Friday, 17 June 2016

Ready, Fire, Aim: How most gather requirements

Connecting with your customers and delivering value depends on understanding your customer's requirements and selling the correct product or solution that solves your customer's problems.

Commonly, the requirements gathering process is done hastily or not at all in the rush to get the sale. After all, the faster you can make the sales, the faster the money is in the bank -- correct?

The more that product customization is required, the more it is important understand the customer's actual problem.  Long lead times to build and implement a solution means will not only lead to difficult implementations but also to a more disappointed customer and a loss of future revenue.

If you build software, which has long lead times, it is even more important to make sure that what you are building will satisfy the customer's requirements as changing the final software solution will be nearly impossible and very costly.

Why do we continually misunderstand and sell the wrong solutions and building the wrong software?

Human Nature

Time pressures to make a sale put us under pressure and this stress leads to making quick decisions about whether a product or solution can be sold to a customer.  We listen to the customer but interpret everything he says according to the products and solutions that we have.

Often the customer will use words that seem to match exactly the products we have.  But then after the sale once we have to implement we often find that either we deliver a poor solution to the customer or a solution is infeasible and we must refund the customers money.

However, behind every word that the customer is using there is an implied usage, and understanding that implied usage is where we fail to gather requirements. For example, suppose the customer says I need a car.

Suppose that you sell used cars:
  • the customer asked for a car
  • you sell cars
Ergo problem solved!
  • What if the customer needs an SUV but you don't have any?
  • What if the customer really needs a truck?
  • What if the customer needs a car with many modifications?
  • What if the car the customer needs has never been built?
We hear the word car and we think that we know what the customer means.  The order-taker sales person will spring into action and sell what he thinks the customer needs. Behind the word car is an implied usage and unless you can ferret out the meaning that the customer has in mind, you are unlikely to sell the correct solution.

If you don't understand how the customer will to use your solution then you don't understand the problem.

Comedy of Errors

For products that require customization, the sale will get transferred to professional services that will dig deeper into the customer's requirements.  At this point you discover that the needs of the customer cannot be met.  This leads to sales people putting pressure on professional services and product management to find a solution, after all, losing the sale is not an option.

Sometimes heroic actions by the product management, professional services, and software development teams lead to a successful implementation, but usually not until there has been severe pain at the customer and midnight oil burned in your company.  You can eventually be successful but that customer will never buy from you again.

Consequences

As WIlliam Ralph Inge said, There are no rewards or punishments -- only consequences. The consequence of selling the wrong solution to a customer is:
  • Whether you lose the sale or not, the customer loses faith in you
  • The sales person is perceived as incompetent in the rest of the organization especially by professional services and software devleopment
  • Your cost of sales and implementation is much higher than expected
  • Your reputation is damaged

Conclusion

Selling the correct solution to the customer requires that you understand the customer's problem before you sell the solution.

When customization is required, good sales people engage resources that can capture the customer's requirements accurately and assess that you can deliver a solution to the customer.

Slowing down to understand the customer requirements and how you will solve his problems is the key.  By understanding the customer's requirements and producing the correct solutions you become a trusted adviser to the customer.

See also

  • Shift Happens, effect of scope shift in a software development project.

Monday, 12 October 2015

Do Project Managers need Domain Experience?

Opinions vary on whether a project manager needs to have domain experience.  Certainly project managers that do not have domain experience will be the first to say that domain experience is not necessary as long as they have access to excellent subject matter experts.

I would advocate a more nuanced position; that is, a project manager does not need domain experience IF his subject matter experts understand the risks and dependencies that are inherent to the domain.

Let's go through a couple of personal projects that I have been involved with where the project manager did not have domain experience.

Telco Project

I am currently involved in a project that involves a LAN/WAN/WIFI upgrade of a large customer for a large telecommunications company.  The project manager does not have domain expertise in networks and is counting on the subject matter experts to provide him sufficient input to execute the project.

