blog.RedRockResearch.com

Do you like designing on whiteboards?  I do.   Colorful markers against a clean, white surface inspire all kinds of creativity and fun.

Recently David Crossett of Ready Receipts gave me a great tip.  He told me that instead of going to your local OfficeBOX superstore and paying $200 for a 4×8 whiteboard, just hit HomeDepot instead and get a $12 piece of showerboard.  It works just as good and if you need a smaller size they will cut it for you on site for no additional charge!  At that price, you can line your walls with thinking space.  Power to the Consumer–thanks David!

Mike J. Berry
www.RedRockResearch.com

I recently hosted Red Rock Research’s second weekly software development best practices seminar for the general public.  Our topic was Software Requirements Management.Requirements Management is perhaps the most controversial topic in software development.  Everyone seems to have their own technque.  It is also the most important skill-set–statistically more important than development skills–to the overall success of a software project (Standish CHAOS Report, 2009).Let me say that another way because this principle is not intuitive…if you want to improve the performance of your development projects, improve the skill-sets of your business analysts who generate requirements.  Statistically, this has more of a performance boost on a projects outcome than any other skill-based area.Many published requirements management techniques exists, and yet in a $220 Billion industury with a project failure/delay rate of 64%, it appears that most of these published techniques are not embraced.Our seminar covered Eliciting, Prioritizing, Validating, and Documenting a requirements baseline.  We discussed the progression of system context diagrams, UML actors, use cases, data-flow diagrams, High-Level Overview diagrams, High-Level Design diagrams and finally the Software Requirements Specification document.   We talked briefly about  a Concept of Operations document and a System Design Description document.We discussed the difference between a plan-based documentation stack, and a minimized Agile-development documentation stack–which would be generated during a Sprint-Zero.  (Yes BTW, you DO create documentation for Agile projects!)We discussed techniques to control scope creep after the requirements baseline, and then discussed techniques for dealing with what I call ‘approval noise.’What puzzles me the most about this topic is an entrenchment I encounter occasionally, as expressed by one of the seminar participants.   He stated, after the seminar, that all of this was interesting in a textbook-like manner, but that he felt none of it was pratically applicable.I asked him to explain how his company performs requirements practices and he said “Well, we have nothing written.  We have everything in our head and we just talk across the cubicles.”  He then told me he was frustrated at some additional items he was asked to add to his project that morning because it was supposed to be completed two weeks ago.  He also told me that the owner of his organization wished they had a structured approach to software project management, and that–oh, by they way–many of the programmers were given layoff notices at the beginning of the week because the company is failing.Hmm, it’s almost as if the problem is not properly in focus.  Downstream problems are caused by upstream actions or omissions.  I mean no disrespect, I just wish to point out the obvious that if companies like this would adopt upstream structure they would benefit from downstream success.You see, the problem proper requirements practices solves is not at the development effort level, it is at the project management, estimation, budget, and strategy planning–or business level.Software centric business level practices become predictable and executives can be proactive if their projects properly consume the time estimated.Projects will consume the time estimated if they include all of the functionality needed for a desired level of business value, and those functions are identified in whole, at the beginning of the project.  This way the software project time-frames and feature-sets can be included accurately in the estimation, budgeting, resource planning, and strategic planning of a company.  This way, scope creep will be minimal, and the whole company will benefit from a predictable project delivery process.Without proper requirements skills, entire feature-sets get missed upstream and need to be added ‘at the last moment’ downstream,  the risk of re-work increases drastically, and recurring cycles of this erode project managers and the development team’s credibility in the eyes of the executive team and the waiting customers.  In worst case scenarios, this can lead to layoffs and finally company failures.If you haven’t been trained on proper requirement management techniques, you are holding your organization at risk.  Attend our next three-day Software Requirements Management training course held September 7-9 in SLC.Mike J. Berry, PMP, CSM, CSPMwww.RedRockResearch.com

Recently someone on StackOverflow.com asked me to explain how to compute the defect removal rate for release candidate software.  There are two methods for producing this number and I teach both in several of my seminars, but I’ll explain the simpler method in this post…

Lawrence Putnam presented this model in his 1992 Book titled Measures for Excellence.  His book reads more like a math text than a software development guide, and suffers from an unfortunate formula typo which has lead to widespread confusion about his models in the industry, but I will  explain his defect removal rate calculation process.  (I hired a math wizard to examine his data and correct the formula!)

