I work in a remote company where email, forums and IM are key communication tools. We don't formally follow any book-methodology but have been evolving towards a more agile-style setup in terms of release schedules, client interaction and a sort of scrum adapted for distributed teams.
We use Jira on one project and I wondered if Greenhopper might be of use. Or, whether it is focused on teams who adhere much more formally to the entire Agile dogma, and would end up getting in the way?
I don't want to get into a discussion on if Agile is good or bad, what it involves, etc... just whether Greenhopper is useful to projects whose methodology is inspired by Agile principles rather than defined by them.
GreenHopper is pretty flexible. I've seen marketing teams, operations teams plus more using the task board to track their work in progress without any real though to 'agile'. Give it a shot and let me know how you get on.
Thanks,
Nicholas Muldoon
GreenHopper Product Manager
I won't comment on Greenhopper, since I don't have recent experience regarding it.
Many tools are designed based on a "pure agile" model. That is, for a single team, working on a single thing for or a single product owner.
However, in my experience the vast majority of real-world organizations – even the very small – have a more complex landscape they need to manage. Often, even a single freelance developer has a load of things to work on: the active project(s), leads for new projects, maintenance of old projects, and so on. And simple tools that have a pure-scrum-one-team-works-on-a-single-thing-at-a-time just won’t cut it…
Agilefant is IMHO, while complient with "the agile dogma", also pretty flexible with respect to how people can be assigned to multiple things. Also, it's quite flexible in terms how different types of work can be modeled into it (that is, there's no need to conduct every project as Sprints, and so on).
DISCLAIMER: I'm Agilefant's product owner.
Related
I have a project with 4 teams handling different parts of a fairly large web based system. What would be the best way of handling this in Jira and Jira Agile?
One project and board per team or is there another way of organizing this in Jira Agile?
Read about using components but since I'm fairly new to Jira Agile I don't know how to do that.
If many team are working on different part of the same system, I suggest you create only one project. From my experience there is a lot of chance you will want to move 'items' from one team to another or link two items that are related but not handle by the same team.
Like previous posts mentioned, GreenHopper is just an (agile) plugin that help you manage items in JIRA, allowing to display and manage them in different ways. The plugins is especially useful if your are following a development process like Scrum.
With the last version of the tools I was able to easily share a single 'backlog' of work to do between multiple teams and then 'assign' items to a specific team when it's time to work on it. When planning for the next Sprint, for example.
Of course having a clear view of your process is key.
I think you are confused about a few things, which is understandable for somebody new to the tool.
Jira is the software you are using and Greenhopper is an external company that produces plugins for it, mainly the Agile plugin. Components are within Jira and they are simply a way you can categorize your issues. I suggest you find a tutorial video on jira to introduce you better to the tool.
Now, again, these are just tools. They don't dictate how you should work. Jira is very flexible that way so you can do Agile, Scrum, Kanban or whatever methodology you want within it.
You need to first decide what methodology/process you will adopt. Basically, how will you guys work?
Are all the teams working in sprints? Do they have the same deadlines? Are the stories-issues parts of a whole or can each team deliver a full feature on it's own?
For example, if one team is infrastructure, one is UI and one is DB, their parts will likely come together to make a "whole" feature, that is complete and tested.
Another example is if team A is doing a Reporting Module and team B is doing a Login module, their features aren't usually related and they can work separately.
So basically, you can't ask anybody here to give you the straight answer. Stop focusing on the tool and understand how you will work and what makes sense for you.
And remember: agile is trial and error. Try something and if it doesn't work, adapt.
We've got an Excel spreadsheet floating around right now (globally) at my company to capture various pieces of information about each countries technology usage. The problem is that it goes out, gets changes, but they're never obvious, and often conflicting - and then we have to smash them together. To me, the workbook is no more than a garbage in/garbage out type application waiting to be written.
In a company that has enough staff and knowledge to dedicate to Enterprise projects, for some reason, agile and language/frameworks such as Rails, Grails, etc. are frowned upon. That said, I can't help but think that this is almost a perfect fit for the need, given the scaffolding features for extremely simple implementations of capturing raw fields with only a couple lookups (i.e. a pre-defined category). I'm thinking this would be considered a very appropriate use of these frameworks.
