Team Focus

One of the intangibles of software teams, or any team that is working together on something, is team focus. Focus is vital to keep everything flowing and to meeting expectations, but a lot harder to turn into a metric or graph because it is a soft measure. It is not quantifiable. It is almost a . . .  feeling!

Team Focus is how well a team works together, towards the same goal, and are self-motivated to achieve that goal.

Focus among individuals varies and some need a little more coaching than others. Some will get into "the zone" quickly and may even seem anti-social. Some are too addicted to their phones or Facebook, and that's just an employment concern. Some need the instructions once and it gets done and some need reminding more often, and it still gets done! However, these are mostly all personality traits. While a team should have a few different personalities to avoid freaking out the other departments a la The Stepford Wives or The Borg, an individual's ability to focus is just part of the equation.

The team's focus cannot be measured in the way we can measure tickets, sprints or SLOC. You won't see a graph or color chart indicator. You might think you would be able to deduce your team's focus based on the measurements of your process, but measuring the wrong things or good planning could be factors there. Just look at the components of that "team focus" definition above and see how you would describe your team.

"Works Together"

How your team works together is paramount to being focused, and it is affected by the company culture and personalities. Teammates who are willing to help and explain make a team work better together. Questions are not a bad thing. Whiteboard sessions are a group effort and all opinions are heard. People smile. There are inside jokes at the office about non-project, and non-people things.

To many, it is obvious when a team works well together, and is not "just working." They actually get along, and that is part of keeping them focused.

• Does your team have a loud-mouth or know-it-all? That does not build morale, and it is already a factor as to why people aren't staying on your team.
• Are coding opinions bashed as inferior? If the "right way" is not written down (and, if possible, automated by tooling), just deal with it. You can still read the code.
• Is there any blame or names at bug review, or deploy time, or at demos? Double-check the review process and steps prior to release, because the team released the software.
• Does one part of the team have the inside track for project decisions, and the others are only informed later? Be careful if these are not documented roles, because saying "this is how it is now" leaves one part of your team on the outside. 
• Are there two sets of standards? Billy can skip writing a few tests because his work is important and needed right now, but Bobby gets dinged for skipping tests. Susie is made to follow the coding conventions during review, while Peggy doesn't run the auto-formatter. Watch out for this, it is divisive and will chip away at the team focus.

"Toward the Same Goal"

The team knows what it is working on, and you have a process that proves it.  There is business buy-in, so the team knows it's the right thing to work on. The stakeholders will be happy, so the team expects some kudos. Everyone knows where their piece fits into the current sprint/milestone/demo, and why that is important for the future of the project.  This, all wrapped together, is the object of the team's focus.

Know the priorities of your goal. Is it better to build performant or functioning software this cycle? Should the code be good or perfect? Tests too? Can your schedule accommodate "all of the above"? Different approaches to those questions can still look like the "same goal" but if each person has a different answer to the questions, there is a lack of focus.

Also, and this may sound obvious, but do not change your goals mid-sprint/cycle/sentence! If a sprint is defined, don't add to it after starting. If a feature is planned and started, don't add to it until the next planning phase. Changing goals are ludicrous to track. Your team cannot anticipate when new work will suddenly be added. No one can answer the question of "When will it be ready?" The dev team just sees arbitrary buckets of tasks, that can change or be added to, which certainly does not help them focus, and sometimes crushes morale.

"Self-Motivated to Achieve"

Did you team catch the fire? Do they believe in the project? Are they excited to show off the demo? Can they hang their hat on a day/week/sprint worth of work? Would they call it their own?

Like many things, people make more an effort and achieve better results when they are passionate about what they are doing. Being a creative bunch, software developers need a little room to grow their ideas, so don't force opinions all the time. Make important tasks, not just filler or "grunt work"; even test writing can be meaningful. Open up parts of the process and operations to others, to grow their experience and to give more responsibility. Be careful of someone hogging all the hard-stuff/glory/blame - this is a team. Compliment a nicely developed feature, or a sweet algorithm. Tangibly celebrate team accomplishments! (FYI - an email barely counts.)

