Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Data v Awareness

In the computer industry, data and conscious thinking are praised, as opposed to an integrated awareness.[1] How is the work going? the task-tracking tools, the commits, and the build results provide data, but only conversations with the team can provide awareness. Awareness of mood and relationships and trends, of uncertainties and risks. Perhaps this is part of organizations' fear of remote work: colocation provides opportunities to read the mood of the team. Data alone can't provide that.

In sociological research like Brené Brown's, she starts with awareness: interviews, a person's story in context. Then she codes (in this context, "to code" is to categorize and label) the answers, and they become data. She aggregates that data to get a broader picture, and that leads to a broader awareness.

The key is: local awareness, to data, to aggregated data, to broader awareness.

On my last team, we were working on this. I wanted to track what was holding us back, and what was helping us move. Which tools in our technology stack cost us the most energy, and which improvements are paying off. To do this, we started posting in Slack whenever something frustrated us or helped us along, with custom emoticons as labels. For instance:
weight: clojure set operations behave unpredictably if passed a vector; lift: test-data generation utility for X service; weight: local elasticsearch version different from prod
This turns our awareness of the current situation into data, which a program can aggregate later. At retro time, I turned the words next to the hot-air balloon ("lift," because it helps us move the project up and forward) into a word cloud.[2] The words next to the kettlebell ("weight," because it's weighing down the balloon, holding us back) formed a separate word cloud. This gave us a visualization to trigger discussion.

The aggregation of the data produced a broader level of awareness in our retrospective. This contrasts with our remembered experience of the prior sprint. Our brains are lousy at aggregating these experiences; we remember the peak and the end. The most emotional moment, and the most recent feelings. The awareness -> data -> aggregation -> awareness translation gives us a less biased overview.

The honest recording of local awareness happens when the data is interpreted within the team, within the circle of trust, within context. There's no incentive to game the system, except where that is appropriate and deliberate. For instance, the week after the first word cloud, Tanya posted in the channel:
weight: elasticsearch elasticsearch elasticsearch elasticsearch elasticsearch
She's very deliberately inflating a word in the word cloud, corresponding to the level of pain she's experiencing. (context: we were using Elasticsearch poorly, totally nothing wrong with the tech, it was us.) Her knowledge of how the data would be used allowed her to translate her local awareness into a useful representation.

Data alone is in conflict with a broad, compassionate awareness of the human+technological interactions in the team. But if the data starts with awareness, and is aggregated and interpreted with context, it can help us overcome other limitations and biases of our human brains. In this way, we can use both data and awareness, and perhaps gain wisdom.

[1] "Computing: Yet Another Reality Construction," by Rodney Burstall, inside Software Development and Reality Construction
[2] Thank you @hibikir1 for suggesting the first reasonable use of a word cloud in my experience

The Quality Wheel

"Quality software." It means something different to everyone who hears it.

You know quality when you see it, right? Or maybe when you smell it. Like a good perfume. Perfume preferences are different for everyone, and quality means something different for every application.

In perfume, we can discover and describe our preferences using the Fragrance Wheel. This is a spectrum of scent categories, providing a vocabulary for describing each perfume, the attributes of a scent.
Floral notes (Floral, Soft Floral); Oriental notes (Floral Oriental, Soft Oriental, Woody Oriental); Woody notes (Mossy woods, dry woods); Fresh notes (citrus, green, water)
Perhaps a similar construction could help with software quality?

When a developer talks about quality, we often mean code consistency and readability, plus automated testing. A tester means lack of bugs. A designer means a great UI, a user means great experience and exactly the right features and lack of errors or waiting. An analyst means insightful reporting and the right integrations, a system administrator means low CPU usage and consistent uptime and informative logging. Our partners mean well-documented, discoverable APIs and testing tools.
Usability (Features, Discoverability, User Experience); Performance (Responsiveness, Availability, Scalability); Flexibility (Speed of Evolution, Configurability); Correctness (Visibilty, Automated Tests, Accuracy)
Each of these are attributes of quality. For any given software system and for each component, different quality attributes matter most. What's more, some aspects of quality compliment each other, each makes the other easier - for instance, a good design facilitates a great user experience. Readable code facilitates lack of bugs. Consistent uptime facilitates lack of waiting. Beautiful (consistent, modular, readable) code facilitates all the externally-visible aspects of quality.

However, other aspects of quality are in conflict. Quantity of features hurts code readability. More integrations leads to more error messages. Logging can increase response time.

