Articles

GOTO 2013 • Software Development in the 21st Century • Martin Fowler

July 12, 2019



so the first talk I'm going to talk about is about stimulus data structures it's a fashionable thing to talk about because if you all know sequel databases one of the things it's common to pretty much all of the notes legal Perth databases is that they talk about their wonderfully schemas and all the fantastic things you can have with a scheme of us database the when a lot of people talk about evenness I think they miss out a lot of the subtle tips that you need to understand to really stand whether it's a good idea to be scheme alice is also have it use it effectively so that's what this my first tuple the first of the talks is going to talk about a little bit about this and then dividing into two parts first some of the talk about what's emili´s this is and then in the second part I will talk about when you might want to use it and I'm going to move around the stage a lot as I talk about if you cause I normally do that but because it really makes life hard for the camera so he's got to spend a lot of time trying catch up so the in thinking that he knows this let's think about what we typically imagine in a relational database scheme so we typically expect so we create expand the columns flat table you say what they are we given a particular name and we give some indication on tightly and then at some point users going to duct-tape all we have to follow backs email and if we try to insert something the reason and define data schema their action could be prevented from putting the data in them now with our email a basis to people no simple database of course we would store but it's not over like in level we can have records of people with different fields and different capabilities and that is the thing when you hear most people talk about what they talk about the great thing about schema business and the simple databases say it's really good because you don't have to fit yourself to the rigid structure of the relational database instead what you can do is store whatever it is you need to have in whatever form it happens to come but there are this advantages being equals let's imagine we just want to be storing some data in a database and we respond to find sort of updated with a nice simple query and with a theory that allows us to find records of interest unless was one of those records is effectively what but there is some difference in schema so in this case in America zip code idea but I mean what do you call that is if you can zip code you call it busco how do you know which to match to and what this leads you I think to my to think about this is saying that the data may not have an explicit scheme and it says how you might want to store it but there's always an implicit Stephen you are making assumption whether do we use the word zip zip code do you use to go further to go or do we use both whatever that that is in there in the data but it's all implicitly it's not an explicit thing and implicit schema is effectively defined by all the code the accesses of database all the go-betweens write all the code that writes to it that's where the immersive schemas is there and just because you're using the disk emailers database doesn't truly mean your skills it just means that your schema is purely impossible now talk about this in the context of databases because that's where the category is most at the moment in terms of schema lessness but if out the same ideas apply to in them programming as well let's look at an example in a couple of well-known programming languages and what you see is we can define certain class of objects and define Bonfield present on that box that is it effectively for schema and it doesn't help you just in an object-oriented second old-fashioned scene has the same thing scrubbers anytime I'm defining those types you'll define what you have with that with a Steven and similarly in an in-memory language you can also go Steelers and you go schema looks typically by using some kind of dictionary cache map associative array something of that mind and most languages have this is a built-in data type or is easily available for standard Bibles and that allows you that same degree of flexibility you can store other values in the map don't have the predefined them work redefining the fields and the classes or struggles but the question then is well what's the advantage of doing what all the other is it really about our difference between saying dot something as opposed to putting something in whatever the property accesses where is the trade-off here now in jail like Lele means if you get a you the field explicitly you really want to have a defined field again to this explicit scheme available do you go if you're using the dictionary and you're putting daydreams when you've got the same kind of implicit schema that I mentioned in the database back serve your honor how do I know what I'm going to use the first name I've got a decider what my keys are that I'm bringing to that literally and where do I find them after I'm going to probe around the code find whatever I'm using first name or Christian name where do I find a logoff they've got those around in the code of other implicit schema but if I'd rather defined class with clearly defined fields then it's easy to see what I'm using critical things now we're at it should be really comes in useful is when you're not actually explicitly typing in the field name of a literal value but you're pulling it in from some of the source maybe you've got display options of the user interface where you are treating them as or securely dynamically and you've got property name going to be validly something of that kind in that situation the that's where the kind of implicit lookup is quite useful on the whole my view is that if you're using something like a map or addiction rate and you're typing in literal values of the keys that's a bad smell that's an indication it should be instead thinking about having to find the others because it's easier to see what's going on that way now this because you're using loops of properties this is necessarily mean you have to use particular hash tag you can most languages will give you some kind of reflection capability which you can use to get all the battles well so this is definitely a choice between the two and sometimes I find that the advantages the other various things you've got a trade-off now this is actually a very bold trader on how that many years ago kept their probes or best practice patterns and he coined this is a difference including all common state which is when you have the defined fields and their area state they use them like a dictionary what it would you know is at the variable state is useful when different instances have different things that need to be stored by themselves and then it is in this very mistake looking for the Hatrack but when you know most of the instances having same