The more involved someone feels in the team, and in the process, the more meaningful their work becomes, and the more ownership they will take. And they will be self-motivated to reach team goals and achieve higher standards.


While one cannot use their software process to measure team focus, the focus of a team will directly impact a team's results. Hard to measure yet highly important. Strive to keep your team working together toward the same goal, and self-motivated to achieve that goal.

The Point of Process - Part 2

Once the point of process is understood, it is time to measure your current process. This step is important because the point of doing any software process is not "is it good Agile"" or "did we follow methodology X correctly?". The point is: does it work.

A contract of the past is what spurred on this article. We were working tightly with another company, completely ingrained in their process, and my boss would ask me, "How's it going?" My response was mixed, because on the one hand I knew what I was assigned to work and was working on that. That makes a boss happy. But my boss, being a stakeholder in the work being done, was really asking those two questions from Part 1 so he could evaluate the current contract and plan for new ones. I'd tell him, "I'm doing work, but I have no idea where it's going and when we'll get there!" It was a software process that was missing the point.

The same questions that the stakeholders are asking are the same questions to use to measure one's software process. If you have an answer, the process is working, and if it takes more than 2 minutes generate or explain the answers, there is a problem.

Where is the software going?

Every member of the team should know the answer to this question. If one is a Team Lead or Product Manager, the answer needs to go both ways. It goes up to the stakeholders, like Business Dev, Marketing and the C-Suite. If they are not directly planning what the software must be capable of, they at least need to be made aware what is coming next in terms of features and improvements. 

This question must flow down to the devs as well. If they do not know where the software is going,  motivation drops and future features are not planned for. Keeping an air-gap between business and dev stifles ideas from those that know the technology the best, and lowers the meaning of work they are doing to simply "doing what they're told."

When looking at your software process, each member on the team must be able to know, quickly and easily, where the software is going. 

• Can anyone look at the list/board/spreadsheet/diagram and know what is coming next? 
• Can they see where their work fits in right now? 
• Is there a place to write down new ideas? 
• Are the milestones front and center? 
• Can the reason of the feature (or entire project) be summed up in two sentences that give meaning to the devs and makes sense to the business side? 
• What will come next, after this cycle of development?

Use your process to understand where your software is going.

When will it be ready? 

The schedule is vital to a business, so the development team cannot simply stall for time, or make excuses like, "it's ready when it's ready." Demos, marketing, trade shows, and everyone's paycheck is resting on these dates. Any slips need to be communicated. (Any early finishes should be celebrated!) 

A memorable quote by Walt Disney, which I like to repeat, is "Everyone needs deadlines." Walt goes on, but that's the important part. The software schedule sets everyones expectations of "done". And without it there is confusion, miscommunications and unmet expectations. Developers need to fit their work within the timeframe, and cannot go off the path just "because" ("because this new way looks cooler", "because I want to refactor now"). Estimation is an important skill for any team, and fitting what must be done within time bounds is part of the planning process, not the middle or end of the execution phase.

The schedule has to be clear, and your process must make it clear. Having business side stay out of your hair until the software is supposed to be done, and then breaking down the door after a missed date is terrible. Don't work like that! Use the process to quickly and easily inform the business side and guide the development side. 

• When is this cycle of software development going to be done?
• How close is the team to being done? How much more time is needed? 
• When is the code frozen (if not continuous)? When will QA look at it? When will customer see it?
• Is the team currently on track? How accurate were previous estimations? 
• When is the next major milestone?

Use your process to understand when the software will be ready. 

If You're Happy and You Know It

What is the ultimate measure of your software process? Whether or not the stakeholders are happy! That's it. If they are unhappy, look in to ways to improve the process to better answer the two questions. (Hint: this likely involves bringing them into your process, not pushing them away). If they were happy, then great! And take a little time to see how to make your life easier.

