I've worked with a variety of successful companies, many of which are Agile in nature, but when discussion of Agile arises, the conversation often goes like this:
Them: We're agile.
Me: Ah! Do you use Scrum, XP, something else?
Them (embarrassed): Um, er, we just sort of get things done.
And they do! And yet they're embarrassed by the lack of a name for what they actually do. I often hear something like "we do a modified scrum", meaning they have sprints and stand ups and that's about it.
Thus, I developed WildAgile, an Agile methodology that is so agile that it describes what actually happens in the wild instead of what you are supposed to do. It's designed for very rapid delivery, with Just Enough Process to provide order to the chaos. Though I draw inspiration from Scrum, XP, Kanban and Crystal Clear, there's a good chance that claiming your team is WildAgile-compliant merely involves reading this and saying "yup, we're WildAgile-compliant."
All bolded terms are explained in the description and also in a short glossary near the end. There aren't many bolded terms because I focus on process, not terminology. The "WildAgile Roles" and "WildAgile Process" sections are all you really need to read to understand WildAgile. Everything else is just providing the rationale. This documentation of WildAgile is released under the CC by 2.5 license. This means that you're free to do anything you want with this documentation, including sell it, so long as you credit the original authors (just linking to this page is fine). See the license description for details.
When teams transition into an Agile environment, the changes can be intimidating. XP practitioners regularly complain about pair programming (and hence don't do it). Scrum practitioners often ignore retrospectives. System administrators get upset about a "failed sprint" because they had to stop all work to fix a critical security hole.
And yet work still gets done. Developers finish a task and take a new task. Wash, rinse, repeat. By formalizing this I introduce Just Enough Process to get things done in a structured manner. "Just Enough Process" is an appropriate tagline for management. "Shut Up And Write Some Code" is an appropriate tagline for developers.
WildAgile is appropriate for small teams where the entire code base can be roughly understood by a single programmer. That doesn't mean that someone points to a given library and the developer knows how it's coded, or exactly what it does, but the developer should at least have a sense of what it's for. Because WildAgile is designed to avoid bus-sensitive code, it's important to have a small to medium size codebase. What this means is that as a developer transitions from Apprentice to Veteran (described later), they won't always know how to solve a problem, but they'll know where to look to solve that problem.
You may think of WildAgile as a transitional methodology. This means that you may adopt WildAgile before your team transitions to a more formal method (it's particularly well-suited as a transition to Scrum), but many teams find that WildAgile is all they need.
You may notice a theme in this.
That being said, WildAgile is not without its risks. These will be discussed on an ad hoc basis as I discuss its components. However, I do not recommend WildAgile when a potential for real harm occurs. For example, I probably would not use WildAgile to design guidance systems for planes or medical radiology software. I also do not recommend WildAgile for highly complex projects in which the majority of developers cannot understand how various components fit together.
Just to make it clear what I'm focusing on, here's the development workflow for one company I've worked with:
Every task is expected to follow that process. If you have to break a task into new tasks, you're still expected to follow that process for every subtask. Developers in this company regularly ignore this workflow and still get things done, but management gets frustrated because they can't see the exact step that every task is at.
WildAgile strives to implement the following workflow:
Things are not this simple in the real world, but I strongly advise our clients to understand the Platonic Ideal of Agile and constantly strive towards it.
Drawing on work from Alistair Cockburn's Crystal Clear methodology, I assume that the following three requirements are the most important in developing high-quality products.
Many experienced individuals feel that if these three requirements are met, a positive-feedback loop is created which allows the team to rapidly build and improve upon products. Any obstacles to these three requirements being met are detrimental to the productivity of any WildAgile-compliant team.
I am also a firm believer in the Pareto Rule: 80% of your benefits will stem from 20% of your actions. WildAgile attempts to implement that 20% of actions that give you majority of benefits of Agile. In fact, I've found that for many smaller teams, attempting to implement the other 80% of actions may actually be detrimental as you spend more time fighting process instead of developing software. This is due to a fundamental tension in many Agile methodologies: it's an attempt to create processes that are designed to minimize process. It's a delicate balance that is easy to get wrong.
Cockburn's (pronounced coe-burn, if you're curious) team requirement actually said "colocation" of the team, requiring team members to be physically near each other. This ignores today's reality. Savvy companies realize they have access to an entire world of developers if they are willing to have remote workers. Thus, tools such as Slack, Google Hangouts, Skype, and other communication channels should be employed to ensure that someone is always available to help. I've seen WildAgile work in teams that are also temporally diverse (separated by many time zones), but this does introduce challenges that require extra attention to team communication.
