jump to navigation

Convincing Developers on the Value of Pair Programming July 1, 2009

Posted by mdenomy in Agile, Extreme Programming (XP), pair programming.
add a comment

Something that often comes up when discussing the topic of pair programming is the notion of convincing management of its value. Am I paying twice as much to have two developers to work on a task instead of just one?

My experience with convincing management of the value of agile and XP methods has been if you deliver software on time and with few defects management will accept whatever practices get them those results.

The problem I often face and find much more challenging is how to convince other software developers of the value of pair programming. Getting comfortable with pair programming can be a challenge. The evolutionary nature of software development in an iterative, TDD environment means we don’t have all the answers up front. That can be an uncomfortable feeling. Nobody wants to look like they don’t have a clear vision of where the design is going or be uncertain about the best way to implement it. My advice is to get over it. The other person you are pairing with is in the same boat. When you switch seats and they are at the keyboard, they are going to be leaning on you to see the big picture and help guide the design.

Some people advocate code reviews and feel they can serve the same purpose as pairing. That is true in a sense, but one of the problems I have with code reviews is grasping the subtleties of the design and what trade-offs went into a particular design decision. With pairing you are intimately involved in the design, coding, and testing. You talked out the trade-offs as you went along. The tight feedback loop in pairing also reduces the likelihood of having to make a major refactoring that may come out of a code review. I am not opposed to code reviews, I just think pairing provides a better mechanism for good design and coding practices.

A lot of successful pair programming has to do with the two engineers developing a good working relationship and respecting one another. Talk through alternatives, try different implementations, write good tests, listen to one another, and learn from one another. My pair programming experiences have been some of the most gratifying development experiences in my career.

Project Retrospective October 2, 2008

Posted by mdenomy in Agile, Extreme Programming (XP).
2 comments

I held my first project retrospective this week. It was probably overdue, but there is no time like the present right?

I found Peter Steven’s blog and Boris Gloger’s paper on Heartbeat Retrospectives helpful in setting the format. I decided to cover the following topics in our retrospective

  • What did we do well?
  • What can we improve on?
  • Who has ownership of the things that can be improved?
  • What are the priorities?

We used sticky notes and a white board. You need to be succinct to state your point on a sticky note. Plus once they go up on the whiteboard they tend to lose ownership and they become the team’s ideas. There were only a few times when we had to ask who wrote something and that was only to clarify an idea. The group ownership of ideas keeps things flowing and prevents the meeting from being driven by one or two strong personalities.

Starting with “what went well” set the tone that the meeting is going to be positive and constructive. At other companies I have been at these type of meetings often turned into a finger pointing exercise and went downhill rapidly. Our team has a lot to be proud of, and it was great to reflect on the things we did well. And if it ain’t broke…..

The things we thought we did well broke down into 3 catgories: Team, Process, and Technology. I am not sure if that categorization was planned or an impromptu decision. Grouping them into categories didn’t really serve any purpose other than it allowed us to acknowledge each point as we decided where it belonged.

Like any project there are things that we can do better. We purposely did not put any limits on what people thought we could do better. Once we put everything up on the board we broke it down into two groups: Team and Organization. Team means we can do it within the framework of our own team structure. Organization meant we had to bring others (HR, management, etc) into the mix to help address the problem.

Once we had things broken down into 2 categories, it was time to prioritize the lists. There are a couple of different schemes you can use here. Seeing the same issue raised by multiple people may indicate something that is important. Ultimately we decided to do a simple voting scheme where everyone got one vote, and that seemed to work pretty well. Next time we may try giving everyone three votes, but that’s for next time. We have a small team, so there were only a few items in each category that got votes, but even that tells you something, and we were able to prioritize those items. The reality is you can’t fix everything, so you focus on what is most important.

Probably the most important part of a retrospective is that you take action on the high priority things to improve. I am anxious to seize the momentum and teamwork of the meeting. That is the challenge for me and the team in the very near future.

Weekend Reading March 27, 2008

Posted by mdenomy in Agile, Extreme Programming (XP).
add a comment

I went away for a relaxing weekend, far from cell phone reception and internet access. Given my recent post about not being able to turn it off at the end of the day, maybe it is slightly ironic that I packed two books: The Art of Agile Development and The Art of War.

The Art of War is one of those books I like to pick up from time to time. I am not a fan of comparing war to sports or work, there is no comparison. The book is a good read though for understanding strategy, how to utilize resources, and human interactions. Many of the concepts are applicable to daily life.

I found an interesting passage in The Art of War that could be applied to the concept of Energized Work.

In War,
   Victory should be swift
   If victory is slow,
   Men tire, morale sags
   Sieges exhaust strength;
   Protracted campaigns
   Strain the public treasury.

If men are tired,
   Morale low,
   Strength exhausted,
   Treasure Spent;
Then the feudal lords
   Will exploit the disarray
   And attack.
   This even the wisest
   Will be powerless
   To mend.

Energized Work and Personal Responsibility March 27, 2008

Posted by mdenomy in Agile, Extreme Programming (XP).
3 comments

Logically, I believe in the concepts behind what the XP community refers to as Energized Work. Software engineering is a complex activity and it requires you to be fully engaged and focused. That is hard to do if you are working long hours. The problem I have with it is that over 20+ years of working as a software engineer, I have conditioned myself to work to the limits.

I was talking with another developer about this recently and I said that it really takes buy-in from management to make Energized Work possible. He turned it around and put the burden back on me. His thinking was it only worked if I made the decision to follow the principles and it would never work if I waited for someone else to make it happen.

That meant I had to make the decision to leave work at a regular time. That I had to make the decision to spend time with my family instead of sneaking off to do work. This developer and I have worked together in the past and he knows my work habits pretty well. His analysis stopped me in my tracks.

Bad habits are hard to break. One of mine is not being able to turn it off at the end of the day. I have to put the blame for that squarely on me. I have no problem saying to another developer “Go home, you’ll get it in the morning”. I need to remember to apply that advice to myself from time to time.

Pair Programming Follow-Up February 6, 2008

Posted by mdenomy in Agile, Extreme Programming (XP), pair programming.
add a comment

In my last post I described some of my early impressions on my first pair programming experience. Still no complaints, although a few additional observations.

I am surprised at the end of the day to find that I am a little mentally drained and I think that is a good thing. The effort that we are putting in is sustainable, but it is also very focused. There is little down time since at any given moment at least one of us is “on” and good progress is being made. Even when we are at a point where we are stuck the ideas are still flowing and we are both mentally engaged in the process.

Given the focus that we both have on the task, I find it beneficial to take breaks from time to time to check email, grab coffee, and even read a few blog posts. It would be a tough pace to maintain continuously and I think the occasional 5-minute break keeps both of us fresh.

We are doing a good job of share time at the keyboard, and I see a real difference in the approach I take depending on whether I am at the keyboard or not. When I am at the keyboard my focus is on the details of programming: variable names, style, and yes…just being able to type with someone looking over my shoulder. When I am not at the keyboard I seem to see the big picture better: are we repeating code, what is the complexity like, is this code easily testable.

I just started reading James Shore’s The Art of Agile Development and I hope to learn more about the mechanics of pair programming and tips/techniques to be more successful at it. Mike and I are pairing well together (I think), but I am also looking forward to pairing with someone else on our next iteration , getting a better understanding of how they work and how we can work together.