Agile Software Development with Scrum 168
| Agile Software Development with Scrum | |
| author | Ken Schwaber and Mike Beedle |
| pages | 158 |
| publisher | Prentice Hall |
| rating | 9/10 |
| reviewer | bADlOGIN |
| ISBN | 0130676349 |
| summary | This book could be viewed as the Why component to all of Extreme Programming's Hows. It explains managing software development as an empirical process. |
What it's all about:
Books that claim to hold the keys to developing software the right way are most often: a) a dime a dozen, b) self-serving vendor drivel, or c) all of the above. While this book is fairly new on the shelf (Copyright October 2001), it has a level of research, professionalism, and effort towards being tool- and language-agnostic that may place it in a fourth category of being: d) none of the above. Agile Software Development with Scrum is a complete picture of the Scrum process from theory to practice in real life examples. The name Scrum was chosen because the process is similar in nature to rugby play where success is built upon being quick, adaptive, and self-organizing. The target audience for the book is "executives, software managers, project leaders, and programmers." While the authors make no assumptions directly, being familiar with Extreme Programming, "classic" waterfall methodology, and having hands-on experience with the chaos of software development is indeed helpful.
The primary theme of the book is simple, but the impact is profound: software development is an empirical rather than a defined process. That's a nice big sweeping claim to make: fortunately, the authors spends a lot of time making sure that you as the reader understand what they mean by the statement and that they're serious about it. Comparisons to other empirical processes are illustrated with examples of changing, complex problems. The authors seek out and provide unique insights from process dynamics experts on the nature of empirical versus defined processes, and cite profound supporting work regarding the limitations of algorithms in complex systems with external inputs (e.g. Wegner's Lemma).
Along with a good dose of theory, there is a generous helping of practice and how-to. Agile Software Development with Scrum covers the basic practices and concepts needed to manage software development in an empirical fashion. The authors do a good job of addressing the classic "but what about..." questions on the spot in a conversational manner and include anecdotes throughout to make specific points and include full process examples towards the end.
What's good about the book?
Scrum is the missing "why" to Extreme Programming's "how." By it's nature, Extreme Programming incorporates all of Scrum's spirit, and vice versa. This book has a foundation of ideas and an explanation of what it takes to seriously improve the state of the practice of software engineering. The order is reasonable, and the depth of information should give any determined individual the ammo they need to make a change in how software is developed in their current job or their next.
What could have been better?
There are only three things worth mentioning for improvement, all of which could be easily done. First, there were occasional typographical and formatting errors -- places where indentation, capitalization, or bullets were missing broke the flow. Second, the graphics in more than one section were blocky, low resolution circa 1987. And last, the $30.95 list price was a bit steep for 158 pages. It should be noted that the typographical and graphics issues were the only thing that prevented me from rating this 10 out of 10.
Summary
In my opinion, this book has been needed for a long time. The issues and failures of defined processes such as the "classic" waterfall methodology can't be set aside until there is an approach that can justify itself both in theory and in practice to replace it. Extreme Programming has gained much attention, but tends to depend too much on the fact that "it works because it works." Scrum gives you a way to fix your development efforts without as much culture shock or risk. It's worth considering implementing before your competition does.
You can purchase Agile Software Development with Scrum from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
sounds interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
Scrum? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not a secret, why business-driven software development so often turns to be a such a mess. The demanding part (management, customers) is just plain stupid. No, sorry, bone-headed whould be a better term.
Methodologies (Score:3, Insightful)
For the life of me (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not try to take a look at some of the long time methods used by engineering industries to see how they go about designing bridges and cars and stuff like? Do you think that GM people stand around and talk about Extreme Engineering for their engineers who design high tech engines?
Re:lack of promotion, or lack of substance? (Score:5, Insightful)
When you are learning principles, a year is nothing. Lemme see, your gcc book might be old in a year or two, but your algorithms book from ten years ago is still very useful.
Same thing here, books about development methodologies never age (refer to The Mythical Man-Month, rightfully, still required CS reading).
If you think a year is too old for principles, then you follow fads too much.
Re:sounds interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
In that case, no development methodology will work. The best methodology to follow is to send the team (non)member home.
Master the Tao, all else will follow (Score:5, Insightful)
They have discovered that the Tao [canonical.org] is the heart of all programming.
Hark, the master speaks:
Learning what Scrum is and how to practice it is not all that profound. However, sitting back and realizing why Scrum works and how it addresses the fundamental flaws of the last 20 years of software engineering is.
Once you obtain that realization, you will have truly mastered the Tao.
People way more significant that methodology (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, I believe that people are so significant that they make the use or otherwise of any particular "methodology" an irrelevant ingredient in determining the outcome of a project.
Good coders will produce good results with or without methodology.
Average / below average coders will produce average or below average results with or without methodology.
Trouble is, it is impossible to test this theory experimentally; you just have to believe it
I think.
Re:For the life of me (Score:5, Insightful)
I live in Boston, home of the Big Dig. Right now is not the best time to impress me with construction as a model for controllable effective on-time on-budget engineering of large-scale projects.
