Robby on Rails

I’ve been keeping my eye on a series of blog posts by Chad Fowler, which he calls The Big Rewrite.

Today, Chad posted an entry titled, Who’s Tending the Store? He writes…

“the experts keep the old system running while the new system is being built. So, who builds the new system? Not the experts, that’s who. Usually, it’s people like me: technology experts. And while we’re banging away at the existing system’s UI, trying to figure out what needs to be coded, the domain experts are doing their jobs. Unfortunately, this means the domain experts aren’t watching the Big Rewrite very closely. Regardless of how good the team, if communication is impaired between the domain experts and the technology experts, things are going to move slowly, and wrong software is going to be created.”

I wanted to follow up on this issue as it’s an area of great interest to me.

I feel like this issue runs deeper and while it’s important to be mindful of the communication between domain and technology experts, it’s a good idea for each of us to take a break every few days (or everyday) to assess our perceptions in all areas of the project. More specifically, I’m suggesting that in order for us to be effective in our communication, we must make time to refactor our perceptions about the state of a project. From the design, to the development, to team communication, to the schedule, and all the way to customer satisfaction… or what Martin Fowler calls, Customer Affinity. These things are not static and we must see them as extremely dynamic variables… much more dynamic than our wonderful language of choice.

When Brian Ford and I started discussing Dialogue-Driven Development (d3), we were initially focused on an area that always seems to come up in projects. Client communication. From managing expectations to delivering the right product, d3 has become an essential tool in our team’s tool belt. We refactored our entire Design and Development process (and it’s always evolving) to focus on the things that we felt were the most important to a successful project. Clients come to us in search of expertise and guidance so that we can build them innovative solutions. When it comes to this process, clients deserve simplicity.

For starters, we’re misguided

If there is one thing that I have learned, it is that our initial perceptions are often misguided. We have to work really hard to think critically, not only of the problem we’re trying to build a solution for, but also of how we, ourselves, are actually looking at the problem. It’s easy to fall victim to tunnel vision. I often find myself having to take a step back from problems on a very regular basis. While I have no scientific proof to back this, it seems to feels natural for us to keep firing once we pull the trigger. It’s important to re-aim.

Chad raises a very important topic and leaves readers to think about the problem. After thinking about this, it’s my opinion that in order for the domain and technology experts to be effective, they need healthy collaboration. But, I feel like this applies to many other areas of our process as well.

Is there even a problem?

So, what is the solution? Better yet, what is the problem? Is there even a problem?

How can we avoid situations where communication becomes impaired? We’ve all been there. We know how to spot impaired communication, but how can we spot it… before we perceive it as too late? How can we recover from it? What causes the communication to break down? What if… it were possible to repair the situation?

These questions don’t have easy answers. These are complicated problems that reach far beyond the development community. These are the same problems that all members of organizations, communities, countries, and planets all face, each and every day.

Take action!

While it’s important to make sure we’re engaging in healthy dialogue through a project, bad things will happen. They are inevitable. As Agilists, we’re accepting this as a fact of (project) life and should be prepared to take action. If you see communication being impaired, it’s time to step up and help the team out. Otherwise, you’re only hurting yourself… and your colleagues.

“Be the change you wish to see in the world.”—Mahatma Gandhi

If these sorts of topics are of interest to you, I encourage you to join the Dialogue-Driven community and help us figure this stuff out!

Last week, Allison brought me in a copy of a book that she owns by Richard Saul Wurman. In 1976, Wurman coined the phrase, information architect. (read more)

In his book, Information Anxiety 2, Wurman discusses how we’re overwhelmed by too much information… amongst other related topics.

Allison bookmarked a page for me that discusses the problem with developing solutions without a good understanding of the problem.

“Before any solutions to any undertaking can be developed, a movement must begin to discover its beginning. Understanding the vein of the problem is the course to solving it. The best way to accomplish any endeavor is to determine its essential purpose, its most basic mission. What is the endeavor supposed to accomplish? What is the reason for embarking upon it? This is where the solution lies.”