Has anyone worked on these types of quick and dirty apps before in normally large-scale, heavy-handed enterprise environments with success? Any tips for communicating this need/appropriateness to non-technical management?
The only way to get this implemented in a rigid organization is to get this working and demo it -- without approval. It's very hard for management to say no to a finished project.
I work for a really big company & have written many utility apps based on Rails (as well as contributed to some larger Rails projects). That said, the biggest concern is not the quality of the app, but who's going to support/maintain it when you leave or get hit by the bus.
IMHO, The major fear that an enterprise organization has - especially if the application becomes more critical to it's core business - is how to support it. If it doesn't fit into it's neat little box of supported technologies, it's less likely to happen.
Corporations have been bitten by this many times in the past & are cautious when bringing in new technology.
So, if you can drum up more folks to learn Ruby/Rails in your group (or elsewhere in your company), you may be able to make a good case for it. Otherwise, sad to say, your probably better off implementing something on Sharepoint :-(.
If you already have a Java infrastructure, then creating a Grails app will require little to no additional IT ramp up to support and maintain. The support and maintenance cost and effort should be the same as for a Java application (i.e. Grails apps run on Tomcat, use the same JVM, use the same diagnostic/profiling tools, etc.).
In my experience, larger IT organizations have a harder time supporting Ruby when its not already in the toolchain because its a new language, new deployment environment, and requires a considerable amount of support and maintenance ramp up.
I would develop a minimal viable product, then make friends with someone in IT who can help you deploy it into a staging or production environment. Then get a few of the users to hop on board and test it like its a Beta product. After that, open it up to a larger audience.
So as others have said, forgiveness over permission, but be smart about the impact on the IT organization.
Can you please give a methodology that stands to alleviate the disadvantages of waterfall model?
The problem with Waterfall is that it consists of monolithic stages, each building on the previous stage. So the code is developed in one chunk after the entire system has been designed, which in turn happened after all the requirements have been gathered and signed off.
This is problem because any change has to be ratified by a complex procedure and rippled through all the stages. But the lesson of history is: change happens. The requirements are always incomplete, or mis-specified or simply out-of-date by the time we get to coding. Too often design and build proceed on the basis of assumptions which are nullified when the system gets to UAT. This leads to frantic re-work and slippages.
The truth is not many customers are good at the sort of abstract thinking required to envisage a working software software system. And too many IT professionals lack the experience necessary to understand business logic. Waterfall refuses to accept these truth.
The only honest requirement specification is "I'll know it when I see it". So it is crucial to get working software in front of real users as soon as possible. Any methodology which focuses on delivering working software incrementally in short iterations will "alleviate the disadvantages of waterfall model".
Originally that was RAD or DSDM. Then XP tok up the banner. Now there is Agile and related things like Scrum and Kanban.
So why do people persist with the Waterfall method?
There is a common perception that Agile is just a cover for cowboy hackers to ditch all the boring process stuff and get on with what they enjoy most: writing code. The branding of "Extreme Programming" certainly encourage this thought, and, let's be honest, it is not an unfounded allegation. That is, some coders pretend to be agile as an excuse not to plan, design or document. This does not reflect the actual practice of Agile, which require just as much rigour as any other methodolgy.
Also Agile requires a much greater commitment of time from the customer's staff, which many organizations are loath to accept. Also the people footing the bill may be unwilling to empower their junior staff to make decisions. There is an important distinction between Customer and User.
When it comes to outsourcing the waterfall model provides an easy framework for matching deliverables to staged payments. Indeed the contractual aspect maybe stronger than that: in the EU Waterfall is mandated for all projects valued at EUR 100m or more.
Finally, there are projects where Waterfall works well. These projects have knowledge domains which are stable and well-understood by both the customers and the developers.
last word
Despite its failings Waterfall has delivered many projects successfully. This is because hard work, aptitude and integrity are more important than methodology.