There are only three roles defined in WildAgile.
Developers, of course, develop the product. They take tasks, finish them, and then take new tasks.
The Team Lead (often shortened to "Lead") is also a developer. The Lead is also the expert who knows the entire system and can be relied upon to answer questions and provide excellent feedback. Developers decide how they're going to implement something, but if there is a problem, the Lead has final say. The Lead should defer to the Developer whenever possible and offer constructive advice when appropriate. Team Leads support, not direct.
The Product Owner (PO), similar to Scrum, maintains the product backlog. However, there is no "sprint backlog" because there are no sprints. The PO is responsible for knowing the full backlog and being able to answer any business question related to them. It's preferred if the PO can also answer technical questions as well, but I realize that it's often hard to find someone who is both a business expert and a technical expert. Thus, the PO focuses on business excellence and the Team Lead focuses on technical excellence.
Additionally, the PO serves as the proxy for the customer. They are the "expert customer" that you should be able to rely on at all times to answer questions about the product. The PO is encouraged to practice an embedded anthropology approach to knowing their customers. This means that they should use the product, but also work directly with real customers (both new and existing) to understand customer needs and desires.
As an aside, the customer should always be referred to as "the customer" and never as "the user." In English, the word "user" can have a negative connotation and in our experience it is often used in a condescending manner. Customers are people too.
Every day, a 15-minute time-boxed stand up is held. It's recommended to be at the end of the day to ensure that what you did is fresh in your mind, but this is not a requirement. The stand up begins with the Summary. Before the stand up, the product owner should briefly discuss where you've been and where you are going. Any interesting future issues for the team should be mentioned at this time. The benefit of the Summary is that it helps remind developers of the context of their work and better understand upcoming priorities. This makes it easier to choose appropriate tasks.
After the Summary, each team member should explain:
On a daily basis, every team member is allowed, even encouraged, to improve the code base. Add a Makefile target to rebuild the project. Factor out common code. Move test data into fixtures. The developer is expected to mention this in the stand up and it is the responsibility of the Team Lead and the PO to rein in developers who spend too much time "improving" instead of "developing" (and vice versa!).
Tasks are "things a developer can do." Every task is done in a separate branch (when appropriate) and when it is done and the tests pass, it is merged back into the "main", "trunk", or "integration" branch, or whatever you call it. Tasks are expected to include tests, when feasible, and if merging the code breaks any test, the developer responsible for merging the code should be the person responsible for fixing the tests (again, when feasible). Details about how to manage source control are left to the team.
Tasks should be as short as possible. Any task expected to take over a certain amount of time (a week is a good limit) should, if possible, be broken down into smaller tasks, each of which can add value even if the overall task is cancelled.
When a task is finished, the developer independently chooses their next task, keeping in mind the context provided by the last Summary. They should prioritize tasks assigned to them, high value tasks, and quick tasks. It is the responsibility of the Team Lead and PO to guide developers to suitable tasks if the team member is regularly making poor choices on their next task.
If enough open tasks are open, it is the optional responsibility of the PO to designate Priority tasks. If a new task is to be chosen, they should be chosen from Priority tasks. If a team member is unconvinced of their ability to accomplish any Priority tasks, they should speak to the Team Lead for guidance.
Obviously, if a critical issue arises, any task can be stopped and the Team Lead can assign someone to tackle the issue. There is no formal structure to this because WildAgile is designed to be as lightweight as possible.
New team members (Apprentices) are initially encouraged to focus on a single area to become very comfortable with the business rules. After the Team Lead and PO agree that the developer has become comfortable in their area, they become Veterans. Veterans are strongly encouraged to regularly choose tasks in areas of the code base they have less experience with. If Veterans do not regularly work on different areas of the code, they may find themselves focusing on a small subset of the code base. Not only does this limit the Veteran's ability to contribute to the code base, it encourages other developers to not work on areas of the code that it's assumed the Veteran will work on. It is the responsibility of the Team Lead and the PO to ensure that Veterans are regularly choosing tasks outside of their area of expertise in order to spread knowledge of the system.
Team Leads and POs do not promote Apprentices to Veterans until the Apprentice:
Releases are not described in the WildAgile process, but it's suitable for both continuous deployment and regular releases (as one might expect from a sprint or iteration).
Note that in our experience, Apprentices get promoted to Veterans fairly quickly and in established teams, you generally only have Veterans, thus reducing the distinction between the two.
Many companies are discovering the competitive advantage of having remote workers:
That last point is what is driving much of this and is causing some industry disruption. When you realize that your $150K a year developer can be had for $30K, that opens up possibilities you may not have had before, particularly when you find that expert you couldn't find locally.
