By Jim Grey (about)
My colleague Matt Block recently posted on his blog a link to an article about how a software shop’s business model affects how well agile scrum works for them. It breaks business models down into emergent, essentially meaning that the company builds product to meet goals such as selling ads or driving traffic, and convergent, essentially meaning that the company builds product that directly serves a target market. The article argues that agile is made for emergent and is a poor fit for convergent. That’s just a sketch of the article; go read it to get the full flavor.
I’ve always worked for companies following convergent business models. We’ve made our money by selling the software we created, which made it always important to deliver a certain scope by a certain time. When those companies implemented agile scrum, they could never fully adapt a key principle of it: when it’s time to ship, you ship whatever is built. In a convergent world, scope is king; you ship when everything specified is built.
I e-mailed my brother, Rick Grey, a link to this article. It’s great to have a brother who does the same thing I do for a living as we can talk endlessly about it. I thought we’d have a conversation about how to scope an agile project, but instead he had a brilliant insight: What if agile is good for convergent-model companies because it tells you sooner how much your project is off track? He gave me permission to share his e-mailed reply, which I’ve edited.
– – –
What if the companies we’ve worked for and all the other convergent-model teams of the world are doing agile just fine? By “just fine” I mean “as good as they do waterfall,” which may not be “just fine,” but we’ll get to that in a minute. Meanwhile, consider:
Long waterfall project:
- No one pays real attention to progress (there’s always next month to catch up)
- Engineers go dark, checking out huge sections of the codebase and not merging them back for long periods
- Engineers (who are notoriously poor estimators) claim 50% done when it’s really about 25% – and then, as the code-complete milestone nears, they (usually innocently) claim 90% done when it’s really 70%
- A couple of days before the code-complete milestone, engineering finally acknowledges they won’t hit the milestone and delays delivery to QA – “but we’re 95% done, for sure”
- Under the pressure of already having missed a deadline, developers quietly take shortcuts to make it possible to hit the new QA delivery date
- Weeks and months of unmerged changes come crashing in, creating conflicts and compile/deploy problems, further delaying delivery to QA
- QA, now staring with a multiple-week handicap on an already-too-aggressive schedule, quietly takes its own shortcuts
- QA finds hairy showstopper bugs and so the ship date gets moved
- Management is livid, so QA goes into confirmatory testing mode just to get it out the door
Agile project of the same size:
- Much of the above happens at a smaller scale, one iteration at a time
- You fail to deliver everything planned starting with the first sprint
- Instead of spending 80% of the project thinking you don’t suck as an organization and the last 20% realizing that you do, agile lets you feel like you suck every step of the way
- Takeaway for management: “agile sucks” and/or “we suck at agile”
I assert that most teams are bad at delivering under a convergent business model. The hallmark pathologies of software delivery under a convergent model are too numerous and powerful for most teams to overcome, but their struggles are masked by waterfall until the end. Agile surfaces the problems every iteration. You feel like a loser by week 4 instead of week 40.
But this is actually a win. You get better project visibility and a tighter feedback loop, meaning you’ve got a better chance to make adjustments earlier to get the most out of your team you have. Embrace the feedback loop as a chance to make things better, and learn not to view it as proof of how much you (collectively) suck.
– – –
I will add that agile also helps you keep resetting expectations within your organization, because it makes it standard practice to keep reestimating what it will take to finish everything. This is just what I was talking about in my last post (read it here).
Jim Grey 