If we add nuance to our vocabulary, we can discuss quality with more detail, less ambiguity. We can decide which attributes are essential to our software system, and to each piece of our system. Make the tradeoffs explicit, and allocate time and attention to carefully chosen quality attributes. This gets our system closer to something even greater: usefulness.

The quality wheel pictured above is oversimplified; it's designed to parallel the original version of the Fragrance Wheel. I have a lot more quality attributes in mind. I'd love to have definitions of each piece, along with Chinese-Zodiac-style "compatible with/poor match" analysis. If this concept seems useful to you, please contribute your opinions in the comments, and we can expand this together.

Sunday, April 26, 2015

Your Code as a Crime Scene: book review

What can we learn about our projects with a little data science and a lot of version control?
Locate the most dangerous code! Find where Conway's Law is working against us! Know who to talk to about a change you want to make! See whether our architectural principles are crumbling!

Adam Tornhill's book shows both how and why to answer each of these questions. The code archaeology possibilities are intriguing; he shows how to get raw numbers and how to turn them into interactive graphs with a few open-source scripts. He's pragmatic about the numbers, reminding the reader what not to use them for. For instance: "the value of code coverage is in the implicit code review when you look at uncovered lines." Trends are emphasized over making judgements about particular values.

Even better are Adam's expansive insights into psychology, architecture, and the consequences of our decisions as software engineers. For instance: we know about the virtues of automated tests, but what about the costs? And, what is beauty in code? (answer: lack of surprise)

There's plenty of great material in here, especially for a developer joining an existing team or open-source project, looking to get their mind around the important bits of the source quickly. I also recommend this book for junior- to mid-level developers who want to learn new insight into both their team's code and coding in general. If you want to accelerate your team, to contribute in ways beyond your own share of the coding, then run Adam's analyses against your codebase.

One word of caution: it gets repetitive in the intro and conclusion to the book as a whole and each section and each chapter. Whoever keeps repeating "Tell them what you're going to tell them, tell them, tell them what you just told them," can we please get past that now??

A few factoids I learned today from this book:
- Distributed teams have the most positive commit messages
- Brainstorming is more effective over chat than in an in-person meeting

and when it comes to the costs of coordination among too-large teams: "The only winning strategy is not to scale." (hence, many -independent- teams)

Post-agile: microservices and heads-up development

Notes from Craft Conference 2015, Budapest.

Craft conference was all about microservices this year.[1] Yet, it was about so much more at the same time -- even when it was talking about microservices.

lobby of the venue. Very cool, and always packed
Dan and I went on about microservices in our opening keynote,[2] about how it's not about size, it's about each service being a responsible adult and taking care of its own data and dependencies. And being about one bounded context, so that it has fewer conflicting cross-cutting concerns (security, durability, resilience, availability, etc) to deal with at any one time.

But it was Mary Poppendieck, in her Friday morning keynote,[3] who showed us why microservices aren't going away, not any more than the internet is going away. This is how systems grow: through federation and wide participation. (I wish "federated system" wasn't taken by some 1990s architecture; I like it better than "microservices.") Our job is no longer to control everything all the computers do, to make it perfectly predictable.[a]

Instead, we need to adapt to the sociotechnical system around us and our code. No one person in can understand all the consequences of their decision, according to Michael Nygard.[4] We can't SMASH our will upon a complex system, Mary says, but we can poke-poke-poke it; see how it responds; and adjust it to our purposes.

What fun is this?? I went into programming because physics became unsatisfying once I hit quantum mechanics, and I couldn't know everything all at once anymore. Now I'm fascinated by systems; to work with a system is to be part of something bigger than me, bigger than my own mental model. This is going to be a tough transition for many programmers, though. We spent our training time learning to control computers, and now we are exhorted to give up control, to experiment instead.

And worse: as developers must adapt, so must our businesses. In the closing keynote,[5] Marty Cagan made it very clear that our current model is broken. When most ideas come from executives, implemented according to the roadmap, it doesn't matter how efficient our agile teams are: we're wasting our time. Most ideas fail to make money. And the ones that do make money usually take far longer than expected. He ridicules the business case: "How much revenue will it generate? How much will it cost?" We don't know, and we don't know! Instead of measuring the impact of an idea after months of development, product teams need to measure in hours or days. And instead of a few ideas from upper management, we need to try out many ideas from the most fruitful source: developers. Because we're most in the position to see what has just become possible.

