When a team works with a lot of maven projects it becomes quickly painful to do some basic tasks like: manage versionning and connections between the different projects. releasing and opening versions, especially when the maven-release plugin needs to be run on many projects and when versionning is not standard. managing external dependencies also can become complex, and ensuring that a single version of a dependency is used accross different projects is sometimes not a trivial question to ask. in a one word, applying transformations on a dependency graph is difficult. mind-mapping the dependency graph is difficult when the number of projects grows. That can increase the amount of time needed by new people to understand a project graph, and that also makes maintaining and changing things difficult. checking consistency and optimizing the dependency graph is not an easy task neither. having an always up-to-date build of snapshots and release is not easy when projects are distributed everywhere. Pom Explorer So there is the Pom Explorer tool which tries to address those problems by providing those functionalities : release a graph : release a pom or all poms and its/theirs dependencies and updates all dependent poms accross multiple repositories and projects, change a gav : updates a project’s gav and make all the project which depends on it follow this change. manages properties, dependency management, and so on. Pom-explorer knows what pom.xml to update and where to update. If a dependency specifies ${foobar.version}, pom-explorer will go to update the foobar.version property. query the dependency graph to retrieve pertinent information about your projects, statistics and check functions are also available, display 3d interactive graph, export graphml files, find not used dependencies and other similar problems, list java classes provided by artifacts, list java classes referenced by artifacts, runs a light and efficient web server so local and shared usage is possible. The tool will also support automatically building projects in order to always have such or such project always up to date. Use cases In this article, I will show some common use cases possible with this tool. Installation First one needs to install and run the software. Put yourself in a temporary directory and type those commands : git clone https://github.com/ltearno/pom-explorer.git cd pom-explorer java -jar target/pom-explorer.jar The program should welcome you and ask you to go to this address : http://localhost:90 This is the console to the application. You can type commands in the prompt, they will be sent to the server and it will answer. You can use up and down arrows to recall past commands. Let’s start by typing ? to get the available commands : Analyze of repositories OK. First we will analyse a directory where there are many maven projects, then we will work a bit to optimize those projects. You will have to adapt the exercise to your computer. Let’s analyse my git repositories directory : analyze directory c:\documents\repos This will analyze my projects and construct an in-memory graph of the dependency graph : Now, the program knows about everything on my projects, let’s start asking questions ! List of GAVs… Let’s get the list of all existing GAVs (groupId, artifactId, version) in the graph. There will be my projects and all the GAVs on which they depend. Type this command : gav li Note that you can type only the first letters of a command, as long as there is no ambiguity. Here li stands for list. Find dependencies on an obsolete artifact As I look through the list of GAVs, I remark that there are still an old snapshot version of the hexa.binding artifact hanging around. The latest released version is 1.3 and the working version is 1.4-SNAPSHOT so the version 1.3-SNAPSHOTshould not be used anymore. Which is the project still depending on this very deprecated this version ? Let’s ask the question : depends on fr.lteconsulting:hexa.binding:1.3-SNAPSHOT Here it is ! the project rigpa.org:regsys-clients:1.0.0-SNAPSHOT is still using an old snapshot. Let’s arrange that. Pom Explorer is able to change the pom properties and dependencies by itself. Updating this wrong dependency What we want is to change fr.lteconsulting:hexa.binding:1.3-SNAPSHOT tofr.lteconsulting:hexa.binding:1.3 so that the project uses the latest release available. We could desire to change for fr.lteconsulting:hexa.binding:1.4-SNAPSHOT which would be possible with the same command as we’ll see. For that we will use the change gav command : cha ga fr.lteconsulting:hexa.binding:1.3-SNAPSHOT fr.lteconsulting:hexa.binding:1.3 Here is what Pom Explorer answers : So first Pom Explorer finds what needs to be changed in the graph. This might be the project itself and all projects which depend on it. After that the program begins a loop in which all changes are checked and appropriately transformed when needed. For instance changing a dependency version can become changing a property value. Changes are first resolved as described before and they are then transformed in a change list to apply to be applied to pom.xml files. In the ouput, there is first a little warning saying thefr.lteconsulting:hexa.binding:1.3-SNAPSHOT project was not found. That’s normal because the project in now in version 1.4-SNAPSHOT. So there is no need to modify it. Then in the change list section, the changes that are to be applied to pom.xml files are listed. The first one says ‘project not found’ and that’s ok as seen before. The second one says to modify the C:\documents\repos\regsys-clients\pom.xmland change the dependency ([DEPENDENCY])fr.lteconsulting:hexa.binding:1.3-SNAPSHOT tofr.lteconsulting:hexa.binding:1.3. The “causes” message is useful when a change is caused by other changes (as said before a dependency change can become one or several property changes). If we had properties involved, Pom Explorer would have found them and included them in the change set. Now that we reviewed the proposed changes and agreed with them, let’s apply them by using the same command with the -apply flag : cha ga fr.lteconsulting:hexa.binding:1.3-SNAPSHOT fr.lteconsulting:hexa.binding:1.3 -apply We see that at the end of the same process, the program updated the dependency in the right pom.xml file. Let’s have a look