Skip to main content

Home/ Agilesparks/ Group items tagged engineering

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Yuval Yeret

How Google Sold Its Engineers on Management - 0 views

hbr.org/...ld-its-engineers-on-management

last-materials

shared by Yuval Yeret on 16 Mar 16 - No Cached
  • A good manager: 1. Is a good coach 2. Empowers the team and does not micromanage (See the sidebar “How Google Defines One Key Behavior”) 3. Expresses interest in and concern for team members’ success and personal well-being 4. Is productive and results-oriented 5. Is a good communicator—listens and shares information 6. Helps with career development 7. Has a clear vision and strategy for the team 8. Has key technical skills that help him or her advise the team
  • Employees with high-scoring bosses consistently reported greater satisfaction in multiple areas, including innovation, work-life balance, and career development
  • high-scoring managers saw less turnover on their teams than the others did—and retention was related more strongly to manager quality than to seniority, performance, tenure, or promotions
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • The key behaviors primarily describe leaders of small and medium-sized groups and teams and are especially relevant to first- and second-level managers. They involve developing and motivating direct reports, as well as communicating strategy and eliminating roadblocks—all vital activities that people tend to overlook in the press of their day-to-day responsibilities.
sagism

http://www2.computer.org/cms/Computer.org/ComputingNow/homepage/2009/0709/rW_SO_Viewpoi... - 0 views

www2.computer.org/...rW_SO_Viewpoints.pdf

agile why-agile

shared by sagism on 19 Jul 09 - No Cached
  • sagism on 08 Jul 15
     
    Software Engineering - An Idea whose time has come and gone? Tom DeMarco
Yuval Yeret

kanban-for-software-engineering-apr-242.pdf (application/pdf Object) - 0 views

leanandkanban.files.wordpress.com/...ftware-engineering-apr-242.pdf

agileblog lean kanban

shared by Yuval Yeret on 31 May 09 - No Cached
  • Yuval Yeret on 31 May 09
     
    Comprehensive write-up of Lean+Kanban. Heavy but worth reading
Yuval Yeret

Is Design Dead? - 0 views

www.martinfowler.com/...designDead.html

eng-practices-list

shared by Yuval Yeret on 10 Dec 14 - Cached
  • In its common usage, evolutionary design is a disaster. The design ends up being the aggregation of a bunch of ad-hoc tactical decisions, each of which makes the code harder to alter. In many ways you might argue this is no design, certainly it usually leads to a poor design. As Kent puts it, design is there to enable you to keep changing the software easily in the long term. As design deteriorates, so does your ability to make changes effectively. You have the state of software entropy, over time the design gets worse and worse. Not only does this make the software harder to change, it also makes bugs both easier to breed and harder to find and safely kill. This is the "code and fix" nightmare, where the bugs become exponentially more expensive to fix as the project goes on
  • the planned design approach has been around since the 70s, and lots of people have used it. It is better in many ways than code and fix evolutionary design. But it has some faults. The first fault is that it's impossible to think through all the issues that you need to deal with when you are programming. So it's inevitable that when programming you will find things that question the design. However if the designers are done, moved onto another project, what happens? The programmers start coding around the design and entropy sets in. Even if the designer isn't gone, it takes time to sort out the design issues, change the drawings, and then alter the code. There's usually a quicker fix and time pressure. Hence entropy (again).
  • One way to deal with changing requirements is to build flexibility into the design so that you can easily change it as the requirements change. However this requires insight into what kind of changes you expect. A design can be planned to deal with areas of volatility, but while that will help for foreseen requirements changes, it won't help (and can hurt) for unforeseen changes. So you have to understand the requirements well enough to separate the volatile areas, and my observation is that this is very hard. Now some of these requirements problems are due to not understanding requirements clearly enough. So a lot of people focus on requirements engineering processes to get better requirements in the hope that this will prevent the need to change the design later on. But even this direction is one that may not lead to a cure. Many unforeseen requirements changes occur due to changes in the business. Those can't be prevented, however careful your requirements engineering process.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • The fundamental assumption underlying XP is that it is possible to flatten the change curve enough to make evolutionary design work. This flattening is both enabled by XP and exploited by XP. This is part of the coupling of the XP practices: specifically you can't do those parts of XP that exploit the flattened curve without doing those things that enable the flattening. This is a common source of the controversy over XP. Many people criticize the exploitation without understanding the enabling. Often the criticisms stem from critics' own experience where they didn't do the enabling practices that allow the exploiting practices to work. As a result they got burned and when they see XP they remember the fire.
  • XP's advice is that you not build flexible components and frameworks for the first case that needs that functionality. Let these structures grow as they are needed. If I want a Money class today that handles addition but not multiplication then I build only addition into the Money class. Even if I'm sure I'll need multiplication in the next iteration, and understand how to do it easily, and think it'll be really quick to do, I'll still leave it till that next iteration.
  • You don't want to spend effort adding new capability that won't be needed until a future iteration. And even if the cost is zero, you still don't want to add it because it increases the cost of modification even if it costs nothing to put in. However you can only sensibly behave this way when you are using XP, or a similar technique that lowers the cost of change.
  • My advice to XPers using patterns would be Invest time in learning about patterns Concentrate on when to apply the pattern (not too early) Concentrate on how to implement the pattern in its simplest form first, then add complexity later. If you put a pattern in, and later realize that it isn't pulling its weight - don't be afraid to take it out again.
  • begin by assessing what the likely architecture is. If you see a large amount of data with multiple users, go ahead and use a database from day 1. If you see complex business logic, put in a domain model. However in deference to the gods of YAGNI, when in doubt err on the side of simplicity. Also be ready to simplify your architecture as soon as you see that part of the architecture isn't adding anything.
  • XP design looks for the following skills A constant desire to keep code as clear and simple as possible Refactoring skills so you can confidently make improvements whenever you see the need. A good knowledge of patterns: not just the solutions but also appreciating when to use them and how to evolve into them. Designing with an eye to future changes, knowing that decisions taken now will have to be changed in the future. Knowing how to communicate the design to the people who need to understand it, using code, diagrams and above all: conversation.
Yuval Yeret