The waterfall model was documented in 1970 by a Dr Winston Royce in a paper titled 'Managing the development of large Software Systems'. Basically outlining his ideas on sequential development. His idea was that software could be produced in a similar fashion to an automobile, where the vehicle is pieced together in sequential/linear phases.
This linear approach doesn't really allow for changes in a piece of software once it begins. There is no tight relationship with the end user/client so its harder to outline possible problem areas.
Its worth noting some phases of the waterfall model allow for 'splashback' whereby there is enough time in the development period to go back and make small changes. Time constraints and the amount of work involved and budgets don't really allow for much change if any to be made using this model.
The waterfall model is old, as time goes by software paradigms themselves change. Object Oriented programming is popular, back then it was barely alive. Through the use of the waterfall model its obvious that the flaws have been spotted and this has lead to the alternative development methodologies.
Ok, so now for alternatives. Incremental model is described by Alistair Cockburn(2008) as a staging and scheduling strategy in which various parts are developed at different times or rates and integrated upon completion of that specific part.
Basically incremental looks a lot like this:
Analysis->Design->Code->Test
Analysis->Design->Code->Test
Analysis->Design->Code->Test
Number of benefits include lifecycle being flexible and allowing for change from the get go.
Working software or rather parts are generated quickly and early on. Code produced is earlier to test and manage due to the small iterations of progress. Not all of the requirements of the system are gathered up front, just an outline. This allows for a quick start, however it might be a disadvantage in some systems as things like the system architecture being supported might be missed.
Iterative on the other hand allows parts of the system to be reworked and revised to improve the system. Time is set aside to allow for this. Iterative does not start with a full specification of requirements. Development is done by specifying and implementing just part of the software. Software is reviewed in order to identify further requirements.This is more of a top down approach. Disadvantages with this methodology are making sure all the iterations are compatible. As each new iteration is approved, developers may employ a technique known as backwards engineering, which is a systematic review and check procedure to make sure each new iteration is compatible with previous ones.A major benefit with the constant iterations is that the client is kept in the loop and the final product should meet the requirements.
Iterative approach diagram.
Other methodologies include Prototyping. Evolutionary and Throwaway. These are also deemed as more of a top down approach. Both process are borrowed from engineering.In engineering it is common to construct scale models of objects to be built. Building models allows the engineer to test certain aspects of the design. The software development prototyping methodology provides the same ideology. Prototyping is not seen as a standalone, complete development methodology but rather an approach to handling selected portions of a larger, more traditional development methodology.
Throwaway Prototyping - Throwaway prototyping does not preserve the prototype that has been developed. In throwaway prototyping there is never any intention to convert the prototype into a working system. Instead the prototype is developed quickly to demonstrate some aspect of a system design that is unclear. It can also be developed to help users or clients decide between different features or interface characteristics. Once any problems or uncertainty has been addressed the prototype can be ‘thrown away’ and the principles learned used in the design and documentation of the actual product.
Evolutionary Prototyping - In Evolutionary prototyping you begin by modeling parts of the target system and if the prototyping process is successful you evolve the rest of the system from those parts. One key aspect of this approach is that the prototype becomes the actual production system. This process allows for difficult parts of the system to be modeled successfully in prototypes and dealt with early on in a project.
Other areas to look into will include Agile-> SCRUM, Extreme programming, Paired programming etc.
Tried to keep it short but people write books on this sort of stuff and there is so much to discuss.
Might be worth having a look at:
Incremental and Iterative
The alternative to the waterfall method is "doing it the correct way".
Waterfall seems to make sense if you are on a factory floor assembly line. But I've never seen it work as part of the design process...and sofware development is ALL a design process. And so the waterfall method never really works in the sense that it doesn't help facilitate the creation of high quality product, but rather focuses on process. Process can be great, but what's the point if the product it produces is second rate?
Kanban and Scrum are two of the most commonly used alternatives to Waterfall. I tried to give a good overview and comparison of the different SDLC approaches.
Waterfall relies heavily on massive monolithic phases as mentioned by APC. This is a huge weak point because trying to determine the end product from the start is a fruitless endeavor.
Kanban is slightly cowboy, but I find if you couple it with standups it certainly still has it's place.
