· Seat them closer together to reduce communications cost.
· Improve their amicability and teamwork.
· Replace some of the people on the team with more talented (and more highly paid) people.
Repeating the strategy over time, the manager will keep finding better and better people who work better and better together.
Notice that in the second scenario, the communications load stays the same, while the team becomes more productive. The organization can afford to pay the people more for their increased contribution. It can, in fact, afford to double their salaries, considering that these 10 are replacing 20! This makes sense. If the pay is good, bureaucratic burden is low, and team members are proud of their output, they will enjoy the place and stay, which is exactly what the organization wants them to do.
Consequence 4. Different methodologies are needed for different projects.
Figure 4-21 shows one way to examine projects to select an appropriate methodology. The attraction of using grid in this figure is that it works from fairly objective indices:
· The number of people being coordinated
· The system criticality
· The project priorities
You can walk into a project work area, count the people being coordinated, and ask for the system criticality and project priorities.
In the figure, the lettering in each box indicates the project characteristics. A "C6" project is one that has six people and may cause loss of comfort; a "D20" project is one that has 20 people and may cause the loss of discretionary monies.
Figure 4-21. Characterizing projects by communication load, criticality, and priorities.
In using this grid, you should recognize several things:
• Communication load rises with the number of people. At certain points, it becomes incorrect to run the project in the same way: Six people can work in a room, 20 in close proximity, 40 on a floor, 100 in a building. The coordination mechanisms for the smaller-sized project no longer fit the larger-sized project.
• A project potentially causing companies to go out of business or causing loss of life need more careful checking than systems only causing loss of comfort or discretionary monies.
• Projects that are prioritized with legal liability concerns will need more care and tracking in the work.
Here is how I once used the grid: Changing Grid Cells Mid-Project The banking project I was asked to coordinate at the Central Bank of Norway started as a three-person effort, using the same three people who had done the previous system. I characterized it as a D6 type of project,and planned to more or less just trust the programmers to do a good job. After a month or so, though, it became clear that we were coordinating large amounts of money and that we should perhaps be more careful about the mistakes we let slip. I moved the project rating to E6, and we spent a week
or two fixing the design with respect to fault tolerance, recovery, and race conditions. After the architect and lead programmer went on paternity leave, we got two new programmers and two testers. At this point, we had seven people, two in Lillehammer, two on the first floor, and one each on the second, third, and fourth floors in Oslo (remember the cost of communicating across floors?). It turned out that this system was actually being developed by two companies, and our team was coordinating its work with a group of 35 developers at a different location in Oslo who were using a different (waterfall) methodology. It was at this moment that the grid came in handy. I reclassified our project as an E20 project (some mix of the number of people and the geographic dispersion). Paying attention to the methodology principles, I did not add more paperwork to the project but stepped up personal communications, using phone calls and the video link, and increased personal study of the issues affecting the outcome of the project.
The grid characteristics can be used in reverse to help discuss the range of projects for which a particular methodology is applicable.
This is what I do with the Crystal methodology family in Chapter 6. I construct one methodology that might be suitable for projects in the D6 category (Crystal Clear), another that might be suitable for projects in the D20 range (Crystal Yellow), another for D40 category projects (Crystal Orange), and so on. Looking at methodologies in this way, you would say that Extreme Programming is suited for projects in the C4 to E14 categories.
Consequence 5. Lighter methodologies are better, until they run out of steam.
What we should be learning is that a small team with a light methodology can sometimes solve the same problem as a larger team with a heavier methodology. From a project cost point of view, as long as the problem can be solved with ten people in a room, that will be more effective than adding more people.
At some point, though, even the ten best people in the world won't be able to deliver the needed solution in time, and then the team size must jump drastically. At that point, the methodology size will have to jump also (Figure 4-20).
Figure 4-20. Small methodologies are good but run out of steam.
There is no escaping the fact that larger projects require heavier methodologies. What you can escape, though, is using a heavy methodology on a small project. What you can work towards is keeping the methodology as light and nimble as possible for the particular project and team.
"Agile" is a reasonable goal, as long as you recognize that a large-team agile methodology is heavier than a small-team agile methodology.
Consequence 6. Methodologies should be stretched to fit.
Look for the lightest, most "face-to-face" centric methodology that will work for the project. Then stretch the methodology. Jim Highsmith summarizes this with the phrase, "A little less than enough is better than a little more than enough."
A manager of a project with 50 people and the potential for "expensive" damage has two choices: · He can choose a larger-category methodology (say, E100) and remove the excess weight from it. This is attractive to some managers, because it gives them bragging rights: "Yeah, we had to use an E100 methodology for our project!" However, it is unlikely that the team will remove as much as it can, and so the project will go slower and be more expensive than it needs to be. · He should choose a smaller-categorymethodology (say, D40) and adapt it up to the project. Although this gives him fewer bragging rights, the team is likely to add fewer irrelevant items to the methodology, and as a consequence, the project is more likely to go faster and be less expensive.
XP was first used on D8 types of projects. Over time, people found ways to make it work successfully for more and more people. As a result, I now rate it for E14 projects.
More Principles
We should be able to uncover other principles.
One of the more interesting candidates I recently encountered is the "real options evaluation" model (Sullivan 1999).
In considering the use of financial options theory in software development, Sullivan and his colleagues highlight the "value of information" against the "value of flexibility" (VOI against VOF).
Value of information (VOI) deals with the choice: "Pay to learn, or don't pay if you think you know." The concept of VOI applies to situations in which it is possible to discover information earlier by paying more.
An application of the VOI concept is deciding which prototypes to build on a project.
Value of flexibility (VOF) deals with the choice: "Pay to not have to decide or don't pay, either because you are sure enough the decision is right, or because the cost of changing your decision later is low." The concept of VOF applies to situations in which it is not possible to discover information earlier.
An application of the VOF concept is deciding how to deal with competing (potential) standards, such as COM versus CORBA.
A second application, which they discuss in their article, is evaluating the use of a spiral development process. They say that using spiral development is a way of betting on a favorable future. If conditions development as a resource-limited cooperative game. improve at the end of the first iteration, the project They may provide guidance to some process designer continues. If the conditions worsen, the project can and yield a new principle for designing be dropped at a controlled cost. methodologies.
I haven't yet seen these concepts tried explicitly, but they certainly fit well with the notion of software
Extreme Programming (XP) is an agile methodology that illustrates the ideas in this book very well. Additionally, it is effective, well documented, and controversial. Thus, it makes a wonderful sample methodology to examine. At this point, we finally have enough vocabulary to put it under the methodology microscope.
The short story is that XP scores very high within its area of applicability. It (like all others) needs to be adjusted when applied outside its sweet spot.
XP in a Nutshell
The briefest of reviews of XP is in order, although much has been written about it elsewhere (Beck 1999, Jeffries 2000, XP URL).
Following is a summary, as brief as it would be if given as instructions over the phone or e-mail:
Use only 3-10 programmers. Arrange for one or several customers to be on site to provide ongoing expertise. Everyone works in one room or adjacent rooms, preferably with the workstations clustered, monitors facing outwards in a circle, half as many workstations as programmers.