Stakeholders looking at your software might not be very technical. Metrics and procedures mean very little to them. When they evaluate they are looking at two things:

1. Did you do what you said you were going to do?
2. Was it ready when you said it was going to be ready? 

Be able to answer "yes" to those two questions and you will have some happy stakeholders.

But you knew that was coming, right? Because your software process, quickly and easily, has been answering those two questions all along, so everyone knew exactly where the software was going and when it was going to be ready.

That's the whole point of all this process, and that's how you know it worked.

The Point of Process - Part 1

A software development process was very real during my time in the defense industry, but basically not taught during my time in college. I could see mixed views from the open range of small businesses and development shops, depending where one worked. There is plenty of material out there too! Manifestos, guidelines, workshops and so on, all geared to learning and following a particular software process. And all this truly has made software development better, and allowed for better software.

If one did not have varied experiences, or there was not time to do extra reading, or was just getting starting in software, they might wonder, "what is the point of all this process?" Or if one was getting frustrated with a software process, because it was too much pointless work or the process never told them anything useful, they might wonder, "what is the point of all this process?" And some people just need to be reminded, because the point of a software process is not the process itself.

Software Process Answers Two Questions

Where is the software going?
When will it be ready?

That's it. Be it waterfall or agile or something else, it all boils down to these two questions.

Where is the software going? 

Software needs a goal. The goal could be planned months ahead or days ahead but there needs to be an end state. That could be a milestone with a defined set of features or requirements, or a rolling set of features as business needs change, and the process keeps everyone involved on track. Each person can state why they are doing the things they are doing (writing code, performing tests, etc) and, to a higher level, where those things fit into the entire software system.

When will it be ready?

Schedule is important. The software process tells everyone when something must be done. This helps the business guys plan sales demos and constrains the developers to stop tinkering. If the team cannot state when the software will be ready, chances are it will not be.

Who Asks the Questions

The process is for the software and the software is for the stakeholders. Only minimally is a stakeholder the developer. Sometimes it could be Tech Lead, Scrum Master, Program Manager or CTO. Indirectly it is the end-user. The stakeholder should be the business side of the house, and very often it's the person writing the check. The stakeholders are the ones asking the questions, and the answers to those two questions (from the dev team) is sometimes their only view into the software process.

Development is not the point. In the end, process is not the point either. Keep your stakeholders happy and meet their expectations, which can be done by answering two simple questions. You might use a software process to help answer those questions, too : )

Meaningful Software Tests

Software Testing is vital to any project, though not all software tests are meaningful. Not a big deal if a few extra automated tests get written or run. Debilitating if the tests cannot catch what they should, by forcing errors to be found outside the dev team or becoming a maintenance nightmare. So what tests should you write?

Testing Types

There exist about three types of software tests:

• Unit Test - the lowest level of test. Against a single "unit" of code (a class, a group of methods, an algorithm, etc). One unit is tested in isolation and any other units are mocked to keep functionality going and maintain control of the test.
• Integration Test - Multiple units tested together, but still the same software system. Can have dependencies outside the software, like a database or even, gasp, an internet connection. Much less is mocked at this level. 
• End-To-End Test - the whole deal. Testing from one end of the system (user interface) to the other (database, algorithms) and back. Runs real code in real environment with (custom) test runners. Nothing is mocked - it doesn't need to be!

People might use different terms for these types of tests, and different approaches might blend somewhere in the middle of these. Want a long list to amaze your friends,mor give you some good ideas? Here.

But honestly, the type of testing you do isn't the most important thing. That you have testing is important, but varying opinions and success stories will advocate for one type or another.

Is There Meaning In These Tests

The type of test is not the issue, rather it is "are these tests meaningful?" Each test that is written should have some meaning behind it - test out a particular function or flow so you know it works. Test out a particular business need or requirement so you know its covered. Test a particular corner case so you know that bug will not come up again.

You need to be confident in your testing. These are little bits of automated software that will prevent errors down the line (where they are much more expensive to fix). When you run your tests, you need to know the functionality they tested and be confident that functionality was performed correctly.

Two quick examples from the past.