Scrum is great for putting pressure on the team and getting ownership on tickets. I've found most places have been going with this one but the downfall of it is some people go overboard with having meetings for everything. Sprint planning meetings, sprint kickoff meetings, daily standup meetings that last 1 hour with 20+ people present, demo meetings, and then finally the post-mortem.
Remember that agile is only as good as you make it and you can easily sink any methodology if you go wild with unrestrained meetings which aren't adding value. Keep it as lean as you can without it being chaotic.
From the top of my head, I can think of ways to palliate the shortcomings of the waterfall model:
Have the coder concentrate on automating the process itself. Automate the transitions between one step and another, so that changes will flow more or less automatically.
Make the process more bidirectional. One principal characteristic in the waterfall model is that changes flow from top to bottom. This is a unidirectional process, and that is part of the problem.
Another thing which would help is (as someone mentioned in an earlier answer) is for the developer to gain a better understanding of the business logic involved, and of what the customer wants, and for the customer to gain knowledge about the characteristics of the development process.
Here are some links about Waterfall model:
http://www.cs.odu.edu/~zeil/cs451/Lectures/01overview/process2/process2_htsu2.html
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/3-13-2005-67039.asp
I finally was able to complete the installation of TFS and started the creation of my first team project which introduced me to the process template.
After following to the link to Microsoft's site for process template information I was inundated with new information to consider. What templates have all of you had experience with that either worked out very well for you or were more of a stumbling block to the project? What were the biggest advantages and disadvantages you've encountered?
Some information about my project, I'm the lead developer for a small company and will be using TFS/VSTS to create an intranet portal to consolidate the end users day to day and increase automation to enhance productivity etc. It's entirely new development taking advantage of C#, ASP.NET and SQL Server 2008.
Ideally I'd like to take advantage of features to enhance collaboration with the stake holders to help add desired features and to track the status of development and offer feedback etc. I was also looking to take advantage of JetBrain's TeamCity for my TFS so if any specific template / software really adds cohesion between TFS, TeamCity, Developers, and Stakeholders that would be ideally what I'm interested in.
Are you already using a software development process like scrum? If yes you can try this Team Process Template over here.
How large is your project team and the project? Microsoft has published one of it's internal Process Templates (MPT) over here. You can get some guidiance and inspiration from this template.
As tangurena mentioned. People use the standard templates, change the bug a bit and store some documents there. I would recommend to keep the process 'light' as well.
However the process template isn't all.
Here are some ideas what I would do (in your case):
Create some high order workitems (features/stories) which stakeholdes can create (constraints and TFS user groups are your friend). They can then access their requested features via the TFS Work Item Web Access. That way you don't need a CAL for them
Create some reports which show planned work accodring to releases.
Setup the build automation and create Reports (a.k.a. Release Notes) from your workitems according to the builds.
What were the biggest advantages and disadvantages you've encountered?
Imho the biggest disadvantage is that you start believing that the template is your silver bullet. It's not, it's your starting point.
The TFS ecosystem offers you alot opportunities to create own bits of software that fit your needs. Just check out the TFS API.
Here is another nice agile-based template (original is on SSW, but you have to get around a login wall).
This template helps enhance cohesion between developers, managers, and other stakeholders by including more robust support for project process (documentation, reviews, &c., &c.). For example, there are types built in for process elements like release plans.
In general terms, I'd favour as small a process as you can manage. The more states, the more fields you have, the more likely the information in them is just plain wrong.
We're running with our own version on the Agile template. Most of what we did to it was delete stuff.
You can use the TFS API to log builds into the database, which should enable you to bridge TeamCity and TFS. Other than that, I'd probably just go with the web interface that comes with TFS, I don't think you need third party software for this.
K.I.S.S.! I created a custom work item based off the Agile one. And thats it, just one work item. There is a "System Severity" that IT uses and a "Business Priority" that the client/customer uses. There is also a "Request Type". With those three along with the built in Area and Iteration the entire team, including the clients can query the work items to get only the items they care about for the release they are concerned with (or all of them regardless of the release).
