GovernIT

Again let me remind you Jeet Kune Do is just a name used, a boat to get one across, and once across it is to be discarded and not to be carried on one’s back

- Bruce Lee, while describing Jeet Kune Do (JKD)

Over the last couple of months, I have been reading a large number of blogs, discussions, arguments, between purists on either side of the “Process fence” as well as middle-of-the-road liberals on what development model is best suited.

There are thousands of successful projects delivered using Agile, CMMI, SPICE, RUP and the hybrids in between, so clearly there is no single silver bullet. That begs the question, is there a single best way to develop software? Increasingly, I feel the answer is No. Even if you decide to go one way due to the needs of the project, it is not necessary to abide by a rigid set of rules prescribed in general by experts in that model.

How then do you decide how to develop software? The answer may lie in adapting JKD’s “The Way of the intercepting fist” philosophy, which, I believe, is closely aligned to Lean “thinking.”

Some thoughts:

• Start with understanding the nature of the project, the clients, the project teams and management needs
• Let this understanding drive the selection of the overall framework. For instance, if the project is to develop against an evolving standard, one of the Agile methods may be suitable. But if the team is not mature in terms of development practices, one of the iterative-but-process-oriented methods like the 2I or RUP may be better
• For engineering practices, use concepts and tools proven within the organization
• For project management, the established way within the organization or PMI’s methodology would be a good start
• Don’t be afraid in discarding practices if they are not useful, but be sure to substitute them with more useful ones. The easiest example I could think of is integration. A big-bang integration is not the norm these days, even in most process-oriented shops, but you can institute multiple daily builds instead of weekly or monthly ones. Another example is using Failure Modes Analysis (FMEA) to drive design decisions in iterations to prevent too much refactoring

There must be a term in psychology to describe this behavior: the moment we associate ourselves with something, we start believing that we must adhere to it 10o%, else the skies will fall on our heads!

As project managers, we must be careful not to fall into this trap, but carry a “toolbox” of practices which can be used in different situations. I am told that successful managers have this toolbox subconsciously, but are unable to spell it out exactly.

What about you? Do you think it is advisable to go with a single system of tried-and-trusted practices or have an assorted toolbox?

   Send article as PDF   

In previous posts, we have seen how to use the Six Honest Serving Men to define the elements of a process, while keeping it from becoming stupid. In the latter, one of the items we briefly touched upon was to make Process definition “Practitioner-led.” Today, we’ll dive into this inclusive way a little more.

[In industry jargon, Practitioners are the people who perform the tasks indicated by the process - software development teams, for example.]

Why Practitioners have to participate in process definition? Some common objections encountered are:

• They are not experts in process development
• It is not in their job description or they have other work to do
• If they do it, why do we need process specialists?

While these are valid to some extent, lack of ownership of the very people who have to use the process is the single biggest reason for failure of processes. This isolationist, ivory-tower approach results in processes that are out of touch with reality, do not take into account established practices and a general feeling of “process policing” among the development and project management community.

Most people that I encounter, including die-hard Agile champions, agree that some agreement on how things will be done is necessary when such activities involve many people. A process is such an agreement. When we trust people to develop mission-critical software for us, it is foolish to think that they cannot define an effective way of doing things!

Are you convinced yet? If yes, let us move on and see how we can implement this effective means of defining processes. The title points below are meaningful enough without me trying to elaborate on them.

• Assemble the right team
• Identifying process requirements
• Identifying current practices
• Defining the process
• Piloting
• Implementing

Assembling the right team is probably the most important part of this whole exercise. You need to bring in people of all kinds. You need process champions, critics as well as technical experts.

What about you? You are there to assist them in wording the process, doing the documentation work, creating simple flows and probably to see that process requirements are defined right.

One other thing I have found helpful is to incorporate as many current practices, documents and tools as possible. To do this, you as the process specialist have to talk to people, do the research and generally make it easy for the team to define the process.

A good Practitioner-led process improvement initiative reduces the inertia and encourages others to follow what has been defined by their fellow clan members.

In fact, many guidelines from the SEI show that the use of practitioner-led process improvement journeys lead to sustained improvements in appraisal ratings as well as in achieving project maturity.

Share with me your stories, criticisms and your experiences in the comments below.

   Send article as PDF