Back in the defense industry, documentation was king. Requirement number to test number to test results. Who wrote 'em, who performed 'em, who witnessed 'em and did they each test pass or fail. If you ever wondered how complex programs with hundreds or tens of thousands of requirements can get approved, its because of the documentation backing it up. Each test was performed for a specific purpose, and that purpose was written down. Anyone looking at the resulting documents would know what was being proved when some test step was being performed.

A second example was a past contract. They had pure unit tests that were never to turn into integration tests. One test for one unit. Code coverage was measured and the number of tests were counted. If you were to ask why we were writing all those tests, it was to get code coverage up and have all the code tested! The bad part was that every piece of code was tested in a vacuum (no database, no outside services, minimal component communication), so when the software verification group looked at something (or worse, they deployed!), lots of things were found because it was the first time those pieces were mingled outside of developer testing. There should not have been confidence that those unit tests were a predictor of safe software.

It Depends

Like many software answers, "It Depends." The type of testing you use and how much you test will be dependent on your goals and business needs. Make sure your code has tests, that those tests have meaning, and your teams understands why the tests are there.

Don't waste time writing tests just to fill metrics. If 100% code coverage is important to, or required in, the project, write those tests! But if you made up a number for coverage and then force yourself to reach it (or even better, just keep adjusting your target number!), you are wasting time. Don't test code just to check off some software engineering list - the number of tests you run is as meaningful as SLOC metrics. Tests need to be updated and maintained, forever, and are written with each new feature. If time is being wasted, find out sooner rather than later!

Meaningful tests will help the team too. Later work load will be reduced by catching real bugs early, avoiding those crazy weekend or late night sessions to "GET IT FIXED!!!1", not to mention freeing up your Verification or QA groups a bit. The dev team will have confidence and faster feedback that what they write will work, or not, boosting productivity. Continuous Integration is not possible without tests you can trust. Writing tests that have meaning makes test writing valuable, leading devs to avoid half-backed work (and insidious false negatives).

One final tip. Tests will have more meaning the closer you can get to real code on real hardware. This is also a more expensive environment to set up, and maybe cannot be automated, so it is another decision to be made. Where you are able, get as close as you can to real code on a real system.

 Happy Testing.

Better Faster and Cheaper Expectations

A common theme is software development is the old adage of "Better Faster Cheaper." Which includes everyone involved in the project, whether they know it or not. We all, especially devs, want our software to be better (less bugs, more features, faster performance, painless DevOps). We all, especially managers, want our software to be done faster (because a business/demo schedule is in place). And we all, especially those with the checkbooks, want our software to be done cheaper (in terms of expense, and software is not cheap!). 

As the adage goes, "you can only pick two." The "best" place in the triangle is probably the center, but that's just equalized. Maybe less surprises and less risk, but everyone is out to optimize something and the focal point shifts for a number of reasons. In some cases, it has to! (or at least should.)

So, where is your project aiming?

Better and Faster, but not Cheaper

Great software delivered quickly. Everyone likes great software that does what it is supposed to do without problems. And there are good reasons to need it fast, like being first-to-market, or iterating features faster than your competition, or your investors are getting antsy. It can be done!

And, it comes at a price. For any part of the project that can be developed in parallel, you can throw people at the problem. Maybe some incentives will keep the team working harder. Buy the good machines and latest tools. Maybe you can hire a real rockstar team of experienced devs, or just buy the technology and services your system is missing.

Whatever the approach, the need for better and faster is outweighing the cost constraints . . . and that's the point! If all those reasons to need it fast are right, and the software is great, you have a winner on your hands and would gladly spend that cost all over again.

Better and Cheaper, but not Faster

Great software at an economical price. Everyone likes great software that does what it is supposed to do without problems. And there are good reasons to need to done cheaper, like lack of investment, changing company profit margins or shrinking development resources.