However, companies often feel uncomfortable with remote workers because they're less used to this. WildAgile works well with remote workers, but a key change needs to be made: stand ups.
For colocated teams, time-boxing a stand up to 15 minutes works well because if there are issues later, a developer can simply walk over to someone and ask. That doesn't work with remote workers. Instead, you simply extend the stand up time. I recommend 30 to 45 minutes. Yes, this means you'll be spending more time in the stand up, but you can communicate more about what you're doing, and how you are doing it. This helps to catch problems early on and minimizes the need for developers to distract other developers while they're working.
This issue still gets raised. It can be a problem when you're hiring a developer for a specific project that you don't know well, but for long-term teams, it's honestly a non-issue. If you, as a manager, can't tell who is and isn't delivering in your team, you have to accept responsibility for that, even if you're not the one to blame. This issue arises regardless of whether or not the developer are remote, so don't worry about it.
The idea behind WildAgile is not to formalize a new methodology, but to put a name on a practice that is already moderately well-known but followed in an almost embarrassed manner. It's a way of following a set of reasonable development guidelines that can eventually move on to a more appropriate Agile development process. Think of it as "Agile light", if you will. By putting a name to it, you can say "we are WildAgile-compliant" instead of "eh, we just get things done."
In short, WildAgile eliminates the silo problem of cowboy coding, but allows the extremely rapid development of products. It encourages creativity while having Just Enough Process to keep development on target.
Again, it bears repeating that WildAgile is not recommended for very large-scale environments. This is not necessarily because it is not suitable for large-scale environments (I know of at least one large company whose successful development process is very similar to this), but given that most of our experience with WildAgile-like development models has been with smaller code bases, I are hesitant to suggest it for anything else.
By separating developers into Apprentices and Veterans, I create the psychological incentive to explore more of the code base. Ambitious developers quickly want to shed the Apprentice label and fully participate in the rest of the team's work. However, by starting out by becoming an expert in one part of the system, the Apprentice can quickly gain confidence in their ability to participate and make a meaningful impact on the system.
Hiring for a WildAgile process is important. You want developers who are comfortable in a fluid environment, but can also appreciate business concerns. There is a tremendous amount of freedom in WildAgile and it's very easy for someone to get carried away and try to "perfect" (*cough*) everything at the expense of adding value to the company. Thus, both the Team Lead and the PO are required to keep things in check.
Also, WildAgile benefits from skilled, conscientious developers. It's very easy to spend too much time "perfecting" your code, but it's also easy to spend too much time pushing out new features and ignoring technical debt. This is a hard balance to maintain. WildAgile does not address this directly because every project is different and every company is different. However, as a guideline WildAgile suggests that the PO advocate for features and the Team Lead advocate for technical debt management, but each should be able to understand and even agree with the other's point of view. If you can't balance these two needs, you're likely to have long-term problems.
In practice, I find this development model to be very successful for small projects. The pace of development is very rapid and I don't find that code quality is significantly worse than for other methodologies. The most significant obstacle that I find is appropriately managing the backlog. Typically backlog items are merely added to a ticketing system, such as Jira, RT, Redmine or Trac. This does not scale well unless the PO is competent at managing the tickets and creating appropriate Priority tasks.
Do you like retrospectives? Do them. Do you need milestones? Great! Do you like pair programming? That's fine. WildAgile is designed to describe the core of what successful development teams are already doing. Items outside of this core are deliberately unspecified to allow you to customize WildAgile to your heart's content. A guiding principle of WildAgile should be "whatever works for you."
You are encouraged, nay, required to customize WildAgile to meet the needs of your team.
Many teams are already WildAgile-compliant without even knowing it. If you follow Scrum, you're probably WildAgile-compliant. If you follow XP, you're probably WildAgile-compliant. If you do ad hoc development, you may already be WildAgile-compliant. Don't stress too much about it. I don't envision WildAgile-compliance courses. I don't envision WildAgile-certifications (though if you pay me enough money, I'm happy to give a one-hour presentation and print up WildAgile-certifications for you).
There is very little terminology and most of this fits what you already know.
Shut up and write some code.
Seriously, there is nothing radical about the above and it mirrors what people are actually doing rather than forcing them to adopt a new methodology all at once. You might view it as a gentle transition to more formal Agile methodologies. Or, if it's working fine for you, it might remain your Agile methodology. Its very loose structure presents some risks, but a key component of managing risk is being aware of it.
Copyright © 2018-2019 by Curtis "Ovid" Poe.