Slashdot Log In
Good Agile — Development Without Deadlines
Posted by
kdawson
on Thu Sep 28, 2006 07:55 AM
from the crushed-in-a-scrum dept.
from the crushed-in-a-scrum dept.
BigTom writes, "In a recent blog entry Steve Yegge, a developer at Google, writes a fascinating account of life at possibly the coolest development organization in the world. Steve lays out
some of the software development practices that make Google work. Go on, say you are not even a little bit jealous. ;-)" From the article:
- Developers can switch teams and/or projects any time they want, no questions asked; just say the word and the movers will show up the next day to put you in your new office with your new team.
- There aren't very many meetings. I'd say an average developer attends perhaps 3 meetings a week.
- Google has a philosophy of not ever telling developers what to work on, and they take it pretty seriously.
- Google tends not to pre-announce. They really do understand that you can't rush good cooking, you can't rush babies out, and you can't rush software development.
Related Stories
[+]
Slashback: ICANN, OLPC, Agile, Yahoo, BayStar 84 comments
Slashback tonight brings some clarifications and updates to previous Slashdot stories, including: Spamhaus case tests ICANN; Getting your own OLPC (CM1) computer; Followup Agile commentary from Steve Yegge; Yahoo's time capsule permit revoked by Mexico; and Microsoft denies BayStar connection. Read on for details.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
3 meetings a week! (Score:5, Insightful)
Where I work, we have an average of about 1. and sonme of us think that that's too many
Re:3 meetings a week! (Score:4, Insightful)
In most places I've worked it's been no more than once per two weeks for the prorgrammers. The buisiness side of things has more, but hey, that's what business people are payed for, to sit around and talk while others do the work.
Ok, the business side fo things does do work, but the programmers shouldn't have to go to meetings like that. Their meetings are more like the occasional team huddle to verify that they are working on the right path - 5 minutes, quick, and to the point
Parent
Re:3 meetings a week! (Score:4, Interesting)
I can teleconference in and get real work done at the same time.
I've been on those sorts of teleconferences. I think the key is to mute your speaker phone and listen only for your name in the conversation - you'll get tons of real work done that way.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Switching teams? Right, and that makes agile development work. Sure. Of course, I have found out that what agile deveolpment REALLY does is push MORE work onto your DBA and tech support teams, in order to "reduce" the work of the development
Re:3 meetings a week! (Score:4, Funny)
I think it explains why much of Google's stuff is currently in beta.
Parent
Re:3 meetings a week! (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering how often Google puts up new features on their site, apparently it works pretty good for them.
Regarding the number of meetings, I only have one formal meeting a week, but can spend several hours a week with a couple other guys talking over the specifics of whatever we're working on. Could be considered "meetings", even though they don't involve sitting around a table and going through an agenda.
Parent
Re:3 meetings a week! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a direct by product of the type of person that google hires. They look for the really smart self motivated type. This is the same type of person that writes OSS (and no one tells them what to work on and there are surprisingly quite a few OSS projects in various stages of completion). Your comment also ignores the fact that no projects are ever really finished.
Googles method is a good one, and it works for them. I do think the author missed one of the huge reasons that it works - googles hiring practices.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, I agree that it's all about its hiring practices. The talented and self-motivated person is a rare and special thing to find and hire. The Google Agile practices would never work at any company I've ever worked at because most of the engineers (yes, most) at those companies would end up day-trading, playing Quake, or gambling online (or even, *gasp*, posting re
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. To take a sports example, look at the West Coast offense in American football. Sure it worked great for San Francisco in the 80's. They had Montana, Rice, Craig, and a stout offensive line. Just about any offensive scheme would've worked for them. For the Lions, West Coast Offense never did work out quite right when the Mooch went there. They utterly lack the personnel. Google is picking up the personnel who will thrive in th
Re:3 meetings a week! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:3 meetings a week! (Score:4, Insightful)
One is just a weekly status update with your team lead, which seems fine.
The other two, I'd wager, are probably pretty short, unstructured coordination sessions. Making sure everyone's on the right page, person to person. Also, perfectly fine.
Meetings aren't necessarily a bad thing; it's the completely worthless, unproductive types that you need to watch out for.