1. For a typical project, code is produced at a rate which resembles a Rayleigh curve.  A Rayleigh curve looks like a bell curve with a long-tail.  See my ASCII graphics below:

        ||||
    |||||||||||
 |||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||||||

2. Error ‘creation’ typically happens in parallel and proportional to code creation.  So, you can think of errors created (or injected) into code as a smaller Rayleigh curve:

        ||||
    |||+++|||||
 ||||+++++|||||
||||+++++++||||||||

where ‘|’ represents code, and ‘+’ represents errors

3. Therefore, as defects are found, their ‘detection rate’ will also follow a Rayleigh curve.  At some point your defect discovery rate will peak and then start to lesson.  This peak, or apex, is about 40% of the volume of a Rayleigh curve.

4. So, when your defect rate peaks and starts to diminish, factor the peak as 40% of all defects found, then use regression analysis to calculate how many defects are still in the code and not found yet. 

By regression analysis I mean if you found 37 defects at the apex after three weeks of testing, you know two things:  37 = 40% of defects in code, so code contains ~ (37 * 100/40) = ~ 93 errors total, and your finding about 10.2 defects per week, so total testing time will be about 9 weeks.

Of course, this assumes complete code coverage and a constant rate of testing.

Hope this is clear.

Mike J. Berry
www.RedRockResearch.com

Have you been challenged with performing a high-risk task like upgrading a prominent server, for example?

Here’s an execution plan template that you can use to guide you.

I. Executive Summary
Brief overview of intended event.

II. Review of Discovery
Details of what efforts were made to research what is listed in the following sections.  Meetings, Vendor consultations,  OnLine Resources, and Conventional Wisdom can be included.

III. Pre-Upgrade Procedures
Steps identified to be taken before the event.

IV. Upgrade Procedures
Steps identified to be taken during the event.

V. Post-Upgrade Procedures
Steps identified to be taken after the event.

VI. Test Plan
Verification procedures to confirm the event was a success.  This section should define the success criteria.

VII. Rollback Plan
In case the worst happens, what to do.

IIX. Situational Awareness Plan
After-the-event steps to validate the success of the event with the system’s business users.  This would include a two-way communication between your group and the business users, announcing the success, and providing contact information for them to contact you in case there is still a problem.

IX. Risk-Management plan
A plan listing risks associated with the steps above and recommendations as to how to lower those risks.

X. Schedule
If the event spans many hours or days, you may want to draft a schedule for the benefit of all involved.  Include on the schedule the ‘rollback point,’ which would be the latest time a rollback could be successfully performed.  Your success criteria whould have to be met by this point to avoid a rollback.

Be sure the Execution Plan is in a checklist format, not a bullet-list format.  Require participants in the event to ’check’ completed checklist items and sign-off sections they are responsible for. 

For critical areas of high-risk, (ie: setting up replication), for example, you may want to require two individuals to perform the checklist steps and sign their names when that section is complete.   

If you like, add a ‘lessons learned’ section to be completed later, and keep a copy of the execution plan for historical purposes. 

Mike J. Berry
www.RedRockResearch.com

I value Excellence over Heroics. 

‘Excellence’ can be defined as “the crisp execution of established procedures.”  Think about that for a minute.

Do you know of a software development shop where several prominent developers often stay up late into the night, or come in regularly over the weekend to solve high-profile problems, or put out urgent mission-critical fires?

The thrill of delivering when the whole company’s reputation is at stake can be addictive.  I remember once staying up 37 hours in-a-row to deliver an EDI package for a bankers convention.  I was successful, delivering the application just before it was to be demo’d.  I went home and slept for 24 hours straight afterwards. 

The problem with ‘Heriocs’ is that the hero is compensating for the effects of a broken process.  Think about that for a minute.

If heroes are needed to make a software development project successful, then really something upstream is broken. 

