Optimize iteration length for feedback

by Rob Galanakis on 4/06/2014

If there is one theme that is weaved through all of Agile’s principles and practices, it is feedback. TDD. Pair programming. Continuous delivery. Stories. Estimation. Reviews. Retrospectives. On-site customers. Feedback comes up against and again. Feedback from code, the team, and users.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I am a big fan of short (one week) iterations. Feedback is why. If your team works in three-week sprints, and mine in one-week sprints, we have three times the feedback. I have three times the opportunities to learn and improve. While you debate whether to try something new in a future sprint, we try it out immediately and evaluate whether it’s working every week, until we accept or reject it. We become three times as good at estimation. We know in a third of the time you do that a solution to a problem works.

Perhaps in some situations one-week is too long. You could try two-day iterations early on with a new project and new team. Or perhaps, on a legacy project, even two weeks is too short and you don’t get enough work done to get good feedback. You can get faster feedback going to three week sprints, rather than having to wait four weeks (two two-week sprints). The point is to optimize for feedback. This means you should prefer shorter sprints, but there can be exceptions.

The benefit of feedback cannot be overemphasized. In a previous post, I said no single aspect of the Toyota Production System is more important than the others. That’s not entirely true. “Continuous Improvement” can bootstrap the other TPS components. You improve through getting feedback. It follows that you should do anything you can to get better and faster feedback.


Should a team be able to abort a sprint?

by Rob Galanakis on 2/06/2014

After my second retrospective on a new project, I unloaded some pretty harsh criticism about what we were building. I felt it was a “solution in search of a problem” and “not high value.” After proposing an alternative and convincing everyone to change direction, our sort-of Product Owner blasted me for not bringing my issues up sooner and basically wasting two weeks of work. I said I had voiced my concerns, but not strongly or formally, because I was focused on getting the sprint work done. My feeling was that it wasn’t constructive to second-guess things in the middle of a sprint, and that I trusted the people who made the decisions. Especially as the new guy on the team, I leaned towards agreement.

We both had a point. As a senior person, I had a responsibility to speak up. As a team members, I had a responsibility to get our work done. I don’t know if I made the right choice in this instance. Perhaps if I argued too loud too early, I wouldn’t have had enough credence for people to believe me, and would have been in a worse spot at the end. Or perhaps I would have saved two weeks or work.

This is one more reason I prefer one-week iterations. A week is too small to break up, so you just go heads down. But you don’t work on the wrong thing for too long. You get two or three times the chances to learn and improve.

1 Comment

There is no essence of Agile

by Rob Galanakis on 30/05/2014

real agile is: talk to the users directly, know their pain point, address it, repeat. -someone on Twitter who I disagree with

In many conversations about Agile, especially as of late, I read something like the above tweet. I don’t know where the idea that Agile can be distilled down into one or two practices or principles comes from. Thinking this way is extremely harmful. If you think like this, I’d love to hear your explanation.

Agile methodologies come out of Lean thinking which comes out of the Toyota Production System (TPS). The TPS is incredible. It mixes explicit practices such as 5S, ideals such as JIT, and principles such as “respect for people” into a unified, harmonious way. TPS is often represented using a house metaphor as in the following image:


The house is an apt metaphor because every single component is structurally vital. “Talking to users” and “addressing pain points” corresponds pretty closely to “customer satisfaction,” which is the roof of the TPS house. The roof is elevated by the walls, which are secured by the foundation. The roof is integral to the function of a house, but no more so than any other component. Customers can only help inform what you produce. If you are unable to produce those things at high quality, speed, and efficiency, and improve over time, then it doesn’t matter how much you talk to customers.

Adding an Andon cord to an assembly line does not make a manufacturer Lean. Being Lean requires a whole set of practices, ideals, and principles working in unison. It can be TPS, or your adaptation, but it requires incredible rigor, skill, and learning, and it’s not simple. Likewise, no single practice, from TDD to iterations to talking to users, creates a well-performing Agile organization.

There are plenty of pseudo-Lean companies, just like there are plenty of pseudo-Agile shops. On the plus side, the damage from Six Sigma Black Belts is far more severe than the Certified Scrum Master racket.

Companies that are Lean are rare, and have been at it for a while. It’s silly that every JIRA jockey thinks they have learned the essence of Agile. Being Agile is difficult, complicated, and takes a while. Let’s not try and distill it down so much that we totally dilute it.


Deploying a C# app through pip

by Rob Galanakis on 28/05/2014

“If we bundle up this C# application inside of a Python package archive we can deploy it through our internal CheeseShop server with very little work.”

That sentence got me a lot of WTF’s and resulted in one of the worst abuses of any system I’ve ever committed.

We had a C# service that would run locally and provide an HTTP REST API for huge amounts of data in our database that was difficult to work with.* However, we had no good way to deploy a C# application, but we needed to get this out to users so people could start building tools against it.
I refused to deploy it by running it out of source control. That is how we used to do stuff and it caused endless problems. I also refused bottlenecks like IT deploying new versions through Software Center.