In fact, we get to hear this a lot as software engineers "Look at construction! They got it right!" Well, of all big construction projects I remember (Betuwe tunnels in the Netherlands, Stopera in Amsterdam, Big Dig in Boston) went into time and costs overruns, often by 100 to 400% on either variable.
And then there is my bathroom which I had remodelled a year ago, and the stories of my hoemwoner friends who did the same. On time? On budget? Don't make me laugh. Go do the rounds among people who have had remodelling done: horror story after horror story. Construction people were like software engineers in the dot-com boom: flooded with offers, so they would overbook and the customer who complained loudest would get his project done. Many sub-teams (projects, tilers) did and do not communicate, project leads are at the mercy of the scheduling of the sub-contractors, the quality os not standardised at all but incredibly variable so you have to get "lucky" with who has a slot free to do the work on your project, many of the people are overworked or "self-medicated" to deal with their stress and the conditions of labor.
I bought the whole "Look at construction!" mantra, and then I actually looked at how construction was done. These guys wing it as much as we do for the small projects, and when they can't wing it for the big ones, major shit happens like on our projects. And the old COBOL software is still running after 40 years and will keep running as long as the environment doesn't change, just like bridges stay up for decades as long as the environment doesn't radically change.
Do you think that GM people stand around and talk about Extreme Engineering for their engineers who design high tech engines?
Actually, yes, these people are constantly re-evaluating their process because their time-to-market requirements are constantly getting tighter and tighter. Just read Business Week for six months and follow the changes in the auto industry through their articles: they are all about faster, faster, and listen-to-the-customer constant process-reengineering, with CEO ans design heads being hired and fired depending on how well they can make theri human- and machine-assembly-lines line up and fire.
No Silver Bullet (Score:1, Insightful)
perhaps a better book (Score:2, Insightful)
In most cases, it is better to not hire bodies. In all the cases I've seen first hand, it results it delays and problems. Not only are the good programmers bogged down with stupid questions, but they end up spending time fixing other's code. The end result is the same programmer is less productive. There really should be a book that teaches programmers how to negotiate with management and how to work with HR. I've had to learn that the hard way.
Re:People way more significant that methodology (Score:5, Insightful)
Programmers who recently are introduced to patterns are amusing to watch. They see the patterns, and try to apply them to the problem. But the correct solution to a problem will naturally imply some sort of pattern. Pattern books are useful only in adding to a programmers experience. Here is a problem. Here is a good solution. But don't try to apply our solution to your problem, as your problem will always be a bit different.
Another way to state: People who are good at brain-teasers are usually good at figuring out problems in real life. But rarely do the brain teasers mirror real life.
The other key to success is some good management. Good programmers can get by with mediocre management. But even a team of crack developers will fail with bad management. When you go into a job, always make sure the management is strong. Otherwise you may just be wasting a few months or years of your life.
Re:"How" eXtrEmE pRogrAMming destroyed my project (Score:2, Insightful)
It is not a wonder why you have faild and I'm pretty sure it is not XP's fault.
If you use XP in a hit-and-run fashion you'll get hit, and management will dive off, leaving you to blame XP.
Re:Master the Tao, all else will follow (Score:5, Insightful)
Programming is still an ART, not a science.
When you hire a coder it's like hiring a poet. You never know what you'll get and everyone wants the other guy to have paid for the coder's learning experiences.
This is hunting and gathering. We haven't hit agriculture in the geek business yet.
Re:For the life of me (Score:5, Insightful)
In the Mythical Man Month, Fred Brooks identifies the "essential difficulties" of software development as complexity, conformity, changeability, and invisibility. I'll explain each of these terms.
Re:"How" eXtrEmE pRogrAMming destroyed my project (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyways, XP doesn't work.
Data is not the plural of anecdote.
There is no holy grail for development (Score:4, Insightful)
Every small IT shop i've been at does this (Score:2, Insightful)
Great! (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder how far this will fly with nazi project managers. They are fairly attached to their ass-backward "methodologies", you know.
Seriously, for the record, I agree with the statement above. But this type of thing simply does not work in most IT shops. I have no problem with some sort of control over the software development process (that is, I'm not saying PMs and PDs are completely worthless) but telling them something like this will probably be useless. They don't think of software developers as artists or craftsmen, but rather as "resources" that need to be managed, cajoled and pushed to meet deadlines. Nothing more, nothing less.
Sad, but true.
Re:"How" eXtrEmE pRogrAMming destroyed my project (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's a new reality for you:
Any developer who can't get over his stubborn, selfish, and proud nature to work closely with another peer is not worth hiring.
I'm not saying it won't be difficult for some people, but anyone that wants to can make it work (much like marriage). As to accepting other points of view, my experience is quite the contrary. The younger, inexperienced engineers that desire to improve look to the experienced engineers for advice, and they seek opportunities to work with them. The sad reality is that the more experienced someone is, the less likely that they'll accept the input of others. They've already decided how things work. Clearly, you've arrived.Re:Master the Tao, all else will follow (Score:1, Insightful)
And farmers aren't poets.
