails you. Because relational databases are not designed to handle high transaction volumes you must often break with standard paradigms for normalization and updating. Conventional RDBMS locking techniques can destroy scalability no matter how much hardware you throw at the problem.
It is easy to dismiss all of it as stodginess or general wrong-headedness - even incompetence. But be careful because this isn't always the case.
And by the way: There are other models besides the RDBMS, and the alternative to an RDBMS is not necessarily "flat files" - contrary to the experience of of most coders today. There are transactional hierarchical DBMSs that can handle much higher throughput than an RDBMS. IMS is still very much alive in large IBM shops, for example. Other vendors offer similar software for different platforms.
Of course in a 4-man shop maybe none of this applies.
Sign them up for some decent trainings and then it's up to you to convince them that with new technologies a lot more is possible (or at least easier!).
But I think the most important thing here is that professional, certified trainers teach them the basics first. They will be more impressed by that instead of just one of their colleagues telling them: "hey, why not use this?"
Related post here.
The following may not apply in yr situation, but you make very little mention of technical details, so I thought I'd mention it...
Sometimes, if the access patterns are very different for current data than for historical data (I'm making this example up, but say that Current data is accessed 1000s of times per second, and accesses a small subset of columns, and all current data fits in less than 1 GB, whereas, say, historical data uses 1000s of GBs, is accessed only 100s of times per day, and access is to all columns),
then, what your co-workers are doing would make perfect sense, for performance optimization. By separating the current data (albiet redundantly) you can optimize the indices and data structures in that table, for the higher frequency access paterns that you could not do in the historical table.
Not everything that is "academically", or "technically" correct from a purely relational perspective makes sense when applied in an actual practical situation.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
How do you go about the requirements gathering phase? Does anyone have a good set of guidelines or tips to follow? What are some good questions to ask the stakeholders?
I am currently working on a new project and there are a lot of unknowns. I am in the process of coming up with a list of questions to ask the stakeholders. However I cant help but to feel that I am missing something or forgetting to ask a critical question.
You're almost certainly missing something. A lot of things, probably. Don't worry, it's ok. Even if you remembered everything and covered all the bases stakeholders aren't going to be able to give you very good, clear requirements without any point of reference. The best way to do this sort of thing is to get what you can from them now, then take that and give them something to react to. It can be a paper prototype, a mockup, version 0.1 of the software, whatever. Then they can start telling you what they really want.
See obligatory comic below...
In general, I try and get a feel for the business model my customer/client is trying to emulate with the application they want built. Are we building a glorified forms processor? Are we retrieving data from multiple sources in a single application to save time? Are we performing some kind of integration?
Once the general businesss model is established, I then move to the "must" and "must nots" for the application to dictate what data I can retrieve, who can perform what functions, etc.
Usually if you can get the customer to explain their model or workflow, you can move from there and find additional key questions.
The one question I always make sure to ask in some form or another is "What is the trickiest/most annoying thing you have to do when doing X. Typically the answer to that reveals the craziest business/data rule you'll have to implement.
Hope this helps!
Steve Yegge talks fun but there is money to be made in working out what other people's requirements are so i'd take his article with a pinch of salt.
Requirements gathering is incredibly tough because of the manner in which communication works. Its a four step process that is lossy in each step.
I have an idea in my head
I transform this into words and pictures
You interpret the pictures and words
You paint an image in your own mind of what my original idea was like
And humans fail miserably at this with worrying frequency through their adorable imperfections.
Agile does right in promoting iterative development. Getting early versions out to the client is important in identifying what features are most important (what ships in 0.1 - 0.5 ish), helps to keep you both on the right track in terms of how the application will work and quickly identifies the hidden features that you will miss.
The two main problem scenarios are the two ends of the scales:
Not having a freaking clue about what you are doing - get some domain experts
Having too many requirements - feature pit. - Question, cull (prioritise ;) ) features and use iterative development
Yegge does well in pointing out that domain experts are essential to produce good requirements because they know the business and have worked in it. They can help identify the core desire of the client and will help explain how their staff will use the system and what is important to the staff.
Alternatives and additions include trying to do the job yourself to get into the mindset or having a client staff member occasionally on-site, although the latter is unlikely to happen.
The feature pit is the other side, mostly full of failed government IT projects. Too much, too soon, not enough thought or application of realism (but what do you expect they have only about four years to make themselves feel important?). The aim here is to work out what the customer really wants.
As long as you work on getting the core components correct, efficient and bug-free clients usually remain tolerant of missing features that arrive in later shipments, as long as they eventually arrive. This is where iterative development really helps.
Remember to separate the client's ideas of what the program will be like and what they want the program to achieve.
Some clients can create confusion by communicating their requirements in the form of application features which may be poorly thought out or made redundant by much simpler functionality then they think they require. While I'm not advocating calling the client an idiot or not listening to them I feel that it is worth forever asking why they want a particular feature to get to its underlying purpose.