Parent
Must be nice in Candyland (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, it's a very interesting example to consider. Within the coming months I'll be forming a new application development group, and the mechanisms of determining what we'll be working on and how it will be prioritized are TBD. Good food for thought, here...
Sure, The Policy Is Dazzlingly Brilliant *NOW* (Score:3, Funny)
Check back in five years, there's some kind of upheaval in Middle-Central-Lower Slobovia, the Market tanks, Sergey's enmeshed in a sex scandal with an Israeli weight-lifter, shareholders revolt,
Re:Sure, The Policy Is Dazzlingly Brilliant *NOW* (Score:5, Insightful)
Google's making money. Actual real profits. You must be thinking of YouTube or something.
During the 90's, the companies that were being touted as being run by genius management were pretty much not doing anything but helping the manufacturers of $800 office chairs get rich.
Parent
Re:Sure, The Policy Is Dazzlingly Brilliant *NOW* (Score:5, Insightful)
That's one sign they have a clue what they're doing.
Parent
besides search/adds? (Score:5, Interesting)
As you mentioned, with their huge amount of capital, they can afford highly in-efficient project management. I pity the fool who tries to introduce this management style into a smaller organization with budgetary concerns and uncontrollable deadlines. Not that I wouldn't mind working in their environment one bit. Either as a coder, or as a PM.
-Rick
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Google gave us a better search engine and some derivative web 2.0 apps.
Now we know why all the software is Beta (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Now we know why all the software is Beta (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Now we know why all the software is Beta (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Not true (Score:5, Interesting)
I work for Google and I can tell you right now that is total horse shit. Google are not so different than my previous employers, Oracle and Microsoft.
If anything, working in Google is worse than Oracle/Microsoft due to the people I work with (brainwashed losers.) They are the type of people who want to join a cult.
Re:Not true (Score:5, Insightful)
I worked for Microsoft myself and I'm at Google now. There's a whole lot of brainwashing going on here at the miracle company. Yes, the benefits package is pretty good, and yes the work per se is pretty cool. But all the marketing hype that makes working here sound like working in heaven is so much inflated. Coincidentally enough, I'm planning on going to Oracle in the coming months -- there are a couple cool positions open in the group where a friend of mine works. Don't get me wrong, Google is cool, but nowhere near as cool as it's portrayed, especially here on Slashdot.
Parent
Sure, can I take your place! (Score:3, Funny)
Agile has a place too (Score:5, Insightful)
Google can do this, and pretty much any company that can set its own time-table can use "Google Agile" methods. But you're limited to just those products where a delay of a few weeks or months isn't a major issue. It's simply not true for every type of software developer out there.
Maybe "Agile" methods aren't the absolute best out there, but there are cases where it's simply not possible to use "Google Agile" methods.
Okay, sure (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, that sounds wonderful, as long as:
- you're working with intelligent, competent, creative people
- you have an effectively unlimited budget(relative to most other companies)
- you're working for a software-only company which is only successful because of its innovation, not because it has to deliver specific functionality to specific clients
How many of us can say that? Hmm?
It sounds like a dream job, but let's face it: it relies on individual heroics, from everyone, all the time. Now that's fine if everyone working there is far above average, and "individual heroics" means "enough intelligence and maturity to keep a view of the big picture without being whipped with a rolled-up Gantt chart", but it's a recipe for disaster in most other places.
Is this the emerging ivory tower of Google developers? While I'm happy for the guy, most of the blog sounds like "look at me, I'm developing under near-ideal conditions, why isn't everyone else?"
Google tends not to pre-announce (Score:4, Insightful)
Test (Score:3, Insightful)
Developers can switch teams and/or projects any time they want, no questions asked; just say the word and the movers will show up the next day to put you in your new office with your new team.
Having developers on a merry-go-round between projects is probably a good reason why their products never make it past the Beta stage (which is terrible).
There aren't very many meetings. I'd say an average developer attends perhaps 3 meetings a week.
One meeting a week should be sufficient. Three meetings a week spells inefficiency and poor process.
there aren't Gantt charts or date-task-owner spreadsheets or any other visible project-management artifacts in evidence, not that I've ever seen.