at the file it self : fr.lteconsulting hexa.binding 1.3 compile OK, the file is correct now… Oh well no ! I just find other dependencies in SNAPSHOT versions ! Finding more duplicate and obsolete dependencies Let’s accept it, our projects are not up to date. Well let’s see how many of those artifacts there are with multiple versions used. For that i type the checkcommand : Ok there is some work to do ! Opening a version Now let’s look at another use case. Say that the hexa.binding project is in version 1.3 and i want to open the version 1.4-SNAPSHOT. I also want all the projects which depend on version 1.3to move to 1.4-SNAPSHOT. On the way, I want all modified projects still in a release version to be SNAPSHOT-ized too. And i want this to happen recursively as new projects are opened. With Pom Explorer, that’s only one command : change gav fr.lteconsulting:hexa.binding:1.3 fr.lteconsulting:hexa.binding:1.4-SNAPSHOT As you can see, warnings are generated when projects are reopened : Those are normal warnings, they are just here so that you know what happens. Then, there is a big list of changes to be made, because the hexa.bindingartifact is used in many central projects that were in a release state. Glad that we didn’t do that by hand ! Even with the maven-update-version plugin, there would have been a lot of repositories to go to open and update. Let’s apply the changes with the -apply flag : cha ga fr.lteconsulting:hexa.binding:1.3 fr.lteconsulting:hexa.binding:1.4-SNAPSHOT -apply All the changes have been made, about 30 of them. In one go ! Refresh the page so that a new session is created from the changed files. We can see that many of the projects have been reopened : You now have to commit all the repositories with this update. Pom explorer does not do that yet, but maybe in the future ! Releasing many poms Imagine the sprint is almost finished now and it’s now time to release the projects. Type the gav li fr.lteconsulting again to get the GAVs list (fr.lteconsulting is my projects package name, so I filter GAVs with that), choose one and let’s release it : fr.lteconsulting:hexa.binding.samples:1.4-SNAPSHOT The thing in the release is to have all direct and transitive dependencies released too. That’s what Pom Explorer checks. It then generates a change list to materialize your requirements. Other use cases Listing provided and referenced classes You can ask which Java classes are provided and referenced by GAVs. That’s sometimes a useful information to have. Try those commands : classes providedBy fr.lteconsulting:hexa.css:1.3 classes referencedBy fr.lteconsulting:hexa.css:1.3 Optimizing your project’s dependencies Sometimes, you ask yourself “do I still need this and that dependency ?” but you are not very sure, and since you lack time to investigate, eventually the dependency stays in your project for a long time, causing of course maintenance issues sometime. Let’s have Pom Explorer help us in the quest for the obsolete dependency. garbage dep fr.lteconsulting:carousel:1.0-SNAPSHOT This will give you something like that : You can refer to the project documentation to find how to use those informations. But sure that it can help you give away those useless dependencies ! Other goodies : graphs ! Pom Explorer can do two other things to help you visualize your dependency graph : export GraphML files so you can use them in another graph software (like yEd for instance). display an interactive 3d graph Exporting GraphML files GraphML is an open format to describe graphs. With the graph exportcommand, you can get graphml files of your working session. The program will create two files and display the links to them. Those two files are corresponding to two graphs : the dependency graph as usual, and the dependency graph between the git repositories containing your projects. Sometime one git repository can contain multiple projects and a view of the dependencies at the repository level is useful in those cases. This is the kind of picture you can get easily from editors like yEd : Interactive 3D graph Thanks to the WebGL standard which allows direct access to the 3D hardware on the running machine and thanks to libraries like three.js and ngraph.pixel, it is possible to display an interacive 3d graph. More over it is possible to customize the appearance of the graph to give account of different perspectives. Type the graph command and click on the link. This will open another tab containing the living 3d graph of your projects. When focus is given to the 3d viewport, the W, A, S, F and arrow keys allow to move in the 3d space. On the right, there is a text area where you can edit some javascript callback to customize the graph appearance. You can also stop the moving of the particle with the checkbox at the bottom right of the screen. It is not necessarilly useful, but sometimes it is relaxing to admire your work in the form of a living and moving graph ! Conclusion There are many other functions in Pom Explorer, but they are for you to discover now. This tool finds easily its place in the daily workflow because of the functions it provides. The fact that one can run it locally or on a shared server allows to use it as you wish. It is still in early development phase so many more functionalities could come up. On this subject, don’t hesitate submitting a little pull request on the GitHub repository… Pom Explorer is made with love by LTE Consulting