Remember that in either scenario it is of imperative importantance to root out the quickest path to fulfilling the customers core need and put you in a scenario where you are both profiting from the relationship.
Wow, where to start?
First, there is a set of knowledge someone should have to do analysis on some projects, but it really depends on what you are building for who. In other words, it makes a big difference if you are modifying an enterprise application for a Fortune 100 corporation, building an iPhone app, or adding functionality to a personal webpage.
Second, there are different kinds of requirements.
Objectives: What does the user want to accomplish?
Functional: What does the user need to do in order to reach their objective? (think steps to reach the objective/s)
Non-functional: What are the constraints your program needs to perform within? (think 10 vs 10k simultaneous users, growth, back-up, etc.)
Business rules: What dynamic constraints do you have to meet? (think calculations, definitions, legal concerns, etc.)
Third, the way to gather requirements most effectively, and then get feedback on them (which you will do, right?) is to use models. User cases and user stories are a model of what the user needs to do. Process models are another version of what needs to happen. System diagrams are just another model of how different parts of the program(s) interact. Good data modeling will define business concepts and show you the inputs, outputs, and changes that happen within your program. Models (and there are more than I listed) are really the key to the concern you list. A few good models will capture the needs and from models you can determine your requirements.
Fourth, get feedback. I know I mentioned this already, but you will not get everything right the first time, so get responses to what your customer wants.
As much as I appreciate requirements, and the models that drive them, users typically do not understand the ramifications of of all their requests. Constant communication with chances for review and feedback will give users a better understanding of what you are delivering. Further, they will refine their understanding based on what they see. Unless you're working for the government, iterations and / or prototypes are helpful.
First of all gather the requirements before you start coding. You can begin the design while you are gathering them depending on your project life cicle but you shouldn't ever start coding without them.
Requirements are a set of well written documents that protect both the client and yourself. Never forget that. If no requirement is present then it was not paid for (and thus it requires a formal change request), if it's present then it must be implemented and must work correctly.
Requirements must be testable. If a requirement cannot be tested then it isn't a requirement. That means something like, "The system "
Requirements must be concrete. That means stating "The system user interface shall be easy to use" is not a correct requirment.
In order to actually "gather" the requirements you need to first make sure you understand the businness model. The client will tell you what they want with its own words, it is your job to understand it and interpret it in the right context.
Make meetings with the client while you're developing the requirements. Describe them to the client with your own words and make sure you and the client have the same concept in the requirements.
Requirements require concise, testable example, but keep track of every other thing that comes up in the meetings, diagrams, doubts and try to mantain a record of every meeting.
If you can use an incremental life cycle, that will give you the ability to improve some bad gathered requirements.
You can never ask too many or "stupid" questions. The more questions you ask, the more answers you receive.
According to Steve Yegge that's the wrong question to ask. If you're gathering requirement it's already too late, your project is doomed.
High-level discussions about purpose, scope, limitations of operating environment, size, etc
Audition a single paragraph description of the system, hammer it out
Mock up UI
Formalize known requirements
Now iterate between 3 and 4 with more and more functional prototypes and more specs with more details. Write tests as you go. Do this until you have functional software and a complete, objective, testable requirements spec.
That's the dream. The reality is usually after a couple iterations everybody goes head-down and codes until there's a month left to test.
Gathering Business Requirements Are Bullshit - Steve Yegge
read the agile manifesto - working software is the only measurement for the success of a software project
get familiar with agile software practices - study Scrum , lean programming , xp etc - this will save you tremendous amount of time not only for the requirements gathering but also for the entire software development lifecycle
keep regular discussions with Customers and especially the future users and key-users
make sure you talk to the Persons understanding the problem domain - e.g. specialists in the field
Take small notes during the talks
After each CONVERSATION write an official requirement list and present it for approving. Later on it would be difficult to argue against all agreed documentation
make sure your Customers know approximately what are the approximate expenses in time and money for implementing "nice to have" requirements
make sure you label the requirements as "must have" , "should have" and "nice to have" from the very beginning, ensure Customers understand the differences between those types also
integrate all documents into the latest and final requirements analysis (or the current one for the iteration or whatever agile programming cycle you are using ... )
remember that requirements do change over the software life cycle , so gathering is one thing but managing and implementing another
KISS - keep it as simple as possible
study also the environment where the future system will reside - there are more and more technological restraints from legacy or surrounding systems , since the companies do not prefer to throw to the garbage the money they have invested for decades even if in our modern minds 20 years old code is garbage ...
Like most stages of the software development process its iteration works best.
First find out who your users are -- the XYZ dept,
Then find out where they fit into the organisation -- part of Z division,
Then find out what they do in general terms -- manage cash
Then in specific terms -- collect cash from tills, and check for till fraud.
Then you can start talking to them.
Ask what problem they want you want to solve -- you will get an answer like write a bamboozling system using OCR with shark technoligies.