things but it had it behind them clearly and we feel this and this isn't an arrival or choice you can combine both techniques in the same class so in this example here I can have defined feels for the first name and last night we'll also include a hashtag in the class for any other guys icons to give so this allows the effectively to use both happens at the same time now just because I'm using both patterns I can don't actually have to use explicit feels the storage and with this example here what I'm doing is saying I've got a single customer class it's got an interface looks like Lee uses explicit feels but it actually stores all these in an underlying hash map now this could be quite a useful technique particularly these days we're seeing a lot of people store data in things like no single databases in say a JSON format and then pull it out to the user interface of a service interface and Jason or through civil page applications and take Jason if you're going to do that you might as well store the data in your objects that we might want to manipulate as Jackson as well or deserialized them in a into a dictionary because that's kind of stuff is easily built in the crucial thing to remember about objects is that the interface implement two different things the point of encapsulation is too high what your actual data representation is and as a result using the dictionary internally but exposing something that looks like fine fields from the outside is a perfectly reasonable way to go that way you've got an explicit schema of your design fields but at the same time you don't have to be always having more wood copy into different data structures as if flowing data through application so here we see that you in memory programming we can combine the notions of the explicit schema muscles but you can do the same thing even in the traditional relational database and in fact we do we see this all the time there are free common patterns to how this is done first one is to use effectively custom columns but don't really have a name of values by convention within program another technique is to actually have a custom lengthy all when you then fill with some kind of structure that allows you to from the variable state in there so it may be JSON data is better than within a string fields of the back line this second technique is the closest one to the in memory technique and a third approach is to use some kind of associative lookup table that allows you to add custom feel sensations you've probably all seen this technique if you've ever dealt with any large relational database application because there's always a need to put this stuff in and require discipline is a plum wolf really rather clunky mechanisms this is where if you find yourself having to lose a lot you begin to feel that the need for some kind of evil as a problem step but this is really just where kind of hacking schema lessness into the relatively inflexible and fairly rigid relational structures so covering what I would make so far we can do schemas and steeples and spoken databases and in memory and it's not necessarily essential is between one with the other we can combine basic scheming and variously the one thing that's been there – what I've said so far is if we've seen the schema as I think our vows a storage scheme but what I mean is my storage scheme it is it says if I want to store some data in my store we're prepared in that we store or add a base for the schema will prevent me from storing something that doesn't fit that's how a relational schema operates and it's effectively how defining some fields in a record structure or glass works in memory as weapon you can't fit something in there isn't it but that's not the only way that we can use a schema and that's common we're using this key map but also what a useful way is what I put a predicate Steven now in a prayer good scheme of what you're doing is your allowance anything to be stored in whatever your storage mechanism is but the schema is can be used to detect what shape of things it is so that way you can detect have I got anything that doesn't fit the definite defined bounds of running in place I might store something that says zip code even though my schema says zip and then as a separate step I'll go through inside does anything not fit the schema or perhaps when I read the data I can first test to see if it fits the schema and then if it does I can make certain assumptions about how to deal with that data now previous leaders have a relatively unusual but long way so you may run into them is something like ex-felon if you've got some kind of XML data it's just text you can store whatever you want in them but there are various ways to test xml against the scheming now the best-known one that is I guess these days is XML schema perhaps because it's got schema reads night but it's not the terribly good schema language and the one I'm showing here is something called relapsed application which is a much nicer schema notation that's easy to read and understand and this is your way to have men tested xnor government say does it have schema this brings up an interesting point the when you've got things like predicate schemers you don't have to limit yourself to only one schema definition language for the kinds of schemes from regular you can use different schema definition languages depending on the three contexts and leaves what law you can actually separate the schema from the storage in order to be able to have different schemas for different circumstances so here are my basic appointment schema but I have another scheme of it says let's take that basic one and extend it because I wanted to have a confirmed appointment I need to actually define who the physicians as well as the patient information and so this allows me to take the same data but have multiple schemas that I can test with that depending on where I am in the process of the diamond looking with this is actually a very valuable thing because it introduces the notion of contextual validation now what I mean by that is when people talk about whether they want to validate I think they often looking it is a purely behind everything some class record or piece of data is valid or not but that though that works a lot of the time isn't really a very complete way of looking at things usually when you want to validate something the validation rules will change coins in a particular context you want and the context is usually if something you want to do some action we want to take and so validation rules you may well have multiple different sets of validations for a particular thing so if I've got an appointment I might have one validation it says okay equipment is set up and ready to go and different validation but it says no Kay this is confirmed and something's that's actually going to go ahead and the validation rules will suddenly get them now always talking about the storage Stephen is saying that context the context of