Skip to main content

Death by Oversight: How much overhead is too much for an agile project?

I had a great discussion with one of my coworkers today.  He felt that we were adding a lot of noise to our current project due to the number of "fluff" people on our project.  In his opinion, anyone who wasn't spending most of their time on a keyboard (software developer, analysts creating stories, QA) is overhead.

Such people (which list includes me, BTW) have the following negative effects:

  • Communication overhead / Noise - people doing the actual work are often asked by multiple people how something works or why a particular choice was made.
  • Meetings - we can be a source of meetings and other discussions apart from the "noise" above, if only to justify our time on the project.
  • Duplication of effort - this has definitely happened to us.  More than one person steps up to get something done (analysis of a problem, breaking down & estimating a set of stories, etc.) and because we're not all communicating face-to-face, they don't work together on it.
  • Climate of fear - feeling that you have to please a lot of people with different agendas can create a climate of fear, even if most or all of the people involved have good motives.
It was a compelling case, and I don't have any easy answers.  Some worth considering:
  • Make sure all of the "fluff" people are aware of the problems above!  Stating the problem clearly is the most important step in solving it.
  • Reduce the fluff by having some people step out of the project, or by changing their role to something other than a decision-maker.  (For instance, my role could be developer + management bitch for buying hardware & approving access to resources, and I can step out of most of the planning & oversight work.  Hmm... that actually sounds like a lot more fun than what I've been doing.)
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Agile Performance Management: Why Performance Reviews Suck

Many thanks to Mary Poppendieck, who wrote about this topic in 2004, and proposed a comprehensive solution.  She is the inspiration for much of my thinking on this subject.  She is also a better writer than I am a cartoonist.


Performance reviews suck.  I don't know of anyone who goes into their appraisal without some trepidation.  Your boss is guaranteed spring some surprise criticism on you that is ill-informed or misses the point as you see it.  It's a real challenge not to get defensive about that.

The only thing that makes your own performance review suck less is having to give them.  As a manager, I have dished out quite a few, and some of them went pretty badly.  (To the people at my first management job: Thanks for helping me learn how to get better at them.  Your sacrifice was not in vain.)  Since then, receiving one isn't nearly as gut-wrenching, if only because I try to make it easier for the guy on the other side of the desk.  I've been there, and I know how …

Do. Not. Optimize.

You've probably heard this quote before:
Premature optimization is the root of all evil.
 - Tony Hoare
Speculative optimization is always wasted time.  In the absence of an actual performance problem, you're just burning time that could be better spent on refactoring your code to make it clearer.  This is exacerbated because performance-optimized code is usually harder to read than code which hasn't received such treatment.

Here is what you're doing when you optimize:
Adding code that now must be maintained.Obfuscating the existing code.Spending time writing code that doesn't add value. But what's that you say?  You have the experience and know-how to decide when optimization is needed?  Maybe, but probably not.   The people at Sun and Oracle may or may not be smarter than  you or me, but they certainly know more about optimizing Java bytecode than we do.

For example, some people think that having a large number of classes is slower than the alternative.  This …

Showing Off: How to Do a User Demo

Rather than repeating what has been said elsewhere, here is a nice short post on agile-for-all that covers the basics.

Here are a few things for my own future reference and teams that I'm working with...

Try to keep each demo to 5 minutes or less.   If it's longer than that, it's possible that you should be demoing more than one story.  More likely, you're just being too wordy.

TALK LOUDLY.   No, louder than that.  Louder.  Do you feel like you're yelling?  OK, that's about right.  You need to put your voice in public-address mode for 5 minutes.

Focus on why your audience should care about the story  This is particularly important for back-end work.  For example: Your story generates a feed of XML that will be consumed by another application. Show the output, and point to a couple of salient features in it.  Then be done.

The important part of the above is "show the output."  Showing the end users how to interact with your service is a separate sit-d…