Without resources, time slows down. Be it lack of motivation or reduced effort, the software can still be good but do not expect it to be done quickly. I see this in a lot of Open Source projects which put out great software, but most of those devs are one or two people who have other jobs and interests. They build and maintain great software, for free (can't get cheaper than that!), but sometimes their Issues list is long or v2.0 has been living in beta-mode for a while.

Progress won't happen quickly . . . and that's the point! Resources are being assigned elsewhere (or never existed in the first place), and the project is still moving forward without burdening cost (time and talent).

Faster and Cheaper, but not Better

Everyone likes great software that does what it is supposed to do without problems. And they want it now! For free! This area of the triangle is what causes developers the most strain. They want to spend more time on that problem, follow good development practices, investigate all the alternatives, re-write that ugly piece of code from last month, etc. - but deadlines and budgets don't allow for it. During my time in the defense industry, I was reminded that I wasn't creating the absolute best software for my task . . . I was fulfilling the stated requirements with the contract constraints that were in place. Talk about strain!

While customers and managers are always monitoring for faster and cheaper, they also want better! This is where a dev shop can fall into problems, by promising better without any means of faster (except "work weekends forever") or eating the cheaper themselves. Having someone "on the dev team's side" that can explain this situation is vital to the health of your team and project.

Faster and cheaper are important and often inflexible . . . and that's the point. When those are the biggest priorities, all parties should be made aware just what part of better is going into Phase 2. There are some times where faster and cheaper make a lot of sense as well, like internal prototyping or feature proof-of-concepts. Better can be handled later, when someone else is paying for it!

Expect All Three

Of course, anyone involved with a software project will say, "I want it all!!!" And they're right, they do want it all. They should have it all too! But the grumpy software veteran will say "nope, you can only pick two" and the uninformed customer will be surprised when the target starts drifting towards one corner of the triangle, only to want to focus on a different corner the next week. The unmonitored devs will push to better every time, especially if they're allowed to just refactor it all again, only to wonder why their schedule is shot and they're rushing at the end. Can all three really be done?

There is no mystical triangle to guide our software, but all decisions will have some outcome. If everyone is expecting the same thing, and the team performs, everyone is happy and not thinking if it could have been better, or faster or cheaper. If, however, expectations were not equal, then someone is left wanting more and pointing fingers at the imagined target on the triangle. "It should have been faster." "What about feature X?"

Yes, we can have all three . . . in a way. If expectations are set correctly and maintained throughout the project, everyone is getting what they expect to get and don't think about the triangle . . . and that's the point! With a defined and limited set of requirements that are perceived as "better", the team can work quickly and cheaply. With a defined budget, that "looks economical" and isn't skimmed, for the right team, good software can be created quickly. With achievable milestones that are "fast enough", good software can be created cheaply.

The triangle is useful to explain compromises while setting expectations. It is not a compass to magically redirect software efforts, nor a map that explains "how we got here is your fault." Set clear goals, keep communication lines opens and enjoy great software that is so much better, faster and cheaper that no one even thinks about it : )

Choosing The Right Technology

"He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever." - Chinese proverb

The development space is changing quickly these days. Open Source software and easier collaboration is producing a large amount of new software libraries and frameworks at a very rapid pace. Which is awesome!

However, you can't keep up. Fundamentally, maybe you can follow the concepts or general principles of the software in question. But getting hands-on time on everything out there? Impossible. Too much to learn, too little time. Maybe you could slice a small piece off the Java/C#/NodeJS/AngularJS{{insert your favorite here}} pie and get really good at it, but you'd be getting further behind everywhere else.

Take the database space for example. How many types of databases could you name? (relational, key-value, document, graph, etc.) How many products or engines could you name for each type you could name? 1-3? Have a look at db-engines.com. Could you name half of the categories on the left? Would you have expected over 200 listings of DB systems? If you needed a database in your next system, which one do you pick? Certainly nothing below ranking 100, right? . . . ranking 50? . . . ranking 10?

And there are many parts to a software system. And each project is different.

To jump to the point, I'll just ask the question I want to answer...

Can you pick the wrong technology? 

No.

Not really, anyway.