this validation is I'm allowed to put it in the database okay and this is I think where a lot of people go down a route is that they put very strong rules on this validation and storing something in the database often it's useful to have relatively weeks rules for storing it and then the album follow up with validation checks later on to say is it actually of may have stored bit but is actually something I can do something with and what is that thing I want to do if I'm storing a tall order information is it enough for nothing like an action ship the order is enough information perhaps that I can demand payment and calculate a price for it or am I still unsure people are often reluctant to store partial information things of that kind and that's because you confuse the rules further the validation step of story with validation steps of the actual actions you might want to take so that schemers I hope that given your senses there's a lot more to schemers than just the notion of what a relational schema might be they're actually quite interesting and subtle things and we could arguably use the book more widely in our programming anyway as a way of trying to describe the rules the validation things of that kind now I want to move on having sort of talk about schemas to when we might want to use a scheme of us approach as opposed to using actually defining a schema so to start with I think of when what what is the consequence of us going with something's even saying that we've got the customer and we're just going to make it a hashmap monopoly define class or make any scheme already picked back up the question then comes in and I've alluded to this molecule times reading is what are the legal fees by which I can access that asset have one find that out well I've got a look through the code there are all the places in the code where I access that customer and there could be a lot of code I've got thumbs around the triumphs are no spots so my general advice as a kind of first approximation is to say don't go with implicit schemes because if you've got an implicit scheme that you've got a further round the local place to try and find out that legal value to have some form of an explicit scheme if you can that may leave some divine storage scheming or it may be some way of testing against the predicate but have some ways people know to them say ok what my call is what one of the zip codes you who are going to come make that as explicit as ok and it is certainly a common theme that I've run into where I've talked to projects have used stimulus solutions where they say yeah all work really well for a while and then we'll started having great difficulty trying to find out what was actually being stored in a database an explicit scheming of the deal but that's just personal there are cases where having a sequel is approach can be done an override the general advantage of Nyx person schema and I'm going to boil this down into this bunch of places here the first has a grave case is cases where the data you're actually storing isn't uniform if most of your data has the same fields then it's easy to see what to do with it with 16 but if you get very information from instance to instance then having a big schemer is it's just too hard because you've got to come up with some kind of flexibility mechanism and relational modest resource particularly ugly there's too many situations where you get this kind of non-uniform data first places where you want we will be able to define custom feelings this is quite common in products and where different customers want mater slaughter for custom values where you find in on various of situations as well whenever you have this kind of custom field that's a situation where you may want to use and somebody's skinless approach at least all that custom fields part of it and this is again going to be very useful to find a way to combine both fixed and variable state the other situation is where you've got different types that are very variant in their own codes a great example of this is if you're doing some kind of event booking where there's an each event type character zone different kind of data they can vary quite enormous ly between the different kinds of events you have to lock in that situation again email us approach can be very handy now you know main reason that I hear people talk about the benefits of going us is in it comes to migrate as you want to change your data storage needs over time if you've got a skinless approach this is correct if you change your data structure you can to store that change data structure and have old versions as well as new versions in the storage area but I think this is actually somewhat oversold advantage because the problem with schema migration is instilled of implicit schemas the world's worse they're changing over time on you now you can manage this to some degree if you instance just rename zip code to see you can actually have a reader that's able to look for either value and then a writer that only writes a new value so you get some flexibility baby but as you get to more complicated migrations you do reach the point at which you have to do a more formal migration step and when it comes down to it it's not necessarily in terrible content in exercise other people say or probably and fix in the databases such as relational databases is that it's very hard to change the scheme your own time but actually that's not terribly true a projects that we do in forwards we change our seaters all the time as far over we've had sheep as part of an agile way of working and in juggling requires is the discipline practice of scheming migration what boils down to making sure that every time you change a schema it's log tied in with a version control system when you use lots of small migrations every change that we make of my graphic data and then you can change from one version of the database to another by composing migration together I've lost over the process that we can find details of it in various places but it's it actually a very well-known technique and the same technique really has to be used for those sequel schema little databases as well eventually all of those special books to deal with old versions of the data get too complicated and it's better just to migrate the data and then only have a simple mapping to the up-to-date structure so you pretty much have to go through the same vibration process with a schema database as you do with a fixed schema today you get a bit more flexibility you don't happen every time but eventually you're going to have to pay that pulse and so as a gaining common people see my here for our project you see schema those databases we still have to worry about migration it doesn't go away but on the whole use an explicit even as much as you can be very clear about like you'd expect the store in sculptures use the implicit schemas really only in the places where you really need that ability to handle the long