Re:"How" eXtrEmE pRogrAMming destroyed my project (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not XP. XP forbids long hours for more than a week, because you can't write good code when you are tired, overworked, and have low morale.
Do the simplest thing - add whatever you need to the existing classes and just do it.
That's not XP either. XP says do the simplest thing, but specifically does NOT define "simplest" as "least time to implement". The simplest thing in XP is a compromise between least time and least code, with the specific condition that code is not allowed to be duplicated. The least time solution is often "copy this function and modify it for my needs". The XP solution is "refactor this function so I can use it too". This means you are doing small refactorings throughout your project, and modularity appears wherever it is needed.
Refactoring is then a very painful process
Refactoring is painful if you are not confident that the changes will work. If you are not confident, it is because you do not have a full automated testing suite. Let me guess... you aren't doing that either?
pair programming
You tell us about all the parts of XP that you don't do, and then you complain that it does not work. Building a brick wall without mortar won't work either, but it's not the brick's fault.
It's all about the people (Score:3, Insightful)
The funniest thing is that SCRUM isn't necessarily a bad model, it's the people who think that it's a quick fix to their process that is the problem.
These KISS methodologies seem pretty hard to screw up, but when you have a team constructed of the wrong people (micromanagers, pigheads, and big-methodology freaks), it's a recipe for failure. Because of the team composition (and team member apathy for that matter), our sprints rarely (if ever) yielded the expected or desired results.
The thing I couldn't stand the most about SCRUM, however, was the silly terminology lifted from rugby. Sports metaphors in a field dominated by nerds? Ugh.
Re:Totally Useless (Score:4, Insightful)
The Pragmatic Programmer
XP Explained
GoF Design Patterns
Object Oriented Software Construction (Meyer)
Software Craftmanship
Code Complete
Getting familiar with different takes on and approaches to software development has definitely made me a better developer. XP (and SCRUM and other agile methods) has a lot to offer, and a few short comings too. It is not the end all be all of software processes, but it was *the* new thing that made everyone aware of the benefits of unit testing and refactoring, even if these disciplines were not new at all. XP's two major short comings in my opinion is that it puts too much responsibility on the customer and the "simplest thing that could possibly work" does not strictly allow experienced developers to leverage their experience to solve the problem as fast as they are able. I'd like to get my hands on this book and see just how SCRUM differs from XP - I bet it will make me a better developer.
Re:"How" eXtrEmE pRogrAMming destroyed my project (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow. I bet you'd also say that design is cheap, up to a certain point where testing becomes imperative. Or perhaps that implementation is cheap, up to the point where you have to integrate with the other programmers.
Wrong. Testing, and refactoring, are imperative from day one, according to XP. Before you add code, you start with cleanly factored code; if it's not clean, refactor it until it is. Then write the first component of your design in the form of a test. Next implement the code to make that test pass. Continue writing down more of your design in the form of a test and making the tests pass.
Once your design is fully expressed as tests and the tests all pass, refactor the code *immediately*.
Note how testing and refactoring are intermingled with coding? If you put the testing, coding, or refactoring off till later, you'll quickly find that your work becomes painful.
Integration should be constant as well -- the entire product should be ready to ship at least once a week, and should be built and tested in full at least once a day. If you put this off, you'll be creating work for yourself and setting yourself up for an expensive failure.
-Billy
Scrum is not really about coding... (Score:3, Insightful)
Scrum is all about managing the project, and in a way which matches the reality I perceive better than "traditional" models.
I've read the book in question, and I believe in Agile methods. One of the comments above says "methodologies are nowhere near as important as people" - check out the Agile Manifesto [agilemanifesto.org]; line 1 says "we value individuals and interactions over processes and tools". Ken Schwaber (and Jeff Sutherland, who posted a reply here) are co-signatories.
The big problem I have found with Agile methods is that often the senior management team is unwilling to relinquish the impression of control over their projects. They insist on knowing everything up front - time, scope, budget - and even if they understand the empirical nature of software projects, that sense of control is very hard to give up.
I have found many of the "Top-down" implementations of Agile processes to be buzzword driven - the last thing you need to do Scrum is a new VP; the Scrum is intended to make the VP redundant ! I'm not surprised many people have had bad experiences with XP - the 12 practices are finely balanced, and distorting that balance (e.g. by over-emphasizing "the simplest thing that could possibly work") is a great way to ruin a project. Of course, I'm inclined to believe those organisations will struggle with any methodology; one thing Agile methodologies seem to do is draw out organisational weaknesses.
I'm working on a project right now where we have a very agressive schedule; we are pretty sure we can code the thing, but because our average corporate decision takes longer to reach than the project's timeline, we're hitting some rough spells. The cause is the decision making process; the effect is an unhappy project. In a "traditional" project, with analysts and project managers etc. and a sizeable up-front analysis phase, our corporate weakness would be less obvious; because we're saying "decide today, we'll have working code by the end of the week", our inability to decide is highlighted.
I'd recommend Ken's book; it's worth reading, and even if you don't agree with all he has to say, you might learn something.