Looking Forward
As usual, heading down to Portland for the PNSQC conference this week provided me with a great deal of food for thought. This year, more than ever, I see signs that this industry might finally be maturing, getting over some of the bickering and posturing that seems to characterize the software sector more than anywhere else.
While I saw a great deal of emphasis on testing (which seems to be traditional for this conference), I see this as an opportunity the vibrant test community has seized while the analysis community tries to figure out how to respond to the pressure to push more quickly into a build-and-iterate paradigm. They are shoring up what I see as a step backward for the industry, and good on ‘em – they save the day on many projects where they really shouldn’t have to. But that’s another story for another time.
The big A-ha! moment for me at the conference was on the topic of lifecycles, and processes and methodologies (oh my!), and for all of this, what is next?
This is a critical question to answer, because we have seen the apparent thought leaders bogged down for decades, debating which is the right one, or even debating the definitions between these different things. All of this dancing has generated sequential ‘next best things’ over the years, each one touted as the Right Thing, each camp demonizing all that came before it (even though they all borrowed and built from those very things they are poo-poohing), all in the name of selling books and lining their pockets for products and services.
Practitioners and projects haven’t materially gotten better, most teams are still struggling to get value to their clients.
Yes, even agile teams can fail to deliver, believe it or not. Anyone that is selling a particular brand can find instances where their brand saved the day – hell, even I have a few success stories on my website…
I think the debate needs to be tossed, and we need to think at a different level. Here’s an analogy.
We’ve got two kids. When our daughter was born, we had no idea what we were doing, so we sought advice and were pointed to a few books on parenting. One in particular was seen as the bible at the time, and a lot of people recommended it to us. It clearly laid out our daughter’s growth into different stages, and what we could expect at each stage of development. The kinds of food we could introduce, how much she should weigh and how tall she would be.
We were being fed a particular lifecycle and process that resonated strongly and worked for the author.
Looking back, while it was generally reasonable in the overall development of our daughter, and seemed to be on the spot for things that were readily predictable over the first few years, it wasn’t the best resource for the outliers. We still spent sleepless nights (months?), we still agonized over what to do in response to things our daughter did (or didn’t do), desperately referring back to the book and wondering why it didn’t have the answer.
I’m sure some parents had some first children where the book resonated profoundly, where it seemed to have the right answer for every question. That resonance is probably based more in the child, rather than the book.
For our son, a few years later, we pretty well tossed the book aside. We weren’t hung up on listening to his breathing at night through his bedside monitor, we learned that the human body generally does that for itself pretty well, and has done so for many years. We didn’t obsess over every little thing, and in the end it seemed to be a lot easier the second time around. We dealt with situations as they arose, and while some situations hadn’t arisen with our first child, we were able to reasonably adapt.
Not because we had embraced the lifecycle and advice (or even philosophy or principles) from someone else’s book.
Rather, because we learned from our experience, and we built up an arsenal of tools we could apply. We spoke with other parents and synthesized our experiences. More importantly, we spent more time working out what to do for our situation, rather than looking elsewhere for guidance from someone who probably had kids, but certainly didn’t have our kids.
I expect that the book we used the first time around has either been ruthlessly updated, or has been usurped by a new favourite among first parents (or most likely both). I’m not interested in researching that point.
Back to the question – what is reasonably next?
Like parenting books, processes and lifecycles will come, and they will go. Always have, always will. We need to get past the noise generated by each new one as it battles for market share, struggles for prominence with hyperbole and case studies of rousing success.
A better approach is to recognize that we are better served by paying more attention to our particular projects (isn’t raising kids your most mission critical project you can have?), and continue to build an arsenal of tools we can apply to given situations. An auto mechanic has a huge arsenal of tools, but won’t always reach for that Sprightly Sprocket Wrench first.
We can still look to all the available guidance out there on processes and lifecycles and methodologies. Not as definitive guides on how our project will play out (because they won’t), but as resources that each have their merits. It is too easy to pick apart and demonize anything that comes along, it is more worthwhile and important to seek the nuggets of value that are available in all of them. Always be hungry for new ideas. Seek them from other disciplines. Find those nuggets, and understand them well enough to know when they are relevant to our particular situation. When they are, we apply them, regardless of their genealogy.
As for the people that are charged with providing guidance for teams to develop products? Whether you call yourself a process guru, are part of an SEPG or PMO or Quality Group, or even an external process consultant, your role is not to provide guidance in terms of a particular defined lifecycle or process and teach that gospel to the masses and police its use on teams. Your role is to take charge of this ongoing learning, synthesize as many diverse perspectives and ideas as you can, and act as a resource for your teams. Sit down with them and understand their challenges, their particular culture and context, and mentor them in what might be reasonable approaches for them to use. I see that as the tipping point that the industry needs.
Projects and children do evolve through phases, call them lifecycles if you will, but that’s not as important as being equipped to deal with what comes up with your project or child. These convenient models can can be useful to structure your thinking, but don’t let them distract you from the fact that your project is unique. Remember that the New Hot Thing can provide you some useful insights, but it is mostly New and Hot for whose pockets are being lined.
I no longer need to grow my resources of insight in how to deal with toddler situations, though I am sure that my response as a grandparent will be to rile them up and send them home. In a career, though, we always deal with new projects, and there is value in learning from our experience (and the experience of others, if we understand that it may not absolutely relevant), growing our list of responses, and knowing when to apply them to our situations. - JB
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!Comments
One Response to “Looking Forward”
Feel free to leave a comment...
Jim,
I enjoy your blogs. Simple, to the point and full of insight. Keep them up. Cheers, Pankaj