uniform data and answer the first part of talk if you look want to review the stuff that I've gone through in general page on my website I put to where my notes are but I actually have a info dead version of this talk that you can read through it's got reading stuff they're not just be talking and so you've got a better deal going through them too so for the second sole ownership into a completely different mode first one was on a very programming and toning and this is going to be much more process like and took a bit more about agile stuff and this one is really very much influenced by a paper verbs appeared about a year ago about levels of agile fluency it's a paper by Dianna Larsen gesture two people have been involved in the agile offer a great deal of time and I first saw it when they sent it round there is people just looking for comments and I asked them have you cycling and published this paper and they said they happens in my office on my site resin alien publishing you through a fellow and I was very happy when they did that because I think way of thinking about how teams a dot and workings want to be in the agile adoption process and I'm going to talk about that before I talk about that I'm going to talk about what I see as their essence of what agile software development is about and I think it's important to talk about the essence because it's something that easily gets lost in all of the Chinese whispers and stuff it's gone from ten years plus of the of the agile mode so to think about there about what a journey it was easy for me to think about very painful the idea is to kind of coalesce to agile software development appeared in the 1990s and their result of a bunch of people relatively independently doing their own things and developing stuff in the 90s in general situation for projects for the problems projects for the problems there we hope the agile is make things a little bit better but these problems would certainly very apparent them as well but at the time the what cue was those problems and that was because there was a plan driven processes capability maturity bubbles very much is this idea of the buying processes we need to get get rid of the human elements we need to define steps people could just follow to come up with plans and designs in advance the programming is really just something we can kind of ship up some minor organization preferably in a third country where we pay them less and it was really seeing that kind of white and that was sensitive if we wanted to cure the problems of software development that was the direction together but the people who are working in the agile world said now we have a different vision and it was a vision that was put together in the agile manifesto but said they have a different way of thinking and when I also came across agile methods in the late nineties one of the things that struck me was how they related with each other and I ended up writing an article about this and chuckle the new methodology because I wrote this before the agile manifesto came out and it was my attempt to try and synthesize together and the thinking that led to agile and the way it is there was really a distinction between agile and climb driven approaches quite thinking and there were two main areas where they did it the first was that the agile world was adaptive in its approach to planning while the wonderful world was predictive and the second was that the was very much more ranging around people in front while their plant in the world was a rebel process I'll explore what I mean by those things in little bit more detail starting with money in the between name plan driven world it was very much operating on the basis of first you plan your work then you work your plan come up with a plan and then carry that out and the two were very much separated steps and this is what I thought it was predictive planning because the idea is it all went well everything goes according to plan and in fact the way in which time to process is typically measured success was according to plan whenever you hear someone saying we were a long time and on budget the project and therefore succeeded that productive planning thinking but says successes we follow along with went on in the planet and this is all very well problem is the plans that people made had a very strong dependency on the webbernet one of the school requirements good ends even the word required if you're going to come up with a plan behaving to do something you need to know what it is you try to build but the problem of course is not just as this entire plan and about you into my software development process gets tied into it and the problem then is do we have actually have stable requirements I always like to do this how many of you have been on a project recently where you require to be very unstable making changing not nearly everybody and that's the God that's the kind of that where this whole thing breaks down so 100 people said okay we're going to stabilize we've got to get rid of this requirements churn and we come up with all sorts of techniques about getting rid of that or stopping it the agile approach is to shift away from that and say well in software development is if Heather depart requirements ability and that's causing all these problems maybe what we need to do is break in evanston and instead find a way to get rid of that link so hence the subtext of the subtitle of canned export on extreme programming was embrace change let's look at changes something that we can work with instead of something have to prevent it and that shifting mindset is very fundamental to the whole of thinking of agile and in fact it even goes beyond that – my favorite quote of very often is let's actually take that change and see if there's something good something that gives us advantages because we can respond to that and so as a result if you're in an agile environment you can't climb successes going according to plan and in fact if anybody says forward when project morning's black that's really nonmetal and you're thinking and you're pinning says success has to be find define something differently you know but we were just so beautiful value for the business of something about time where it was according to plan or not is kind of irrelevant because the plan has changed 20 or 30 times so you actually did the first version of the planet the other notion that I rather like was a project management said to me once a plan is rather Lycabettus it looks good on the day you've got it after a few days it's looking rather wrinkly and chrome around the edges and after a couple of weeks it's unrecognizable and that is again you're thinking doesn't mean you've got one what but it's a changing thing two very different attitude detectable so that says a plane is adapted it's about understanding the consequences of change and making informed and control decisions about change instead of a predictive thing that says this is how