Skip to main content

Agile practices don't primarily solve problems

But they sure help detecting problems early. And that's extremely valuable.

For instance, iterative development with deliveries early in the project will test the technical feasibility and the development speed. But perhaps most important, we will get feedback on the functionality from the clients, to verify if we have understood their problem correctly.

Failing in any of these areas will lead to project failure. And it is better to discover this when 20% of the budget is used than when 90% of the budget is used. First, you reduce your losses. And even better, you have a fair chance of fixing the project and turning it into success.

Many agile projects succeed not because they are more productive, but because they discover problems in early iteations and then reduce the requirements.

Unit testing is another practice that makes you aware of problems early. This makes it cheaper to fix problems, but it also gives confidence, so you dear restructure code when necessary.

Another agile practice is close communication with business experts, preferably face to face. The non-agile alternative is written requirements. The problem is that developers misunderstand what the business experts want. That's inevitable. What we need, are mechanisms to discover misunderstandings. That mechanism is called feedback. The business expert explain what they want, and the developer explain how they understood that to the business expert, which confirms that this was correct. That's easier to do face to face than with written documents.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The problem with use cases

The greatest benefit I get from use cases is that they focus on the user. Use cases help me to think about what the user wants to do instead of only focusing on implementation details. The biggest problem I have with use cases is that they are not structured. They are basically free text. For instance, if we have a use case Withdraw money from ATM, we may define that it has a precondition that Open account is performed, but we don't get any help from the method to see that. What happens if someone later changes the Open account use case or defines a Close account use case? How do we find which other uses cases that need to be modified? We can look through the old use case diagrams and find dependencies, but I can almost guarrantee that these dependencies have not been maintained after they were initially created. The solution to this is to connect the use cases to an object model. I don't mean a use-case realization with view and controller objects like ATM_Screen and ATM

Use examples to make your code easier to understand

Programmers are used to abstract thinking. To program is to generalize: A method is a general specification of what to do during execution. A class is a general specification of objects. A superclass is a generalization of several classes. Altough our minds are capable of abstract thinking, concrete thinking is much easier, and concrete examples are the foundation for abstractions. For instance, when we were children, our parents didn't try to teach us about cars by explaining to us cars are and what they can do. Instead, they just pointed at a car that was driving by and said ”Look, a car!” When they had done that a number of times, we knew what a car was. Another example is prejudice. We all have prejudices, because this is the way our minds work. If we have met a few people from Denmark in our lives, and those people were friendly, we ”know” that Danes are friendly. And this works even stronger for negative prejudices. My point is that we learn by examples. Einstein said t

The Pessimistic Programmer

I decided to change the title of this blog to "The Pessimistic Programmer". Why? Am I a depressed person that thinks nothing will work? No, I am an optimist in life. Something good is going to happen today :-) But in programming, something will surely go wrong. I don't actually view this as pessimism, but as realism. I want to be prepared for the worst that can possibly happen. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. But my wife explained to me that pessimists always say that they are just being realistic. So, I might as well face it: I am a pessimist. I think a good programmer needs to be pessimistic; always thinking about what can go wrong and how to prevent it. I don't say that I am a good programmer myself. No, I make far too many mistakes for that. But I have learnt how to manage my mistakes with testing and double checking. Über-programmers can manage well without being pessimistic. They have total overview of the code and all consequences of changes. But I