The Product Owner in the Agile Enterprise - 0 views

www.agilejournal.com/...-owner-in-the-agile-enterprise

agile product_owner embedded-agile-list

shared by Yuval Yeret on 07 May 09 - Cached
  • Responsibilities Vary by Software Business TypeSince the business mission, organization, operating methods, roles, titles and responsibilities differ dramatically across industry segments, it follows that the patterns of agile adoption vary across these segments as well
  • Information Systems/Information Technology (IS/IT) -teams of teams who develop software to operate the business; accounting, CRM, internal networks, sales force automation and the like. Customers are primarily internal to the enterprise.
  • Embedded Systems (embedded) - teams of teams who develop software that runs on computers embedded in other devices - cell phones, electronic braking systems, industrial controls and the like. Customers may be either internal or external to the enterprise.
  • ...17 more annotations...
  • Independent Software Vendors (ISV) -teams of teams who develop software for sale, including products like network management, supply chain management, mobile applications, etc. This segment now also includes the rapidly emerging Software as a Service (SaaS) vendors. Customers are external to the enterprise.
  • So far, former developers/tech leads with business sense and good project management skills seem to be the best fit.
  • ultimate user (mobile device user) is fairly far removed from the major technologies
  • Ryan went on to note that the title of "Program Manager" also performed a similar role in some larger scale contexts:
  • Embedded Systems Example - Symbian Software Limited
  • Clearly, the development of a mobile phone operating system is a highly technical endeavor
  • mention this because I suspect that the Technical Marketing Specialist role, where it exists in the ISV today, could make a good role model for the Agile Product Owner in today's larger ISV
  • the development process does not lend itself quite so easily to the traditional, customer/user facing, agile Product Manager/Product Owner roles. However, the Product Owner role must still be successfully addressed in this highly technical context.
  • All our POs come from engineering teams and are senior engineers with product or customer experience.
  • one PO to two team mapping typically, rarely 3 teams, sometimes 1
  • IS/IT Examples
  • role/title of the Business Systems Analyst
  • is often a reasonably good fit for the Product Owner role.
  • In the larger IT shop, I have also seen the role filled by Project Managers
  • In many cases, the self-managing and team-based planning lightens the workload for the project manager in the agile enterprise, and they often have the domain knowledge, inclination and insights necessary to fulfill the Product Owner role. Therefore, many have the time, skills and inclination to fill this role.
  • In our case, our product owners are in IT. They are the liaison to the business and in many cases speak for the business
  • Our Business Systems Analysts in IT are filling the role of Product Owner. Their previous responsibility of documenting detailed business requirements and rules now falls to the entire team in the form of user stories and acceptance tests
Yuval Yeret

Ideal Training for Enterprise-Scale Agility? « Scaling Software Agility - 0 views