things will work out and if there's a lot of white light too hard to go down DHL group we wouldn't like it if proved things go according to plan we like predictive running we hate it when people most people tend to dislike things are being unpredictable in this one the agile way but mindset I think you're saying well yeah we now see we could do predictive plans and all of it that way but sadly reality forces are working different moment moment in time but it's not an easy thing to say not necessarily need to be to do anything that distinction is easy to say but hard to do the second one the ship to people were some processors is even hard even stronger now here lived a spoiled part of usual line which is to say who is this person who is this person Taylor Taylor then to say he is going kind of a scientific management basically saying we passed in the past before he started operating in the late 19th century people would decide how to do work themselves the man but now we're coming to a system and we make mended the system essentially what it says that if we want to if we think about the software process terms so when we remind software process as some combination of steps and links between steps we now in the languages you saw lots of diagrams like this except there will be words of course in the boxes the words usually didn't really mean that much so I showed without and so there are a bunch of steps and we find a bunch of people that'll totally classify me the project managers the programmers testers business analysis whatever your classification might sting and way with all project team is we get all the people fitting them into those appropriate boxes the notion is the process comes first the people let us watch it and go with it they're only agile marks have completely reverses it says if you want to do a project in agile terms the first thing you think about is assembling the team of people who are individually good and work well together a human level and they get on with each other does it work and then once you've assembled your team the team decides long process language to follow they come up with a process of suitable for the problem they're working on unsuitable for them different people will choose different ways of working because different people are different and when people work together they will work in different kinds of ways and that's why my view it's completely wrong to inform to push and command the team to go Roger a team has to choose it themselves if you're pushing the process of the team that's fundamentally and and so a long time I hear people saying well agile stairs I've got to do this and therefore the team has to follow certain steps that's where the thinking has gone backwards the team has to decide what to try out and if the team chooses not to do agile because it's not going to work for them that's fine too it's important that the team makes that decision another element of this is that it says in the end the quality of the software team is going to depend very much upon quality individuals in 90 a lot of thinking in the plan driven approaches so we actually don't care about having good people in fact good people accountable so rather not happening and because they tend to be argumentative want to do their own thing and a customer or so why have a process that works pretty much any bonking part the other thing people will say no that wasn't necessarily work terribly well and the value will be want to have a very effective group of people you need to have a tip you're new actually need to go out again and then those good things don't work in particular why thanks to need to have them define how the process works and it's a girl eyes I think well oddly at the limits of we're aware when away you should or should you handle processes how in the early days you who said where are the boundaries that I chose appropriate process views people might look at the kind of problem or the size of team as being the typical boundary areas most of those boundaries that we crossed but the one boundary that is being very very solid really lays in the nature and culture of an organization if you've got an environment is very distrustful it doesn't really is interesting if you being people oriented that would be a hard barrier making agile work it's that cultural element that really is the dominant one and certainly we've seen that at the pub of organizations we've spent a lot of time forwards helping people go beyond your path and valleys not the clearest of weather thing goes wrong if you're in an organization where you build up trust you can't build up the mutual respect but now it's a huge barrier to overcome and cultural change of organizations is the longest and hardest thing to have to do and that I think is a big is very gradual but let's move on to the next part which is this notion sadness is a model developed by Banamex on the PI particular device sorry and they said they Nazis really as they look at the various teams of a scene they have observed they defined as four star points of how the teams operate the very careful to avoid the charity levels and things of that kind in there my words I'll try not to use that word about it kind of obviously lead to that point everything has to pass through these stockings but teams don't always make it all the way through happens optic ok want to make a big way through so the first not levels of the one star point is typically a team that is getting the kind of basics of the management processes of our job employees they've broken their work in two iterations they have a certain degree of some degree of self organizations they may not be that strong but the key thing is they're choosing work it's all chunks usually with some kind of iterative approach and then delivery knows chump and they have the ability to begin to shift direction that adaptive planning thing is beginning to kick in where they can actually change their minds and they're starting to talk about they're doing in terms of business features as opposed to software layers and things back so they've been a bit of operating at this level is you have this visibility as to what the team is doing even if you're not part of the team itself you can begin to see what features are being built what order they get built in you've got some ability to control that you begin to say oh I gotta push this one feature forward push this one back and when the team reports her what it's going is typically doing them in terms of these kind of business value driven features that are describing it now again here requires as any of these monsters a certain degree of investment you've got a big lesson in how the team operates and how it develops and also in kind of the basic look processes get there and it's going to take a certain amount of time their observation is to get to this point teams usually take a few months of preachers con portable but a large family teams reach this level and I can't