- Richard Saul Wurman, Information Anxiety 2

Wurman then goes on to suggest, “There are two parts to solving any problem: What you want to accomplish, and how you want to do it. Even the most creative people attach issues by leaping over what they want to do and going on to how they will do it. There are many how’s but only one what.”

There are many how’s but only one what

“You must always ask the question, “What is?” before you ask the question “How to?”“

When Brian and I began rethinking how we were extracting information from our clients, it was important to understand why we felt it was necessary. We’re convinced that the more we can enhance our patterns of dialogue with our clients, the more confidence we’ll have in our approach to building solutions that provide them with that they need, not just what they think they need (want).

Next time a client brings you a list of features for their product, please be sure to ask yourself and your client, “why” the product needs them. What are these hows providing their business and user goals?

A few months ago, I posted an article titled, Trawling for Requirements, which was just before the Argon Express left for our trip to Chicago for RailsConf 2006. I’ve been kicking around some ideas with Brian ever since that afternoon on how there just seemed to be a big void in software development arena. It’s always felt that so many of the software development methodologies are designed to get developers to find a better way to work for and with clients. It’s our goal to outline a pattern that simplifies this process, not just for ourselves, but also our clients.

With each new project that our team starts, we are given an opportunity to improve on our evolving pattern for communicating with clients to better understand their goals. If there is one thing that we’ve seen help this process, it is consistent dialogue. When good collaboration exists through meaningful dialogue, confidence increases in not only the client. As developers, we are able to be confident that we understand their goals. This should generate better results.

“You are not writing requirements to serve as a contract with your client. Rather, you are writing them to ensure that both of you share the same and demonstrably correct, understanding of what is needed. Do not ask the client to sign off on the requirements; instead, ask the client to sign on to them and make them a collaborative effort.”

—Suzanne and James Robertson, Mastering the Requirements Process, 2nd Ed.

In Mastering the Requirements Process, the authors list the following as being key to identifying the project goal.

• Purpose: What should the project do?
• Advantage: What business advantage does it provide?
• Measurement: How do you measure the advantage?
• Reasonable: Given what you understand about the constraints, is it possible for the product to achieve the business advantage?
• Feasible: Given what you have learned from the blastoff, is it possible to build a product to achieve the measure?
• Achievable: Does the organization have (or can it acquire) the skills to build the product and operate it once built?

At first glance, I would agree that these are good questions to find answers for with your client.

Requirements, Not Solutions

Many clients come to us with a list of solutions (features) that describe implementation. This has been one of our concerns with the Product Backlog as it doesn’t discourage feature lists. Take a moment to read Goal Oriented Requirements, which gives you a few bullets to think about when interacting with your client when extracting requirements.

Take a moment to read Brian’s thoughts on the product backlog.

In Mastering the Requirements Process, the authors give two examples to show the difference between a solution and a requirement.

A Solution

The product shall display pictures of goods for the customer to click on.

A Requirement

The product shall enable the customer to select the goods he wishes to order.

When requirements are defined in this form, it allows for further dialogue about multiple implementations.

For example, we’re working on a project where the product shall enable the users to send messages to a central system. We’ve defined a few specific implementations (email, text message, web form) and know that as new technologies emerge, the same requirement will still apply. It’s important to remember that we are gathering requirements not solutions and from there… we can collaborate with the client to design a solution that fits the requirements. Before we attempt to do solve the problem, we must ask that the requirement is aligned with the project goal.

We want our clients to assimilate our development methodologies quickly and naturally, which is what Dialogue-Driven Development aims to help achieve—namely through communication, something we humans do rather well. By lowering the learning curve and accelerating the integration of clients into our process, we can focus a greater sum of our collective energy on the needs of the client, the purpose of the project, and the goals of it’s users.

Although, perhaps we have it all wrong when trying to make software and the development process simpler as Paul Kedrosky suggested. ;-)

Our clients don’t just want simplicity. They deserve it!