The subject matter experts are so advanced in their knowledge of networks that they no longer understand what beginners (i.e. the project manager) do not know.  They have assumed that when they indicate things to the project manager that he understands what they mean and will take appropriate actions.

The project manager is continually running into situations where he did not understand the implications of certain risks and dependencies.  This has caused a certain amount of rework and delays.

Fortunately, this is not a project with tremendous amounts of risk or dependencies so the project will be late but will succeed.

Mobile Handset Project

In the distant past, I was part of a team that was building a mobile POS terminal that worked over cellular (GSM, CDMA).  The project manager in this situation did not have domain experience and was counting on the subject matter experts.  In this case, the subject matter experts were very good at general design, but not experts in building cellular devices.

Because the subject matter experts were not specialists, they knew most of the key principles of designing mobile handsets but did not understand all the nuances of handset design.  There were several key issues required by practical handset manufacturing that were overlooked by the generalists and ended up creating such a strong cost over-run that the start-up went out of business.

Sumary

In the first project, the subject matter experts were extremely good, however, the project manager failed to understand the implication of some of their statements and this introduced large delays in the project.

In the second project, the subject matter experts were generalists and did not understand all the risks and dependencies of the project.  The project manager (and start-up) were doomed to fail because "you don't know what you don't know". Both these projects show that a project can be delayed or fail because a project manager does not have domain experience.

Conclusion

So if a project does not have many uncertainties and dependencies then it is extremely likely that the project manager does not require domain experience and can rely to some degree on his subject matter experts.

However, if the project has complex uncertainties and/or dependencies then a good project manager without domain experience is likely to find himself in a position where the consequences of not understanding the uncertainties and dependencies will either introduce serious rework or torpedo the project.


See also

Wednesday, 17 December 2014

Not using UML on Projects is Fatal

The Unified Modeling Language (UML) was adopted as a standard by the OMG in 1997, almost 20 years ago.  But despite its longevity, I'm continually surprised at few organizations actually use it.

Code is the ultimate model for software, but it is like the trees of a forest.  You can see a couple, but only few people can see the entire forest by just looking at the code.  For the rest of us, diagrams are the way to see the forest, and UML is the standard for diagrams.

They say, "A picture is worth a thousand words", and this is true for code; even on a large monitor you can only see so many lines of code.  Every other engineering discipline has diagrams for complex systems, e.g. design diagrams for airplanes, blueprints for buildings.  In fact, the diagrams need to be created and approved  BEFORE the airplane or building is created.


Contrast that with software where UML diagrams are rarely produced, or if they are produced, they are produced as an after thought.  The irony is that the people pushing to build the architecture quickly say that there is no time to make diagrams, but they are the first people to complain when the architecture sucks.  UML is key to planning (see Not planning is for losers)

I think this happens because developers, like all people, are focused on what they can see and touch right now.  It is easier to try to code a GUI interaction or tackle database update problems than it is to work at an abstract level through the interactions that are taking place from GUI to database

Yet this is where all the architecture is.  Good architecture makes all the difference in medium and large systems.  Architecture is the glue that holds the software components in place and defines communication through the structure.  If you don't plan the layers and modules of the system then you will continually be making compromises later on.

In particular, medium to large projects (>10,000 function points) are at a very high risk of failure if you don't consider the architectural issues.  Considering only 3 out of 10 software projects are successful only a fool would skip planning the architecture (see Failed? You get what you deserve!)

Good diagrams, in particular UML, allow you to abstract away all the low level details of an implementation and let you focus on planning the architecture.  This higher level planning leads to better architecture and therefore better extensibility and maintainability of software.

If you are a good coder then you will make a quantum leap in your ability to tackle large problems by being able to work through abstractions at a higher level.  How often do we find ourselves unable to implement simple features simply because the architecture doesn't support it?

Well the architecture doesn't support it because we spend very little time developing the blueprint for the architecture of the system.