Exterior of the venue! (after the tent is down.)
I'd say "developers are a great source of innovation," except Alf Rehn reports that the word has been drained of meaning.[6] Marty Cagan corroborates that by using "ideas" throughout his keynote instead of "innovation." So where do these ideas come from? Diversity, says Pieter Hintjens,[7] let people try lots of things. Discovery, says Mike Nygard, let them see what other teams are doing.

Ideas come from having our heads up, not buried only in the code. They come from the first objective of software architecture: understanding the business problem. They come from handing teams an objective, NOT a roadmap. Marty Cagan made that point very clear. Adrian Trenaman concurred,[8] describing how Gilt teams went from a single IT to a team per line of business to a team per initiative. It is about results, measured outcomes.

All these measurements, of results, of expectations, of production service activity, come down to my favorite question - "How do we know what we know?"[b] Property-based (aka generative) testing is experiencing a resurgence (maybe its first major surgence) lately, as black-box testing around service-level components. In my solo talk,[10] I proposed a possible design for lowering the risk around interacting components. Mary had some other ideas in her talk too, which I will check out. Considering properties of a service can help us find the seams that align simplicity with options.

Mike Nygard remarked that the most successful microservices implementations he's seen started as a monolith, where refactoring identified those seams. There's nothing wrong with a monolith when that supports the business objectives; Randy Shoup said that microservices solve scaling problems, not business problems.[9] Mike and Adrian both pointed out that a target architecture is not a revolution, but an evolving direction. Architecture is like a city: as we build microservices in the new, hip part of town, those legacy tenements are still useful. The architecture is done only when the company goes out of business. Instead of working to a central plan, we want to develop situational awareness ("knowing what's happening in time to do something about it"[3]), and choose to work on what's most important right now.

It isn't enough to be good at coding anymore. The new "full-stack" is from network to customer. Marty: if your developers are only coding, you're not getting half their value. I want to do heads-up development. "Software Craftsmanship is less about internal efficiency, and more about engaging with the world around us," says Alf Rehn. "Creators need an immediate connection to what they are creating," quotes Mary Poppendieck.

As fun as it is to pop the next story off the roadmap and sit down and code it, we can have more impact. We can look up, as developers, as organizations. We can look at results, not requirements. We can learn from consequences, as well as conferences.

This transition won't be easy. It's the next step after agile. Microservices are a symptom of this kind of focus, the way good retrospectives are associated with constant improvement. Sure, it's all about microservices - in that microservices are about reducing friction and lowering risk. The faster we can learn, the farther we can get.

I'll add the links as Gergely posts the videos.

[1] Maciej was starting to get bored
[2] my keynote with Dan, "Complexity is Outside the Code"
[3] Mary Poppendieck's keynote, "The New New Software Development Game"
[a] Viktor Klang: "Writing software that is completely deterministic is nonsense because no machine is completely deterministic," much less the network.
[4] Mike Nygard's talk, "Architecture Without an End State"
[5] Marty's keynote
[6] Alf Rehn (ah!  what a beautiful speaker! such rhythm!) keynote. Maybe he didn't allow recording?
[7] Pieter's talk
[8] Adrian's talk, "Scaling Micro-services at Gilt"
[b] OK my real favorite question is "What is your favorite color?" but this is a deep second.
[9] Randy's talk, "From the Monolith to Microservices"
[10] my talk, "Contracts in Clojure: a compromise between types and tests"

Charting team course with a Seamap

Great teams are focused on results, not on projects. But how many of us really see the results of our efforts? Can we track the impact of what we're doing today all the way to its hoped-for impact on customers or users?

A project roadmap doesn't cut it. It doesn't give us a compelling picture of what we're accomplishing. It acts like there is only one path toward our goals. A roadmap fences us in, reduces options, squashes ideas.

We want a visualization that lets us see the business goals, from the customer to the organization to the team to the individual or pair. From ages to iterations to the current day. We want to document our aims at each level, and record our attempts and the problems we faced. We don't want to restrict ourselves to the first plan someone came up with. We want to reach the right milestones, discard others, learn -- all without losing perspective of the larger goals.[2]

Marty Cagan said he knows roadmaps are terrible, but he didn't suggest an alternative. I have one: it's called the Seamap.

A seamap represents our journey as a mountain across an ocean. We won't sail straight for it across the deep water; we'll stop at many islands along the way. This is iterative delivery. We don't have to travel in a straight line, because we're exploring the solution along the way. Islands we thought we would visit may become less interesting, while new ideas erupt and solidify.