So in an afternoon, I wrote up a Python package for building the C# app, packaging it into a source distribution, and uploading to our Cheese Shop. The package also had functions for starting the packaged C# executable from the installed distribution. The package then became a requirement like anything else and was added to a requirements.txt file that was installed via pip.

What I initially thought was an unsightly hack ended up being perfect for our needs. In fact it caused us to eliminate a number of excessive future plans we had around distribution. I certainly wouldn’t recommend this “technique” for anything more than early internal distribution, but that’s what we needed and that’s what it did so effectively.

Getting something up and running early was extremely useful. It’s important to walk the line between the “we need to do several weeks of work before you see any result” and “I can hack something together we’re going to regret later,” especially for infrastructure and platform work. If code is well-written, tested, documented, and explained, you shouldn’t have qualms about it going into (internal) production. If the hackiness is hidden from clients, it can be easily removed when the time comes.

* Reworking the data was not an option. Creating this service would have allowed us to eventually rework the data, by providing an abstraction, though.


Adjustable standing desks should be mandatory

by Rob Galanakis on 26/05/2014

At CCP’s Iceland office, everyone’s desk is able to adjust into a sitting or standing position. I don’t know who decided this perk. It must have been a huge expense. Adjustable sit/stand desks are already expensive in the USA, and in Iceland I’m sure they were three to five times more expensive. Until recently I thought it was required by law! This is quite an investment for each worker, but in my opinion, well worth it for a wide variety of reasons, from health to programming. Why?

  • Lots of people want to try a standing desk but don’t want to be “that guy” who asks for an expensive piece of equipment but doesn’t use it. Having an adjustable desk by default removes barriers to entry.
  • Seeing people stand (and talk about how much better it is) becomes viral. I watched it catch on at work over a few years to where everyone in certain areas is doing it. This wouldn’t have been possible without everyone already having adjustable desks.
  • Standing for part of the day completely fixed my sciatica (lower back/hip/butt pain). It also apparently has lots of other health benefits.

Okay, but “health of your workers” is a pretty nebulous concept, and in America, a business’ job is to make money for shareholders, not, like, improve society! Why would Donald Sterling want to buy black employees adjustable desks in addition to cars and houses?

  • It helped me concentrate. I was able to work faster while standing. Standing is time for working. I don’t know if this is universal, but I certainly didn’t see many people playing games or getting lost in a “YouTube hole” (as a friend puts it) while standing.
  • Pair programming and over-the-shoulder reviews were incredibly more effective while standing, even with people of different heights. Standing, I could pair easily with pretty much anyone, from a good friend to an interviewee. I was able to mentor far more effectively since standing felt like such a more natural way to collaborate.
  • Even if you don’t like pair programming (have you tried pairing while standing?), being able to program and edit code collaboratively during a code review is, IMO, a requirement. Standing code reviews were more effective than sitting. More issues got uncovered and more knowledge was transferred.

How do I know all these things? Well, when I transferred to the Atlanta office, I no longer had an adjustable desk (or a sensible healthcare system, but that’s another matter). Suddenly, reviews with people I was very comfortable with and worked with previously felt rushed and unpleasant. They were done while leaning over (“when can I get my crotch out of this other person’s face“), or sitting together (“oh god we keep brushing knees“).

Pair programming, which is the foundation of the way I mentor (and learn), was basically ineffective. No one programs well at an angle to the monitor, and people mistype constantly if the keyboard is not in a natural spot. It’s difficult to share knowledge or equipment in such an awkward situation.

If you want a vibrant and dynamic engineering culture, standing desks are a must. I view them as fundamental to a programming team as decent workstations and SSDs.

Real studies about adjustable desks are difficult to find. This 538 analysis is promising: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/i-stand-corrected-about-the-best-kind-of-desk/. Otherwise, it is very easy to find endless anecdotes about the usefulness of adjustable desks. Start with the 538 article’s comments if you don’t know anyone!


Maya Python Binaries for Windows

by Rob Galanakis on 23/05/2014

I’ve put together a page to link and host all the various Python C extensions compiled for various flavors of Autodesk Maya on Windows: http://www.robg3d.com/maya-windows-binaries/

This is due to Maya using newer VS compilers than Python 2.6/2.7, which uses VS2008. Much more info on the page.

I’ll try and keep this up to date. If you have anything to contribute, please post it somewhere and send me the link (or send the files to me, whatever).

No Comments

The myth of the brilliant jerk

by Rob Galanakis on 21/05/2014

Do not tolerate brilliant jerks. The cost to teamwork is too high. – Reed Hastings, Netflix CEO

So I was all prepared to write about how much I hate this quote, but Freddy Nager already did. It is thorough and insightful and explains how out of context this quote is. Thanks to Freddy for doing a far better job ripping this apart than I did. (It also reminds me the difference between real writers/bloggers and people who just have a blog, like me…) Here’s his conclusion, but I suggest you read the whole thing:

In short, Netflix wants only stars who are passionate and courageous and innovative and always do A-level work while abhorring process and questioning assumptions yet working as a team — otherwise they get fired. Sounds brilliant. And jerky.