I did not modify the state machine much at all. This left us with something that is very flexible for everyone. Everything from blue sky requests to the mundane content/visual bugs can be logged there.
The client uses TFS Web Access (unlimited CAL) and the devs (me and 1 other) use VS. At my last job I created the same setup, the dev team was a team of 5 and it worked even better there! I was dev lead there as well and technical PM.
The biggest advantage was having a very flexible system for everyone, when using 1 work item type for everything. The disadvantage would be a learning curve for the client, but once they knew how to use it most like it. A suggestion would be to look into cheaper tools out there for a similar implementation, but, our .edu discount with MS cant be beat.
I would have to say that you must identify the system you will use for your company's SDLC first. The process template is merely a tool and without a good understanding of the underlying process it will not help and can make things more difficult. User adoption is crucial to the success of the SDLC and process template.
We use Scrum for Team System. We chose this due to our experience with Scrum as an SDLC methodology. There are several excellent books and articles on the web to help you get up to speed. Scrum will tie together the business stakeholders into the process.
In our system the Product Manager is in total charge of Product Backlog Items and works with myself and the CTO to prioritize them into Sprint Backlog Items.
The only change we have made to the process template was to add a "Failed Test" state and corresponding workflow.
It might not be the best template for you but I still wanted to mention it here: XP for Team System. It is basically a simplified version of MSF for Agile Software Development:
[...] it removes some of the setup tasks that an XP project will probably not want to undertake and changes the Work Item Type name Scenario to Story.
My group is moving to Team Foundation Server soon. Actually, I'm heading up the effort.
One of the things you get to decide is which methodology you're using - Agile, CMMI, etc.
Thing is - I have no idea what methodology we use. By which I mean, we're not actively using one. And I'm not familiar enough with Agile or other methods to know which, if any, happen to apply to the way we're doing.
Is there some default methodology? As in, if we go through some very blunt process (get requirements, code, test, push to QA, have QA test, push to production) is there even a name for it?
And as a bonus, with TFS, what is the penalty for picking the wrong one at the outset? How hard is it to switch gears later if we decide to go Agile or something?
There's no major penalty for switching methodoligies - you just pick a default one when you install, and you can choose the one you'll use for any given project. In fact, it only has to do with how TFS configures the Sharepoint project page initially - you can add whatever you want to your page once it's created, so if you decide to change a project's methodology, it's not difficult to do.
For the two that TFS gives out of the box (Agile and SCCM/Waterfall), it really a question of your process - do you release "early and often", with smaller packages releases as bugs come in, or do you run your projects in large iterations, with a release much more infrequently, but with obvious milestone releases?
A question to ask (though not exactly accurate, but always helps me): Does the product have version numbers that will be meaningful to the end users? For example, many websites are Agile, as they're constantly releasing improvements and patches, and don't often have huge improvement/overhauls, whereas a product like MS Office has a meaningful version number (2003, 2007, etc), which is more likely SCCM.
If you don't have a stated methodology, it's a great time to develop one - decide which release cycle makes sense to you, create a project in each and review what TFS sets up for you automatically - do the progress indicators and Sharepoint pages make sense? Is there anything obvious missing?
If you can't discern a methodology, then you are using an ad-hoc methodology. It may be similar to an existing methodology (by accident). Note however that following a methodology is not the same as being successful. I have seen plenty of methodology heavy projects that failed, and plenty of "seat of the pants" projects be resounding successes (if perhaps in need of a bit of refactoring when the dust settled).
Changing methodologies depends on your culture more than anything. Institutions tend to resist change, and do some individuals. However, it is again situation dependent: if the existing situation is obviously broken, an institution can sometimes make snap changes that surprise everyone.
Some methodologies are "heavier" than others: those are harder to change to or from. Even Test Driven Development is "heavy" in that adopting it after the fact will mean adding a lot of tests to old code. Most real world transitions simply add the testing as files are edited for other reasons. Likewise, moving from TDD to some waterfall style would require a lot of code to be documented in large disused binders.
The most basic method tends to be your iterative or "waterfall method" because you just go from step to step to step. It doesn't seem to be very popular anymore, though.