Okay, so now we're advocating against the use of project management techniques? Let's piss in the wind and hope it lands where we intended?
even during the relatively rare crunch periods, people still go get lunch and dinner, which are (famously) always free and tasty, and they don't work insane hours unless they want to.
There is tasty food everywhere in this world. Why does it need to be constantly emphasized that Google has tasty food? Google is a software company, not a restaurant. And secondly, the author makes it seem that in crunch periods, companies other than Google do not allow their employees to have lunch and dinner. I somehow suspect (legally, personally, ethically, etc.) that is not the case. Are the employees of EA starving during their crunch periods? :)
The point here is that Agile Development is a good model if its used properly. Using Google as an example to demonstrate how Agile is good, however, is a mistake. Subscribing to Google's use of Agile is a recipe for disaster.
Re:Test (Score:4, Funny)
Considering they don't get paid, probably.
Parent
The PHB response? (Score:5, Insightful)
But the PHBs will cherry-pick those aspects of Google's business that suits their preconceived comforts. Remember when we were all supposed to be like the Japanese? Show up for work, sing the company song, use just in time, statistical process control and all the other stuff? Yea, we were just like the Japanese, except for that pesky lifetime employment understanding. We'll just leave that one out - it really isn't important.
Don't criticise (Score:5, Insightful)
- Google is a company whose success is almost entirely based on innovation
- Innovation comes from intelligent, well-motivated people
- The best way to motivate intelligent people to innovate is to give them total freedom (rewards are just to give them a direction, NOT to motivate them - they are motivated because they love what they do. Try offering rewards for something they don't want to do, and see what happens...)
- Most companies (even software companies) make the majority of their money through churning out the goods, not innovating - Most companies do not have the funds or the original culture to even contemplate the above working practices
- It would be lovely to work for Google.
Personally I'm really glad this article got posted - it's not telling everyone how everyone should work, but it does offer insight into how Google works, and that's valuable insight indeed as long as it's not taken out of context.
Just keeping the talent happy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Google develops a large amount of its content in house in much the same way old movie studios developed all their films in house. For Google, the talent is not actors and directors but developers. Movie studios learned that you treat the talent well to keep them around and Google has taken that lesson to heart. Developers tend to want complete freedom to work on what they want with no deadlines and giving them this is the easiest way to keep them happy. Call it 'good agile development' or whatever else you want, it's really just keeping the talent happy in the hopes that they'll keep developing content to attract users.
Unfortunately, software companies that rely on software or service sales for revenue cannot take this extreme approach to agile development. They need to deliver software on occasion or someone else will replace them in the marketplace. Agile development is still the best way to go, but unbounded development only works if software isn't your primary source of revenue.
-Chris
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They actually have so much cash in outside investments that the SEC is considering regulating them as a mutual fund.
same conclusions (Score:4, Insightful)
Of-course not everyone can afford the same culture as Google, simply because not everyone has access to the same funds.
the strategy... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's clear, good people in good mood, that's the best way to give incentives to your peers. second...
that is, killing the pressure in a smart way, and third....
that is, the respect of your peers is a KEY here, as a consequence that keeps things calm....
3 meetings a week? (Score:4, Insightful)
Google's getting too big.
Reward vs. Entitlement (Score:5, Insightful)
What is interesting, however, is the way similar "perks" are perceived as rewards at Google. If you feel that perks are rightfully yours and must not be sacrificed even in the face of company financial difficulties (feeling "entitled"), then it's hard to make your brain justify working hard for your keep (or harder during particularly difficult times). Whereas if you are working on something for which you have genuine motivations AND have rewards to aim for, then the management has two aces in their deck: An employee's internal motivation (which can be invaluable), and external positive reinforcements. These two characteristics contribute directly to the health of the company both in its balance sheets and in its corporate culture, and that is A Good Thing.
Looking back, it wasn't the exuberance of the Bubble that destroyed it, because the way Google works can seem to be quite exuberant to some code monkey at Chrysler. It was the way that management could not decide (a) how to set business goals, and (b) how to manage its employees. When management forgets how to manage and employees forget how to work, you have a problem on your hands (see the sad saga that was Daikatana).