Most problems requiring heroics at the end of a project stem from improper effort estimations, inability to control scope, inadequate project tracking transparency, mismanaged Q/A scheduling, unnecessary gold-plating, or inadequate communication between the development team and the project users/stakeholders.

A well-organized development group humms along like a well-oiled machine.  Proper project scoping, analysis, design deconstruction, estimating, tracking, and healthy communication between development and the users/stakeholders will bring that excellence that trumps heroics.

Hey, I hear that Microsoft is looking for some Heroes.

Mike J. Berry
www.RedRockResearch.com

Do you have one of those executives that harasses you with status updates to projects, yet never attends the status update meetings?

Perhaps they call you, email you, stop in to your office, and want to know what the latest on project X is?

Is the behavior effecient?  What suggestions do you have about how to convey project status communication within your organization?

Mike J. Berry
www.RedRockResearch.com

Ed Sullivan’s book, Under Pressure And On Time, is a no-nonsense guide for delivering software products to market in a timely manner.

In this industry where the average software project is late, over budget, or a complete failure, there are so many books written about what not to do.  It’s refreshing to read a software development book that tells you ”what to do” for a change.

Sullivan skips past conventional theory and provides real-world experiences and wisdom for how project managers and software development teams can succeed in this challenging industry.

Novel to Sullivan’s recommended approaches is the concept of one-team-per-project, reporting to a single manager.  Conventionally, most companies split out development, quality-assurance, and product management into different departments.  Sullivan describres this configuration as a model set-up-for-failure.  Too many factors, he says, complicate team performance when each team-member is reporting to a separate manager.

I consult with software development companies to improve their product delivery speed and product quality.  I call Sullivan’s single-team suggestion the “lean model,” and I agree with his conclusions.

In the manufacturing sciences, there is a belief that the production manager and the quality assurance manager have an inherent conflict of interest, therefore, they should be separate departments within a manufacturing organization.  Many business books are written about this.

In software, however, this model is a less-effective approach.  It can work, but it creates barriers between project teams for several reasons:

1. Contention can arise as an “us vs them” mentality builds when team-members go back to their respective departments dougouts, to commesurate with their non-project department staff.
2. As team-members need each other to succeed, it becomes easy for a team-member in one department to delay requests, or grandstand, because their department manager “has asked them to work on other things this week.”
3. A department manager will tend to be uninformed about upcoming urgent project team needs and may unintentionally delay the project by asking their employee to do other things at the most inconvenient time for the project.
4. A lack of focus will accompany any project team-member who has continuous department responsibilities outside of the project team.
5. If contention arises, the project team-members from different departments may value disparaging another department, rather than working together to solve the problem at hand.

Sullivan goes on to discuss effective hiring techniques, retention techniques, and general healthy corporate culture factors.  He talks about ranking employees in terms of inner-circle, middle-circle, and outer-circle.  This reminds me of Jack Welch’s theory on differentation.

Another novel concept Sullivan describes is his simple but effective project scheduling process.  He breaks each month into daily rows, listing team members names as column headers.  Inside of each cell is a letter/number combination representing who needs to be finished with what task on that day.  In my opinion this is much better than a gantt chart.

Sullivan goes on to describe meetings, schedule management, release management, and project closure.

I found this to be a beneficial book to read.  I would recommend reading it topically, as a reference, rather than cover-to-cover.

Mike J Berry
www.RedRockResearch.com

In Steve McConnell’s book, Software Project Survival Guide, he describes the foundation and procedures for managing a successful software development project.

Researching from NASA, IEEE, and some other industry giants like Grady Booch  and Tom Demarco, McConnell summarizes software development into six stages:

1. Planning
2. Design
3. Construction
4. Testing
5. Release
6. Wrap-up

McConnell also offers some great ideas like keeping a project history to record lessons learned and actual project data (time to completion, lines of code, etc.)

He talks about Quality Assurance practices and team development.  Interestingly enough, his book starts with a diagram and commentary on Maslow’s human needs heirachy, and how the needs of a software development group are similar.  He proposes a Bill of Rights for the project team, and a Bill or Rights for the customers.