At each milestone in the seamap, we can zoom in. That part of the ocean contains the likely stops on that piece of the journey. Each day, as we discover tasks, we can add that. Achievements can be recorded with little flags. Surprises are represented by a sea monster; we might defeat it, or route around it by accomplishing our day's objective some other way.

The zoom can go as deep as necessary; milestones we thought were close often are more treacherous than expected. That's why I use Prezi to create the seamaps: every level of scale is explored in one document.

At the very top, above the horizon, above the highest-level goal, are the Unreachable Stars. These are guiding principles that direct our journey, even though they're never perfectly achieved. These are the aspects of quality that matter for that project, or ethics that matter to the organization. My projects all include "evidence this will work," which encompasses market research, proof of correctness, and automated testing. We never have perfect testing, but any task that takes us closer to that star is valuable in more ways than its immediate progress toward a milestone.

On a daily basis, I use the seamap in standup. As each developer or pair states their plans for the day, I place their pictures (trello icons) on the place on the map. We can see whether we're all spread out, or working closely. Other images mark points of interest: drop monsters into the picture for problems, a sea arch if we plan a nontrivial deploy.[4]

On an iteration basis, as well as anytime I ask myself whether I'm working on the most important thing, I zoom out in the seamap.[1] Then I can ask, is this still the best route to our ultimate goal?

The seamap provides perspective, planning, and task organization. It does not pretend that we already know the single route to our destination. It can show what we have done, where we are now, and where we are going. And, it's beautiful to look at![3]

Try this on your team: copy this mostly-blank template, or look at other samples on my Prezi profile. If your team is colocated, draw this stuff on a white board or a poster. Draw on post-its, print images and tape them, then move them around the next day. A physical seamap is the best way to find out what works for you. I started with a giant post-it board on my bedroom wall, and held it up in front of the camera for remote stand-ups.

Marty Cagan also said: if your developers are only for code, you're getting only half their value. We aren't typists; we're thinkers. Support and encourage thinking, ideas, innovations by sailing off the roadmap into a world of wider options.

Feedback and suggestions welcome!

[1] Mary Poppendieck says that in the military, one must understand the intent of orders two organizational levels up, and maintain situational awareness ("when something goes wrong, we'll know in time to do something about it") one level up.

[2] Drawing a line and sailing straight along it may seem efficient, until the ship sinks in the middle of nowhere. Instead, stop at a port each night (deploy some code), and we have a solid place to come back to.

[3] Somewhere there's going to be a spreadsheet, or Trello, or Target Process, or Jira, or something containing the nitty-gritty of each milestone and task. Don't let the linear, one-dimensional format of those limit you. Label or link the seamap images, refer to those more detailed descriptions as needed. Keep upper management happy enough while your team explores and learns.

[4] I use other maps to show tasks like firefighting and hardening of the current system. These are based around data flow in the existing system, typically. That's another blog post.

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Looking for work

This Prezi movie expresses my reflections on the process of choosing the next place to work.
The embedded app below doesn't work for me - does it for you?

This does: click the play button in the lower-left of the presentation window here at Prezi.

Meta: About the Medium

I love Prezi as a tool for building presentations, because the presentation itself is a mind-map. While a typical slideshow is one-dimensional and unidirectional (forward to the next slide), Prezi offers three dimensions: two surface dimension, plus depth.
That depth, the ability to zoom in and in and in, makes Prezi my favorite medium for seamaps. Seamaps are kinda like roadmaps as they show milestones on the way to a goal, except seamaps recognize that there are many routes toward the goal, and that the straight path is rarely optimal. We will find obstacles, back up, and try other paths. We prefer running software at many increments to implementing everything at once. The zooming format helps me draw the big picture of the project and the detailed picture of the iteration and the day, in the same map.
However, Prezi isn't perfect for seamaps. The editor is infuriating in many cases. It's difficult to impossible to select things sometimes; you have to get the scale just right first. Clicking gets me a text prompt, and that's infrequently what I want. (Omnigraffle nailed this one: push T and then click.) Click-and-drag sometimes moves me back and forth in the map, and other times moves the image in the background out from under everything. There's a fair number of bugs, too.
All of these problems also apply to using Prezi for little movies like these, plus more. I need frames in order to make a path for presenting, but then frames take ownership of the objects inside them, and I can't resize the frame without warping parts of my picture. Those frames make objects under them unclickable in certain circumstances. Using Prezi takes patience and systems. Click off "edit path," select the objects, group them, move them to the front. Edit path, click the animation button, select the objects, escape. Click off "edit path," select the group, send them to the back. Repeat.
As a movie-creation medium, there are limitations, too: each frame will last as long as the audio attached to it, or 4 seconds if there's no audio. Animations ("appear" is the only animation) occur at 4 second intervals, period. On one hand this is limiting, but on the other it leaves fewer decisions for me. The above production took about 3 hours, including recording the audio in Camtasia, editing it, and exporting each frame as a separate audio clip, in between Camtasia crashing, as it does.
Prezi's strengths are unique and crucial to some forms of expression. Its limitations can be freeing, once they're accepted. The editor quirks drive me away for a while sometimes, but I keep coming back. Overall, I do recommend Prezi-with-voiceover as a short movie creation medium. Now if only the "embed" option worked on this blog.