Why is the Hastings quote so popular? The Netflix presentation is a really excellent one and full of interesting advice and strong statements. I’d even say the brilliant jerk of corporate culture presentations! Why does this quip about “brilliant jerks” resonate with people so much? Probably because we’ve all run into the “brilliant jerk” and the idea of just firing him or her is so pleasing. It also remains cowardly.

This hits particularly close to home for me because I have seen the mistreatment of far too many brilliant jerks. Brilliant jerks are necessary to grow and innovate. The difficult part is to figure out how they can be brilliant but be less jerky.

Firing brilliant jerks is the absolute worst thing to do for teamwork, or indeed the health of the company as a whole. I could spend more time convincing you, or you could view the Netflix slideshow that spawned the quote!


Results are not the point, followup

by Rob Galanakis on 19/05/2014

In response to a previous post explaining the phrase “Results are not the point“, commenter RenRen Gabás says:

Both approaches have their own place. It’s easy to see why Toyota/Lean works well with manufacturing and operations. Continuous service and operations needs continual improvements. However, there are times when you need to forget all about process and workflow in order to break new ground. I would place breakthroughs in research and product development right in the Danny category.

Unfortunately, history (and logic) shows that Jess (continuous improvement) is still going to out-innovate Danny (gets drunk and makes stuff) and come up with far more breakthroughs.

  • Exhibit A: The Prius (first successful hybrid car) and Lexus (Toyota’s first luxury line) demonstrate that continuous improvement is not limited to operations. These were successes of product development and marketing.
  • Exhibit B: Google, a company filled with innovation, research, products, and big ideas, is also a world leader in analytics and iteration! Who do you think their process most closely resembles?

Do not confuse the stifling bureaucracy of a large company to embody Jess, and the creative chaos of a startup to embody Danny. This is a fallacy. Large companies are more stifling, and startups are more creative. But this is due to intrinsic properties, not continuous improvement.

Another way of saying “results are not the point” is “do not trust your fortune to randomness.” I don’t know anyone who would disagree with that! Yet when we take the Danny approach, that is exactly what we are doing, no matter the nature of what we are working on.

1 Comment

Book done, back to blogging

by Rob Galanakis on 18/05/2014

This morning, I send in my final-est drafts for my book, Practical Maya Programming with Python. This is actually the second time it’s gone to production. The editing process has been, uh, challenging, which resulted in several months of delays.

I’ll post with more information when it’s for sale, but you can pre-order it now!

Anyway, now that the book is out of the way, I can get back to blogging more regularly.


An Unfoolish Consistency: Introducing PEP8 to a legacy codebase

by Rob Galanakis on 25/04/2014

Consistency with this style guide is important. Consistency within a project is more important. Consistency within one module or function is most important.

The EVE source code, being initially developed before PEP8 existed, was based on Microsoft’s C++ style. Mostly this is manifested in UpperCamelCase function and method names, mixedCase parameter and variable names, and file headers and class/method delimiters. There was also a style guide that was probably larger than PEP8 (though included a bit more than basic style).

Today, most new code is PEP8 compliant. “What!?” I hear you say. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds!” I agree, and I’ll get back to that at the end. But first, what was involved in introducing PEP8?

The move started when I asked my team if anyone wanted to keep using the headers and delimiters. No one did. So we took out the headers and delimiters before we did any modifications to a file.

A while later, I asked all the programmers on the project if anyone felt strongly about keeping the existing style. No one did. So we started writing new packages with PEP8. The rationale was that our code was already calling code using lowercase_underscore in the stdlib, so it’d be no different for that same code to call a relatively independent, though still project-related, library.

Yet a while later, I started slipping some PEP8 code into modules or packages that weren’t PEP8. I was worried people would get upset. No one did.

And finally, in preparing some basic utility libraries for usage on other projects, I converted the function and method names to PEP8. This involved find-and-replace or CamelCase aliases. I bet you can guess who cared about these “superfluous” edits, or objected to the fact that parameter and variable names remained mixedCase? No one did.

Emerson’s quote “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” is often used as a reason to not change existing code to PEP8, or introduce it into a non-PEP8 codebase. But the quote means the opposite. Foolish consistency” is being unable to change your mind because it would contradict something you’ve believed or said. So PEP8 has it so right but so wrong: the foolish consistency is to keep things the way they are, even though we know what the right thing to do is.*

* I would recommend introducing PEP8 incrementally. I also suggest keeping things backwards compatible when it is more prudent, such as if the changes are expansive, or you do not control all the code. I also don’t suggest being a stylistic nitpicker when it comes to non-functional aspects such as line length. There may also be times to break the rules (a class that behaves like a function, or function that behaves like a class def). As always, good sense should be applied when considering any viewpoints on this blog.

No Comments