You might pick a solution that is overkill for your task. Or maybe one that doesn't do everything you need so you have to bolt on extra bits.

Most software languages are capable, especially with the right library. And most software can be used for a variety of purposes, even if not intended. You see, developers are creative and industrious. They will find solutions no matter how poorly the technologies line up. When it needs to get done, it is surprising what comes together. (Or how the definition of "done" changes ; ) Coming from the defense industry, there is some old and crusty software that has been working for a really long time and continues to perform.

It is better to have an approximate answer to the right question than an exact answer to the wrong one.
- J. Tukey

So while most software languages, frameworks or systems could be used to solve your problem, there could be a "more right choice". The right combination of software can make your life easier, but as of yet there is not a "one size fits all" solution to every project, every time.

Consider the following questions as you start your next project and are choosing the technology. Hopefully these, and the many side questions they produce, can guide you to a "more right" decision and avoid some pitfalls.

How fun will it be?

I ask this first because it's probably the #1 reason you're considering changing software. Read a good scrolling marketing landing page? Did some other company manage to use this software in a cool way? Is it trending on some google search or stackoverflow question list? 

Honestly, these are not bad reasons to try something new. Like I mentioned before, it will probably work out for you (at least initially). But be careful. This question could get you into a lot of trouble and suddenly isn't so fun, yet too late to switch.

Can it do what you need?

Now here's a good question. It involves knowing what your new project is doing, and is especially meaningful if there are boundaries to your requirements. The project that has a fixed list of features has latitude in terms of technology choices than the project that "will start small, but we'll grow it into our business for the next 3-5 years."

Have a web page that will be about 4 pages and 10 components with 5 API calls to the server? Pick any framework you want! Every web framework can do that. How about 10 pages with 15-20 components, that fully drives an API? Better think about what it is you're trying to do before jumping in. 

What can't it do?

The opposing side to the previous question. Identify where the limits exist, and there will be limits. Are those limits crucial to your project? Will it be a problem in the future? (Is that future 2 to 3 major releases away?). Just knowing what problems may come up will help you be ready and help you think more about what you're doing (design). You don't need to solve them all now, but don't go in blind. 

Can you afford to learn?

I worded this question to emphasize that learning is important. Different concepts and approaches will be useful for sure, and also builds the options for following projects (or resumes). 

But learning takes time. What kind of schedule are you under? What is the learning curve? A new framework will have a large curve while a new library or component will be smaller. How much new stuff are you using? New language, new framework, new database and new deploy tools all at once? Careful there . . .

There is a cost to learning and some projects will be able to afford it, while others will not. Is it worth the cost this time? Tried and true technologies that your team is comfortable with will go a long way and add speed and consistency to your development, though be aware of the changing landscape in case your stack gets left in the dust and you're playing catch-up.

How strong is the ecosystem?

Remember how Open Source software and collaboration are changing the landscape of software these days. Use that to your advantage. It's not like a new software technology is thrown at you and you have to go read an O'Reilly book or standards document to even get started.

Is the software documented, and does it contain examples? One command install? Are there blogs? How many questions are there on stackoverflow? How many issues and pull requests on its github pages? These are just a few questions to help determine if the existing ecosystem is mature, because it basically comes down to time. Will it take hours or days to fix that bug or get something setup? Chances are you're not re-inventing anything and the question has already been asked, or the problem already looked at. Think of where you can go for advice.

The other side of the software ecosystem is longevity. Will your technology choice be around as long as you need it? Will updates happen that fix your problems? Will too many updates happen that cause you problems because it's release 0.3.45 beta? It is easy to start a library these days, but will it be maintained?

Of course, if you only use mature and stable software, you might be missing out on getting a technological advantage of trying something new, or miss the chance to be part of something from the ground up. Is that important to you?

Wrap Up

A lot of rhetorical questions flow through my head when choosing software. I do not want to dwell too long on the choice, but cannot afford to blindly choose or forego advice when picking something new. There may not be a perfectly right technology out there, but for your team and your project, it is possible to pick one that is more right than others.