Saturday, April 11, 2015

Philly ETE, Design in the small

Every conference has little themes for me. Here's one from Philly ETE this week.

The opening keynote from Tom Igoe, founder of Arduino, displayed examples of unique and original projects. Many of them were built for one person - a device to tell her mother whether she's taken this pill already today, or to help his father play guitar again after a stroke. Others were created for one place: this staircase becomes a piano. Arduino enables design in the small: design completely customized for a context and an audience. A product that meets these local needs, that works; no other requirements.

Diana Larsen does something similar for agile retrospectives. She pointed out that repeating the same retrospective format shows diminishing returns. Before a 90-minute retro, Diana spends 1-3 hours preparing: gathering data, choosing a theme and an activity. She has high-scale models of how people learn, yet each learning opportunity is custom-designed for the context and people. This has great returns: when a team gains the skill of thoughtful retrospectives, all team meetings are transformed.

Individualization appeared in smaller ways on the second day: Erik mentioned the compiler flags available in the Typelevel Scala compiler, allowing people to choose their language features. Aaron Bedra customized security features to the attack at hand: a good defense is intentional, as thoughtfully built as product features. Every one different.

Finally, Rebecca Wirfs-Brock debunked the agile aversion to architecture. Architecture tasks can be scaled and timeboxed based on the size and cruciality of the project. Architecture deliverables meet current needs, work for the team, and nothing else. It's almost like designing each design process to suit the context.

This is the magic that agile development affords us: suiting each process, each technology, each step to the local context. That helps us do our best work. The tricky bit is keeping that context in mind at all levels. From my talk: the best developers are reasoning at all scales, from the code details of this function to the program to the software system to the business of why are we doing this at all. This helps us do the right work. Maintaining the connection from what we're doing to why we're doing it, we can make better decisions. And as Tom said in the closing sentence of the opening keynote, we can remember: "The things we make are less important than the relationships they enable."

This was one of the themes I took from PhillyETE. Other takeaways were tweeted. There were many great talks, and InfoQ filmed them, so I'll link them in this post later. This is conference is thoughtfully put together. Recommend.

Saturday, April 4, 2015

Before balance, separation.

We don't program in a language, these days: we program in systems. I may write Clojure, with ring and schema and clj-http and clj-time and test.check and lein and jetty and many more inclusions. I may write Scala, with akka OR with scalaz and Shapeless, or a weird combination.

We never programmed in a language: we always programmed in systems. Dick Gabriel discusses the subtle paradigm shift when researchers separated the two, when the science and engineering of software parted ways in the 1990s. Before that, "language" and "system" were used interchangeably in some papers.

This is a valuable separation: now we can optimize each separately. In particular, languages are designed for extensibility, for building systems on. Both Scala and Clojure aim for this, in different ways. Let's have all the existing components on the JVM available to us, and make it clean for people to build new ones. Languages are seeds of systems, and language designers seed of communities.

Take Node.js -- it is not a new language, but it might as well be: it's a new system.  The creators of Node and npm seeded a system: they left obvious necessities unimplemented, and made it easy to implement them. A community formed, and built something bigger than one small team could sustain.

When you choose a programming language, recognize that what you're choosing is a whole ecosystem and the group of people who work on it, growing and evolving that system. Do you want that to be stewarded by a strong company? or full of individual discoveries and advances, in many open source communities? to hold you to a good style or offer free combinations of multiple styles? to be welcoming to beginners, or full of serious thinkers?

[Game: Match each of these generalizations with a community: Clojure, Scala, Haskell, .NET, JVM, Ruby.]

I'm glad that people separated languages from systems, because we can build better languages and better systems from the decoupling. Both are important, and need each other. I thought about this today while my child separated her S'Mores Goldfish into marshmallow, chocolate, and graham. She used this to produce a perfectly balanced bite.

And then she ate all the marshmallows.