The President and the CEO of an Application
The President and the CEO of an Application
Join the DZone community and get the full member experience.Join For Free
Take 60 minutes to understand the Power of the Actor Model with "Designing Reactive Systems: The Role Of Actors In Distributed Architecture". Brought to you in partnership with Lightbend.
The CEO is a visionary, often leaving day-to-day operations to the President -- wikipediaI recently switched teams. As part of the transition process, I started taking on less and less of the responsibility for things that were long-term goals. I was still very interested in helping the team succeed, but not at the risk of leaving them with something that would be harder to maintain.
So, I found myself sitting with the users and looking for the lowest-risk, highest-impact features that I could work on for my final days. This seemed like the responsible thing to do for the long-term health of the project, but an interesting side-effect was the unexpected impact to the short-term success of the project.
At first I started grabbing the story-cards that fit this criteria, and I worked my way from the highest prioritized on down. As you can imagine, I moved down the list quickly - many of the cards were sufficiently complicated that working on them would have created maintenance risk. The users were pleased with the quick additions of highly prioritized features; however, as I moved down the list their happiness became very erratic. Some features were still very appreciated; while others were met largely with ambivalence. It became obvious that I needed to adapt the plan.
I stopped working in priority order. In fact, I stopped working from the story cards entirely. I sat down next to the users twice a day, for extended periods of time, listened to anything they had to say, and I watched the way the application was used. I started making tweaks to the application based on their complaints and any wasted effort that I witnessed. I looked for "every time I do A, then I do B". Sometimes the interaction was complicated and I couldn't automate it away. However, there were non-trivial amounts of tasks that I entirely eliminated.
The users were great about providing feedback. There was some feedback that I had to dismiss, because it wasn't something I could fix safely (in the short-term); however, a large amount of their complaints took 5-20 minutes to address. Those issues were nagging and annoying, but not (individually) more important than the long term goals of the project. But, as I began to quickly address the issues the application became more polished. It went from a good application, to an application that was surprisingly nice to work with. One of the most demanding users I've ever worked for sent me a few different emails letting me know how great the app was and how much he appreciated my effort. I was shocked.
Delivering all of these little, helpful features so greatly impacted the happiness and effectiveness of the users that I had to take a step back and see if this was something I could reproduce on future projects. The first thing that came to mind was the relationship between a CEO and a President. As the quote above says, The CEO is a visionary, often leaving day-to-day operations to the President. This idea seemed similar to what occurred in my final days. I was adding features that made day-to-day activities more efficient, and at the same time a pair was working on the features that solved our long term goals. The application was moving in the right direction for the long-term, while still experiencing short bursts of improvement in the short-term as well.
It wasn't unfiltered awesomeness. I delivered a few things that addressed an immediate problem, but not in a way that satisfied the users' needs. I wasn't working off story cards or deep conversations. I was often speculating on what I thought the application needed most. Sometimes I was wrong. However, each failure occurred quickly, and led to delivering something that the users did need. And, this cycle was complete within a few hours. (e.g. [in an hour] deliver a feature that isn't quite right, get immediate feedback, spend an hour fixing it, deliver what's really needed)
You could argue that I wasted that first hour, but spending 30 minutes with 2 users to get it right the first time would have cost the team more in the end. But, we're quickly approaching dangerous territory. Developers may like the idea of no requirements and delivering speculative features all-day, but I expect businesses would (rightly-so) object. I think a key variable in my scenario was the 2 hour failure-success cycle. If we tried this approach, it took 2 weeks, and it could have been avoided by a 30 minute discussion I think everyone would consider it a failure (again, rightly-so).
This led me to the observation that developers are more likely to correctly prioritize features that take less than a day to deliver and users are more likely to correctly prioritize features based on long-term goals. I've definitely seen this occur in two ways in the past.
- I often see users prioritize based solely on the value of the feature, even when an estimate is present.
- I have personally thought prioritizing some small features over a larger feature was the right choice, only to see that the impact of the large feature was significantly greater than I understood
This experience has definitely left me wondering if teams would benefit from:
- developers prioritizing and keeping a separate backlog of smaller feature requests
- users prioritizing and keeping a separate backlog of larger feature requests
- ensuring there is always at least one person working on each backlog.
I was very pleased with the results of using this style, and I'm hoping to try it again in the future.
Opinions expressed by DZone contributors are their own.