managing software debt - pnsqc 2009

Managing Software Debt

Continued Delivery of High Value as Systems Age Chris Sterling

Technology Consultant / Agile Coach / Certified Scrum Trainer

Email: [email protected]: www.GettingAgile.com

Twitter: csterwa

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.GettingAgile.com/

Copyright © 2009 Sterling Barton. All rights reserved.

Topics Being Covered

• Problems Found with Aging Software• Software Debt Explained

– Technical Debt– Quality Debt– Configuration Management Debt– Design Debt– Platform Experience Debt

• The Wrap Up– A Story of What is Possible


Problems Found with Aging Software

• Software gets difficult to add features to as it ages • Business expectations do not lessen as software

ages • Software must remain maintainable and changeable

to meet needs of business over time • Lack of emphasis on software quality attributes

contributes to decay

Software Debt

Creeps into software slowly and leaves organizations with liabilities


Software Debt Creeps In

Shows a relatively new system with little software debt accrued.



An aging software system slowly incurs significant debt in multiple functional areas.



An older system has accrued significant debt in all functional areas and components.


Managing Software Debt – an Overview

Minimum Acceptable

Value

Depreciation ofValue Due to

Software Debt

Time

Effect of Managing Software Debtover time is extended preservationof software’s value

High

er S

oftw

are

Valu

e

Potential for depreciation is always there so

discipline is essential


Types of Software Debt

• Technical Debt• Quality Debt• Configuration Management Debt• Design Debt• Platform Experience Debt


Technical Debt

Issues in software implementation that will impede future development if left unresolved


* Ward Cunningham’s Definition of “Technical Debt”

• Technical Debt includes those internal things that you choose not to do now, but which will impede future development if left undone. This includes deferred refactoring.

• Technical Debt doesn’t include deferred functionality, except possibly in edge cases where delivered functionality is “good enough” for the customer, but doesn’t satisfy some standard (e.g., a UI element that isn’t fully compliant with some UI standard).

* Ward Cunningham - “Technical Debt” - http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TechnicalDebt

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TechnicalDebt


My Definition of “Technical Debt”

“Technical debt is the decay of component and inter-

component behavior when the application functionality meets a

minimum standard of satisfaction for the customer.”


Maintain One List of Work

Put all work into Product Backlog andMake tradeoff decisions based on reality of the situation


Quality Debt

A lack of quality, either technical or functional, will lessen value per feature added over time


Accrual of Quality Debt with Releases

R1 R2$00

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000Total Debt Accrued

Releases


Break/Fix Only Prolongs the Agony

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Debt Accrued (Bugs) Bugs FixedSprints


17

Effect of Project Constraints on Quality


A Fit Case Study

Cost reduction using Fit for test automation and data conversion


Manual Regression Testing

• Testing was taking 75 person hours during 2 full test runs consisting of:o Comprehensive manual regression testingo Data conversion and validation

• Cost for testing was $17,000 each iteration


Introducing Fit into Testing Process• After 8 iterations team had introduced healthy

amount of Fit fixtures and automated tests• Reduced 70+ hour test runtime down to 6 hours

which now included:o Fit automated regression testing o Data conversion and validation automated with Fit

fixtures • Reduced cost of testing each iteration from $17,000

to $7,000


21

Acceptance Test-Driven Development

FunctionalRequirement

Draft AcceptanceTest Cases

ImplementFunctionality

ExecuteAcceptance Test Cases

ReviewResults

Modify AcceptanceTest Cases

Verify Results

Accepted


Configuration Management Debt

Creating unpredictable and error-prone release management


Traditional Source Control Management

Main BranchDebt

Death March {Debt accrues quickly within stabilization periods

Version 1Branch

Integrate forVersion 2

CodeComplete


Flexible Source Control Management

Main BranchVersion 1 Version 2 {Not Easy! Must have proper infrastructure to do this.


Continuous Integration


Scaling to Multiple Integrations


Design Debt

Design decays when not attended to so design your software continually


* Abuse User Stories

Implement Securityfor User Information

As a Malicious Hacker I want to steal credit card information so that I can make fraudulent charges

* From “User Stories Applied” presented by Mike Cohn Agile 2006


Automated Tests

29

New Featur

e

System

Design Changes

Automated

Regression

Test Run


Working with Legacy Software

30

Define Acceptance Criteria for Requirement

Analyze What Might Be Affected by Requirement

Write Automated Tests for How it Works Now

Write Failing Automated Tests for How it Should Work

Carefully Modify Source Code to Implement Requirement

Execute Automated Tests to Verify Change


Platform Experience Debt

Silos of knowledge and increased specialization will increase cost of maintenance over time


How to Combat Platform Experience Debt

• Ignore it (I do not suggest this!) • Write automated functional tests for existing system

functionality• Connect through interface to underlying system • Transfer knowledge of platform to more people • Rewrite system on more current platform • Move thin slices of functionality to more current platform

over time• Start architecture upgrade discussions and involve teams

through known team configuration patterns


Team Configuration Patterns

• Virtual Architect Pattern• Integration Team Pattern• Component Shepherd Pattern• Team Architect Pattern


Virtual Architect Pattern

EnterprisePlanning


Virtual Architect Pattern

• Pros– Share architecture ideas and needs across teams– Based on verbal communication

• Cons– Usually singles out special Team Member role– Could lead to top-down architecture decisions– IT may gain extensive influence and begin to run Product

Backlog prioritization for architecture needs


Integration Team Pattern

Feature Developmen

t

Integrate Features

All features are

implemented and

integrated every

iteration


Integration Team Pattern

• Pros– Reduces complexity on Feature Teams– Forces delivery from Integration Team instead of interface

and deployment designs• Cons

– Perpetuates specialized roles– Don’t always work on highest value Product Backlog items


Component Shepherd Pattern


Component Shepherd Pattern

• Pros– Share more knowledge within organization to minimize

platform experience debt– Work on highest value Product Backlog items

• Cons– Not always optimal as using individual knowledge– Difficult to learn multiple systems across Teams


Team Architect Pattern


Team Architect Pattern

• Pros– Team owns architecture decisions– Decisions are made close to implementation concerns

• Cons– May not have appropriate experience on Team– Team could get “stuck” on architecture decisions


What is possible?

High quality can be attained and should enable accelerated feature delivery at same time.


A Story: Field Support Application• 2000+ users access application each day• Application supports multiple perspectives and

workflows from Field Support Operations to Customer Service

• Team of 5 people delivering features on existing Cold Fusion platform implementation

• Migrating to Spring/Hibernate in slices while delivering valuable features

• 36 2-week Sprints, 33 production releases, and only 1 defect found in production

• So, what was the defect you say? Let me tell you…

43


Lets wrap this up...

What should I take away from this?


Principles for Managing Software Debt

• Maintain one list of work• Emphasize quality• Evolve tools and infrastructure continually• Improve system design always• Share knowledge across the organization• And most importantly, get the right people to work

on your software!


Continuous Integration


Thank you

Questions and Answers


Chris Sterling – Sterling Barton, LLC• Technology Consultant, Agile Coach &

Certified Scrum Trainer• Consults on software architecture, Agile

software development, and effective technology management across a spectrum of industries

• Founder of the International Association of Software Architects (IASA) Puget Sound chapter

• Open Source Developer• Email: [email protected]• Web: http://www.sterlingbarton.com• Blog: http://www.gettingagile.com• Follow me on Twitter : csterwa

48



http://chrissterling.gettingagile.com/

http://chrissterling.gettingagile.com/

http://www.gettingagile.com/

http://www.gettingagile.com/