stay this way the Avera estimate lesson is just under half team times beginning point you can also look at this point as this is typical of the team that has taken armed scrum and just vanilla scrub as it were it's doing the various things that described by I'm scrum but it hasn't gone for the some more extra things of wonder building in particular the technical practices the team like this has done let's go sorted out but not any of the technical things to discuss moving development and all things about kind to go to that level that is there the second star level and this is a hard step to do less teams get your star and also it takes a good bit longer we're talking perhaps about years the investment is now much higher because you've got to develop all these technical skills you've got to figure out what is continuous integration what is continuous delivery get those work you've got to get the factory spec going to get testing developers right you may want to explore things like air programs back time you can understand how evolution outside works they are operating in front of one but the better you get from it is how you get a much more productive team more noticeably you can get at it with a lot less defectors this is one of the things that certainly strikes me very much when I talk to agile teams and often what I hear from reasonably well performing teams on the technical level is how they go into production with far less defects and is difficult for their organization that's kind of an interesting thing because something that people often say our agile is kind of loosey-goosey not very and you would expect you get problems we have politic but actually a good performing adulting might have strikingly lower details and that's because of the Empire things on testing and development these other technical practices the ship that this leaves from visible sense is that you get to the point where a team can effectively do their shipping there not on whether the software's ready but when business wants those shipments to make this is what the phrasing they use is the market cadence it's basically saying we can go live whenever you want to it's really narrow businesses you're not a technical limitation and this is where you see team should be maybe every couple of weeks and going into production even more frequently while often run into teams where they will commit to production every day or something of that kind and that is it of course the technical practices the quality is allowed to get in point where they can do this we like young slide these two levels obviously the second level is of Watson periods of a first level but not as even as I've indicated not every team gets that sector model the perhaps Niagara team wants to try again to upload there is significant investment in getting to that second level and you are typically pass the diverse work before you get to the second ball but you were thinking when you begin do I want to try aiming at second level because you've got to make those kinds of investments on the technical practices who have gone the third level in there of all this really switch is more into the thinking of this way we need to get into the Lean Startup kind of territory that says at this point up to the second level you're very much you deceptive of what the business what business people say this is what you should be building we have a good conversation but you very much all either love ideas once you get to the verb that you begin to initiate a much more the team is actually taking much more active role in saying this is what we should be building and they're using techniques of commanding startups as a/b testing the things that kind to try and decide what the good thing is to do burnishing this point is a lot more effort over the amount of time so they're several years and very thick teams actually get this done and there's a large family investment involved because in order to do this people within the team must be much more aware of what's going on in terms of business and I have to take a much more visible role in an organization of the local company the first two levels you can kind of do within a relatively small bubble it's really having a good software development ng is really what that second level says this means taking inverter has a bigger impact on organization so a lot of organizations are just not ready to go this third path and often I think it's important when again when working fluid outside are you in an organization really tolerably the blue is the letter are they ready to take this on mostly yes they're going to say no we're not at a point where could actually go for this point burn the advantage and the big benefit is is you get a much much more focus on building things are more valuable because the team is making is much more engaged in the process of making these compositions now if although is really a much more broad of organizational view this is I mean the test at this level is this is a team that would spontaneously disband the project they're working on because they realize the entire program work that they're doing is the most valuable thing for the business and they should just and themselves and work of all proper things it's questionable whether they mean and that whether this video to even be there because they say they haven't really seen this at this point and the comment in the paper is where we've seen this the obvious scene is in small organizations where really you can tell the difference between the third or fourth level so this is a scum of speculative idea of where the next level I think that's what not gonna spend a lot but I think that that model of thinking about agile fluency is a useful one to think about it's worthy to need something something that seems to match a lot of people's experience in practice as I've talked to people a lot of people said model makes sense to me it's something that I've seen resonates in my experience and it also gives you an idea of where you might be awakened we want to be going within the organization of your party what is a realistic level to payment what do you want you'll be your expectations about how long it takes to get there and I think it grabs from the point that this is not a rapid process in order to get even to a two-star level you're taking typically a couple years to the team so I can you get to that kind of point it's not unusual to get spend a long time getting it and I think that's a useful thing to point down to other people who love the feel that going agile is really very straightforward it usually isn't because that shipped from saying you want a planning process not to be a predictive thing that is much more adaptive thing and we really are people first and let them decide how they want to work those are the very big shifts shifts our organizations don't findings so that's so I have my decimal decent westerns are which time the vessels but led to an outside [Applause] you