Ignore that answer and ask some more questions to find out what the real problem is -- they cant read the till slips to reconcile the cash.
Agree a real solution with the users -- get a better ink ribbon supplier - or connect the electronic tills to the network and upload the logs to a central server.
Then agree in detail how they will measure the success of the project.
Then and only then propose and agree a detailed set of requirements.
I would suggest you to read Roger-Pressman's Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach
Before you go talking to the stakeholders/users/anyone be sure you will be able to put down the gathered information in a usefull and days-lasting way.
Use a sound-recorder if it is OK with the other person and the information is bulky.
If you heard something important and you need some reasonable time to write it down, you have two choices: ask the other person to wait a second, or say goodbye to that precious information. You wont remember it right, ask any neuro-scientist.
If you detect that a point need deeper review or that you need some document you just heard of, make sure you make a commitment with the other person to send that document or schedule another meeting with a more specific purpose. Never say "I'll remember to ask for that xls file" because in most cases you wont.
Not to long after the meeting, summarize all your notes, recordings and fresh thoughts. Just summarize it rigth. Create effective reminders for the commitments.
Again, just after the meeting, is the perfect time to understand why the gathering you just did was not as right as you thought at the end of the meeting. That's when you will be able to put down a lot of meaningful questions for another meeting.
I know the question was in the perspective of the pre-meeting, but please be aware that you can work on this matters before the meeting and end up with a much usefull, complete and quality gathering.
I've been using mind mapping (like a work breakdown structure) to help gather requirements and define the unknowns (the #1 project killer). Start at a high level and work your way down. You need to work with the sponsors, users and development team to ensure you get all the angles and don't miss anything. You can't be expected to know the entire scope of what they want without their involvement...you - as a project manager/BA - need to get them involved (most important part of the job).
There are some great ideas here already. Here are some requirements gathering principles that I always like to keep in mind:
Know the difference between the user and the customer.
The business owners that approve the shiny project are usually the customers. However, a devastating mistake is the tendency to confuse them as the user. The customer is usually the person that recognizes the need for your product, but the user is the person that will actually be using the solution (and will most likely complain later about a requirement your product did not meet).
Go to more than one person
Because we’re all human, and we tend to not remember every excruciating detail. You increase your likelihood of finding missed requirements as you talk to more people and cross-check.
Avoid specials
When a user asks for something very specific, be wary. Always question the biases and see if this will really make your product better.
Prototype
Don’t wait till launch to show what you have to the user. Do frequent prototypes (you can even call them beta versions) and get constant feedback throughout the development process. You’ll probably find more requirements as you do this.
I recently started using the concepts, standards and templates defined by the International Institute of Business Analysts organization (IIBA).
They have a pretty good BOK (Book of Knowledge) that can be downloaded from their website. They do also have a certificate.
Requirements Engineering is a bit of an art, there are lots of different ways to go about it, you really have to tailor it to your project and the stakeholders involved. A good place to start is with Requirements Engineering by Karl Wiegers:
http://www.amazon.com/Software-Requirements-Second-Pro-Best-Practices/dp/0735618798/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234910330&sr=8-2
and a requirements engineering process which may consist of a number of steps e.g.:
Elicitation - for the basis for discussion with the business
Analysis and Description - a technical description for the purpose of the developers
Elaboration, Clarification, Verification and Negotiation - further refinement of the requirements
Also, there are a number of ways of documenting the requirements (Use Cases, Prototypes, Specifications, Modelling Languages). Each have their advantages and disadvantages. For example prototypes are very good for elicitation of ideas from the business and discussion of ideas.
I generally find that writing a set of use cases and including wireframe prototypes works well to identify an initial set of requirements. From that point it's a continual process of working with technical people and business people to further clarify and elaborate on the requirements. Keeping track of what was initially agreed and tracking additional requirements are essential to avoid scope creep. Negotiation plays a bit part here also between the various parties as per the Broken Iron Triangle (http://www.ambysoft.com/essays/brokenTriangle.html).
IMO the most important first step is to set up a dictornary of domain-specific words. When your client says "order", what does he mean? Something he receives from his customers or something he sends to his suppliers? Or maybe both?
Find the keywords in the stakeholders' business, and let them explain those words until you comprehend their meaning in the process. Without that, you will have a hard time trying to understand the requirements.
i wrote a blog article about the approach i use:
http://pm4web.blogspot.com/2008/10/needs-analysis-for-business-websites.html
basically: questions to ask your client before building their website.
i should add this questionnaire sheet is only geared towards basic website builds - like a business web presence. totally different story if you are talking about web-based software. although some of it is still relavant (e.g. questions relating to look and feel).
LM
I prefer to keep my requirements gathering process as simple, direct and thorough as possible. You can download a sample document that I use as a template for my projects at this blog posting: http://allthingscs.blogspot.com/2011/03/documenting-software-architectural.html