UML diagrams need to be produced at two levels:
  • the analysis or 'what' level
  • the design or 'how' level
Analysis UML diagrams (class, sequence, collaboration) should be produced early in the project and support all the requirements.  Ideally you use a requirements methodology that allows you to trace easily from the requirements onto the diagrams.

Analysis diagrams do not have implementation classes on them, i.e. no vendor specific classes.  The goal is to identify how the high level concepts (user, warehouse, product, etc) relate to each other.

These analysis level UML diagrams will help you to identify gaps in the requirements before moving to design.  This way you can send your BAs and product managers back to collect missing requirements when you identify missing elements before you get too far down the road.

Once the analysis diagrams validate that the requirements are relatively complete and consistent, then you can create design diagrams with the implementation classes.  In general the analysis diagrams are one to many to the design diagrams.

Since you have validated the architecture at the analysis level, you can now do the design level without worrying about compromising the architectural integrity.  Once the design level is complete you can code without compromising the design level.

When well done the analysis UML, design UML, and code are all in sync.  Good software is properly planned and executed from the top down.  It is mentally tougher to create software this way, but the alternative is continuous patches and never ending bug-fix cycles.

So remember the following example from Covey's The 7 Principles of Highly Effective People:
You enter a clearing where a man is furiously sawing at a large log, but he is not making any progress.  You notice that the saw is dull and is unable to cut the wood, so you say, "Hey, if you sharpen the saw then you will saw the log faster".  To which the man replies, "I don't have time, I'm too busy sawing the log".

Don't be the guy sawing with a dull

UML is the tool to sharpen the saw, it does take time to learn and apply, but you will save yourself much more time and be much more successful.

Bibliography

Tuesday, 4 November 2014

Pair Programming for Team Building

Extreme programming (XP) introduced most people to pair programming.

The theory was that the sooner that code was reviewed, the more effective the review -- so how much more effective can you be if you do that review right away?

Pair programming increases productivity by 3% and quality by 5%

The reason it isn't a better practice is that two people are being used to produce a single result and so it is not very efficient.  For more information about the marginal productivity see Capers Jones1.

However, as a team building tool, pair programming can be extremely effective used in specific situations where high productivity is maintained:
  • Training new team members in coding conventions
  • Sharing individual productivity techniques
  • Working through complex sections of code

New Team Members

The first issue is self explanatory, pair programming allows you to explain your coding conventions while working on actual projects.

It also gives you a fairly good glimpse into how that team member will work with the group.

The key here is that the new member should pair program with different people every day until they have worked with the entire team.  This will speed up the integration of new members and get everyone familiar with each other.

Sharing Productivity Practices

One of the key benefits of pair programming is that it is an ideal time to share productivity practices.

Surprisingly, it is not just the less experienced programmers that learn from the more experienced ones.  Often, more experienced programmers have picked up habits that they are not even aware of.

Working with newer programmers can expose you to information on IDEs and new productivity tools that you are not aware of.

As much as we do keep up, there is continually new stuff coming out and the newer programmers are aware of it.

In addition, there are sub-optimal habits that we all pick up and no longer notice because we do them all the time.

Working Through Complex Code

Once you have planned a complex section of code, it can be very helpful to build that section of code as a pair. For information on planning complex code see:
Planning is 1/2 the work, making sure that you implement that plan can often require two people to make sure that all loose ends (exceptions, boundary cases, etc) are taken care of.

In particular, these are the sections of code that you want two pairs of eyes on as you are much more likely to recognized a missed alternative or work through weird conditions.

Summary

Used appropriately, pair programming can be a great tool for integrating new members into a team, sharing productivity techniques, and reduce defects and improve quality of difficult sections of code.

References

  1. Jones, Capers and Bonsignour, Olivier.  The Economics of Software Quality.  Addison Wesley.  2011
  2. Jones, Capers. SCORING AND EVALUATING SOFTWARE METHODS, PRACTICES, AND RESULTS. 2008.