He offers a project health quiz–allowing you to measure your project to see how probable it is at succeeding.

McConnell ends his book with a chapter on project do’s and don’t, borrowed from NASA.  These are:

Software Development Project Do’s:

1. Create and follow a software development plan.
2. Empower project personnel.
3. Minimize the bureaucracy.
4. Define the requirements baseline, and manage changes to it.
5. Take periodic snapshots of project health and progress, and replan when necessary.
6. Re-estimate system size, effort, and schedules periodically.
7. Define and manage phase transitions.
8. Foster a team spirit.

Software Development Project Don’ts:

1. Don’t let team members work in an unsystematic way.
2. Don’t set unreasonable goals.
3. Don’t implement changes without assessing their impact and obtaining approval of the change board.
4. Don’t gold-plate (don’t add features no customer asked for).
5. Don’t over-staff, especially early in the project.
6. Don’t assume that a schedule slip in the middle of a phase will be made up later.
7. Don’t relax standards in order to cut costs or shorten a schedule.
8. Don’t assume that a  large amount of documentation ensures success.

 Overall, this is a great book for new software development managers, and software development mangers who have chosen SDLC, or other non-Agile development methods.  Published in 1998, this book came out before the Agile software development movement.  Regardless, it’s a good book to refer to occasionally.

Mike J Berry
www.RedRockResearch.com

I just finished reading Willie Pietersen’s book, Reinventing Strategy: Using Strategic Learning to Create and Sustain Breakthrough Performance.

Pietersen first sets the stage for the rest of the book by underscoring the need for organizations to be adaptable.  He paraphrases Charles Darwin, concluding that is it not the largest, the strongest, or even the most intelligent of species that survive, but the most adaptable to change.  He explains that corporations need to start thinking beyond doing things right, to thinking about doing the right things.

He explains that vision is different from insight.  Vision is what the leader has in mind for the group.  Insight is what the group learns about their customers needs, through studying their customers.

Pietersen describes a four-step process he calls the “Strategic Learning Process:”

1. Situation Analysis (Learn)
2. Strategic Choices (Focus)
3. Align the Organization (Align)
4. Implement and Experiment (Execute)

This process provides the basic toolset for gaining insight, and turning that into vision.  Continuous learning is essential, Pietersen says, and he quotes Arie de Geus’s observation that a company’s “ability to learn faster than competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage” they have.

He continues, “Nature, in effect, suffers from two massive learning disabilities.  When nature fails, it doesn’t know why; and when it succeeds, it doesn’t know why…therefore strategic learning is at the heart of successful adaptation”

Pieterson’s goes on to offer a formula for initiating change.  His formula is:

D x V x P > C

D = Dissatisfaction with Current State
V = Clear Vision for Change
P = Process for Getting it Done
C = Cost of Change

His formula suggests that if D,V, or P are not strong enough to collectively overcome C, change will not occur.

Pieterson concludes his book by suggesting Strategic Learning can be applied to our personal lives to enable personal growth.  Appling it to such topics as Emotional Intelligence, and Personal Renewal, the Strategic Learning process can help us throughtout our life.

Mike J Berry
www.RedRockResearch.com

I finished reading Results: Keep What’s Good, Fix What’s Wrong, and Unlock Great Performance, by Gary L. Neilson and Bruce A. Pasternack. 

I have to admit this book seemed much like many of the other “improving business performance” books that I have read, except that this book kept me confused through most of it.

The authors discuss seven different types of organizational profiles, some functional, and some dysfunctional.  After reading the book, I’m still not quite sure which was supposed to be which.  I even found the diagrams in the book to be confusing.

Here and there, the authors have little nuggets of good advice.  For example, they remind the reader that strategy doesn’t bring results, execution does.  And, that execution won’t happen successfully until the right people have the right information and the right incentives.

Despite the confusing text, I can tell the book had a lot of research behind it.  I wish the authors would have simply summarized all of their findings and presented the material with a “how to” model.

Unfortunately, I would not recommend spending time reading this book.  I think for the time invested reading all 279 pages, there are other books in this space that will offer more valuable take-aways.

Mike J Berry
www.RedRockResearch.com