scalingsoftwareagility.wordpress.com/...g-for-enterprise-scale-agility

shared by Yuval Yeret on 04 Jun 09 - Cached
  • training strategy for a significant enterprise that is contemplating an “all in” (immediate and across the entire company) enterprise scale transformation approach
  • for the enterprise, a combination of team-based and role-based training that would touch every practitioner is ideal
  • all team practitioners receive a minimum of two days of agile training, (agile team training for the each team in the enterprise)
  • ...11 more annotations...
  • an additional day or so of training for specialized roles of Product Owner, Project/Release Manager, and Agile/Scrum Master
  • All other executives and managers are invited to attend an overview course on scaling software agility
  • Agile for Teams –Essential, team-based training in a two day workshop
  • philosophy, principles, and benefits of agility, agile methods, iterative and release framework, roles, agile technical practices, and agile management practices (Scrum)
  • Agile Release and Project Management at Enterprise Scale – For Project Managers, Release Managers, Program and Portfolio Managers who have responsibility for helping deliver the product(s) to the marketplace. Topics include differences between traditional and agile product management, iteration framework, multi-level release planning and tracking, the agile release train, planning and executing the release planning event, and measuring enterprise progress.
  • Agile Product Owner in the Enterprise – For team-based product owners/candidates who will become responsible for backlog management, story writing, and iteration and release planning, and who will also be involved in the planning and coordination of larger scale software systems of systems built by teams of teams.
  • The Agile Master In The Enterprise – For potential agile team leads/future Scrum Masters who will be coaching agile teams and who will interact with other teams as well. Topics include: process facilitation, enterprise agility, mastering the iteration, team roles, release planning and tracking, agile leadership, empowerment and conflict management, and integration Scrums.
  • Agile Product Manager in the Enterprise – For enterprise product managers with product, product line, portfolio and business unit responsibilities. Topics include: what’s so different about agile, backlog and prioritization, relationship to product owners, PM’s role in release planning and management, visioning and the product roadmap.
  • Scaling Software Agility – Best Practices for Large Enterprises – For executives and key stakeholders in support, distribution, quality, internal IT, HR and all others whose roles will be impacted by the substantive changes that enterprise agile engenders. Part I – overview of agility highlighting lessons learned from the most common and effective agile methods Part II – seven team best practices of agility that natively scale to the enterprise level Part III – seven organizational capabilities that companies can master to achieve the full benefits of enterprise scale agility
  • The team member doesn’t need a CSM course, but he does need to know how to work in an agile environment.
  • what are the engineering practices need to support agile development? I’ve found that if developers only have their existing tools and practices, then they will continue to specify and develop waterfall-style within the sprints.
Yuval Yeret

Original Scrum-ban Article by Corey Ladas | Lean Software Engineering - 1 views

leansoftwareengineering.com/...scrum-ban

kanban SCrum agile ScrumBan

shared by Yuval Yeret on 19 May 09 - Cached
  • A problem with the basic index-card task board is that there is nothing to prevent you from accumulating a big pile of work in process. Time-boxing, by its nature, sets a bound on how much WIP that can be, but it can still allow much more than would be desirable.
  • then you need another mechanism to regulate the “money supply.” In our case, we simply write the quantity of kanban in circulation on the task board, and allocate new cards according to that limit.
  • You might have a simple principle like: prefer completing work to starting new work, or you might express that as a rule that says: try to work on only one item at a time, but if you are blocked, then you can work on a second item, but no more. In our example, that rule gives us an effective WIP limit of 6.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • Just because anybody can have more than one item in process doesn’t mean that everybody should have more than one item in process. A problem with our multitasking rule is that it locally optimizes with no consideration of the whole. An implicit total WIP limit of 6 is still more WIP than we should probably tolerate for our three workers. A limit of 4 of 5 total items in process at one time still allows for some multitasking exceptions, but disallows the obviously dysfunctional behavior of everybody carrying two items
  • The ready queue contains items that are pending from the backlog, but have high priority
  • Here we’ve broken down in-process into two states: specify and execute. Specify is about defining whatever criteria are necessary to determine when the work item can be considered complete. Execute is about doing the work necessary to bring that work item into a state which satisfies those criteria. We have split our previous WIP limit of 5 across these two states. Specify is considered to take less time in this case, so it is given a limit of 2. Execute consumes the remaining limit of 3. We might change this ratio as time goes on and our performance changes.
  • Adding the specify-complete column communicates to the team that a work item which was previously in the specify state is now ready to be pulled by anyone who wants to move it to the execute state. Work that is still in the specify state is not eligible to be pulled yet. If the owner of a ticket in the specify state wants to hand it off, he can put it in the complete buffer. If he doesn’t want to hand it off, he can move it directly into the execute state as long as capacity is available.
  • e will also need some agreement about what results to expect at each handoff. We can do that by defining some simple work standards or standard procedures for each state. These do not have to be complicated or exhaustive. Here, they are simple bullets or checklists drawn directly on the task board.
  • The next event we might consider for scheduling planning activities is the concept of an order point. An order point is an inventory level that triggers a process to order new materials. As we pull items from the backlog into the process, the backlog will diminish until the number of items remaining drops below the order point. When this happens, a notice goes out to the responsible parties to organize the next planning meeting. If our current backlog is 10, our throughput is 1/day, and we set an order point at 5, then this planning will happen about once a week.
Yuval Yeret

Engineering Higher Quality Through Agile Testing Practices The Agile Coach - 1 views

www.atlassian.com/testing

agile-testing-list

shared by Yuval Yeret on 06 Mar 17 - No Cached
  • Maintaining quality involves a blend of exploratory and automated testing. As new features are developed, exploratory testing ensures that new code meets the quality standard in a broader sense than automated tests alone. This includes ease of use, pleasing visual design, and overall usefulness of the feature in addition to the robust protections against regressions that automated testing provides. 
  • Exploratory testing is a risk-based, critical thinking approach to testing that enables the person testing to use their knowledge of risks, implementation details, and the customers' needs.
  • On our development teams, QA team members pair with developers in exploratory testing, a valuable practice during development for fending off more serious bugs. Much like code review, we’ve seen testing knowledge transfer across the development team because of this. When developers become better testers, better code is delivered the first time.
1 - 14 of 14
Showing 20▼ items per page