My company is better (Score:5, Funny)
We're not making any money yet, but it's only a matter of time! (Fingers crossed!)
It's must be all about HR (Score:5, Insightful)
you can't rush good cooking (Score:3, Insightful)
Many dishes are best when done quickly and often at high heat. Think of fajitas, calamari, tuna steaks, shrimp, stir-fry, and the list goes on. Likewise, leave your steak, burgers, chicken, veggies on the grill for 3 hours (hey, you can't rush good cooking right?) and you'll have charcoal.
There is a balance in all things. Cooking and software are no exceptions.
Google has a great setup for the business they're in. The company I'm at doesn't have the luxury of doing whatever we please. Our customers depend on us to deliver certain things on time. We like to think that we do have a core group who get to work on some "fun stuff" that doesn't have a fixed timeline (though we like to at least know what year we might get it out). I think Google can do things they way they are due to a LOT of cash on hand combined with the fact that they're really trying to find cool ways to attract people to their ads and attract ad buyers to their cool products.
Re:you can't rush good cooking (Score:5, Insightful)
Yous till can't rush a stirfry
Its not rushed if its done in the right amount of time, even if that amount of time is short relative to other foods.
Parent
Herding cats (Score:5, Insightful)
My observation has been, if you are trying to herd cats you are using the wrong management technique.
You herd cattle, not cats.
With cats you put them in the general area of mice and let them do what they are good at. Cattle you herd to the slaughter house.
Most software projects fail due to poor management, then managers don't understand it is not an industrial activity. Most are still managing from that perspective. Software is more like R&D and in reading the description of Google it sounds like they have built a good R&D environment.
I havent't tried XP, but if it gets us away from the rigid factory model of development, more power to it.
OK, so the rules aren't too explicit (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider the government as an extreme counter-example.
The word TFA fails to use: leadership.
Someone who knew something of the subject, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Stockdale [wikipedia.org] described five roles for a leader:
- moralist
- jurist
- philosopher
- steward
- teacher
Note the lack of "programs, process, policy, procedure, and paperwork" in the list.While Google may let people shift teams at will, I would be unsurprised to discover that shifts are infrequent.
Furthermore, by the time people start to abuse the culture, I would be unsurprised to discover that the culture ushes them to the door.
Have any of the major headz they've hired actually departed the big G?
News Flash: Egotist threatened by teamwork (Score:4, Insightful)
Even the much maligned (indirectly) Kent Beck went back and wrote version 2 and relaxed from the strict rosary of the 4 values and the 12 practices to a more organic view of values (still all required, up to 5 with "Respect" added) and practices (try 'em, but use what you need). The spirit of Agile is more about "Listening, Testing, Coding, Designing. That's all there is to software. Anyone who tells you different is selling something.". Keep in mind, that phrase gets pulled like a gun when somebody tries to build up big seminars. I'm not saying people aren't making money off the Agile name, but it's flat out wrong to think it's a snake-oil sales system. Anyone with an Agile community around them can get in touch and talk face to face with practicioners (we're a friendly buch, honest;). All it will cost is the time, the gas, and perhaps a cup of coffee.
Google may be small 'a' agile, but it seems it can only afford to do so because it has a cash cow and technologists at the helm. The grad school/hippy commune the author describes can't exist in the smog of capitalism unless it can be hidden away somwhere because some moron with a bigger paychack is always saying "at the end of the day, we gotta do somethin'". In the rest of the corporate world Agile tools and practices not only gives the dev team a chance of "doin' somethin'".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It sounds more like "have as many / few meetings as it takes to do the job."
At different points in a project, you need more meetings than at other points (and different types of meetings).
And yes, I'm jealous, darnit! I've been in places where there is a meeting every day, and nothing gets done (except preparing for meetings), and where there are NO meetings every week, and nothing (at least nothing on target) gets done. Both suck.
Re:No Wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
In reality most software is either continously developed or it dies. I've worked on numerous software projects and few if any have ever reached a point where no more work was required. Even if you found and fixed every bug (haha), feature requests will continue to come in as people use the software. As soon as bugs/feature request quit coming in most software is essientially dead b/c that means people have quit using it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)