You Might Also Like

8 Comments

  • Reply Robert July 12, 2019 at 1:10 pm

    terrible sound

  • Reply Sharad Shahi July 12, 2019 at 1:10 pm

    audio should have been taken from PA feed and later on do the mix. Too much echo/delay..bad sound engineer. Nice presentation 

  • Reply Ben Ritchie July 12, 2019 at 1:10 pm

    audio..

  • Reply S. Odeyemi July 12, 2019 at 1:10 pm

    It's fucking Martin Fowler. I haven't seen this guy in eons.

  • Reply Jackson July 12, 2019 at 1:10 pm

    why the hell does he even has a mic

  • Reply mtssvnsn July 12, 2019 at 1:10 pm

    WHAT?
    AT…
    AT…
    AT…

  • Reply Peter Lindhard July 12, 2019 at 1:10 pm

    Enjoy right until the Agile gospel. Agile:"Set your own context, emulate disciplines under new names, provide no evidence, claim victory"…. If there really is something there, why do they always use the former paradigms as a stepping-stone? It basically boils down to: remove overhead, and hire crack performers -> WOW REALLY? So very rarely do they admit, how the process and overhead scales with the size of a project.

  • Reply Hironori Narushima July 12, 2019 at 1:10 pm

    8:40 ewww, Absolutely no reason create `class Customer' just HashMap enough.
    Don't write junk-ish code.

  • Leave a Reply