Written by Joel Bancroft-Connors for LeadingAgile. Okay, so your enterprise wants to start an agile transformation. Good for you! We’ll assume you know why you are doing it, what the values are and that it’s not an overnight process. That still leaves a question of where in the organization do you start? Do you start with a small scale team level approach? Do you get executive sponsorship for a top down push? Do you work through the PMO? And what about middle management? The answer is, yes. Let’s look at the various entrance vectors for an agile transformation, and why they can fail. From the Team Up When I first gained a formal understanding of agile (like many I’d been doing it for years without realizing it), my basic Shu understanding of agile was very team and individual focused. I think my background in customer service made this a very natural place to go to. As a natural extension of this I believed that “agile must grow from the teams”. If you believe you are agile, you will be. It was at this time I first came up with my “Better people lead to better teams, better teams to better projects, better projects to better products, better products leads to better companies and better companies will make a better world.” philosophy. Unfortunately, this is not unlike the kid with a blanket tied around his neck that jumps off his parent’s roof, in the belief he can fly. Belief will only carry you so far in the face of the law of gravity. A team level agile transformation can only go so far in the enterprise before it runs into the impediments of large organizations. From the Top Down At the other end of the spectrum you have agilists that firmly believe an agile transformation must come from the executive level. Without their support, you can never conquer the agile anti-bodies and organizational impediments. The most common problem with this method, is a failure to commit. The executive says “we’re going agile” and may even hire some consultants to come in and help. Only like the product manager who doesn’t get the shift to being a product owner, the executive does not take part in the transformation. Mandates and visions from the C-Suite rarely succeed unless the executives are willing to invest their time directly into the effort. Even if they do, they can run into strong resistance from the middle without constant support from the top. Meet in the Middle For a time I believed that this was the secret to success. Find a team that wanted to do an agile pilot and get the executive to support this from the top down. This too is fraught with risk. I learned this was not unlike burning the candle at both ends. Pretty soon the middle is melting. Even if the agile pilot was successful, two things would rise up to crush it. The first being most agile pilots are small scale, high performing projects that won’t scale across the organizational impediments. The other problem was that the managers in the middle had a tendency to become detractors out of sheer fear of how this would change their role. Which led me to to the realization that without middle management bought in and supporting, you could not be successful. This launched me on a quest to help educate managers on what it meant to be a manager in an agile organization. While teaching managers to move from managing tasks, to enabling their teams was certainly valuable, it was not the magic entry point to start a transformation. It did build on my “better people” belief in that I was helping managers to support their directs better, even if they were not doing agile development. That didn’t help me with finding the vector to start an agile transformation. The PMO My focus on better managers, combined with my PMI background, led me to explore driving an agile transformation from the program management office. I really thought I was on to something here. The PMO typically owns process or has a lot of influence on it. And as peers to the middle management can exert some strong influence with them. The problems though came from all directions. Teams have a somewhat understanding wariness for the “process of the month” from project managers. “These non-engineers want to tell us how to write software?” Next, while the PMO might be able to get an executive sponsor, more often than not that sponsorship extends only as far as the kick-off meeting. And while the PMO does own process, because agile calls for a fundamental change in how people managers interact with their directs, those managers are usually highly resistant. So the bottom, the top and the middle all have their challenges for originating an agile transformation. So what do we do? A Total Approach While I was exploring coaching better managers, LeadingAgile ‘s founders, Mike and Dennis began to realize that only a systematic approach would work to successfully transform an enterprise scale organization to agile. By establishing an agile structure, governance and metrics, a company could bring clarity to their requirements, accountability (and ability) to the teams and be able to measurably track progress through working, tested software. This approach doesn’t focus on just one approach vector. Instead it sets up an agile transformation plan from portfolio, through the program level (product owner teams) to the delivery level. When the agile pilot is done, it’s not a cutting edge XP practice or Lean Startup. Instead the pilot is testing the very first step the rest of the organization will also take. The executive sponsor is directly involved, much like a product owner should be. The managers not only know what is happening, they are directly a part of it and get the support they need to be able to support their teams, not drive them to a death march release. And of course the teams get the hands-on help to make a transition to a Shu level agile framework, the first step in a multi-legged journey of an agile transformation. Not unlike Agile itself When we talk about creating a stable agile team, we often use the slice of cake analogy. The Scrum team (to pick an agile framework) should have all the skills needed to release an increment of potentially shippable product. An agile transformation needs to be a slice of cake through the organization, with everyone an equal player in the transformation. When we talk about enterprise agile release ceremonies we have release planning, sprint planning and the standup. With an agile transformation, the portfolio is the release planning, the program is the sprint planning and the teams the daily standup. Conclusion If you want a successful enterprise-scale agile transformation, you can’t start at the top, the bottom, or the middle. You have to start all along the continuum, at the same time. And for me, it’s been a realization that my “better people, better teams” philosophy isn’t a “one leads to the next” progression scale. Instead you have to work with the company as a whole, to make all levels better, together. I still believe better companies will save the world and that’s what I’m doing when I help a company do an enterprise-scale agile transformation.

If you use Spring framework for more than a week you are probably aware of this feature. Suppose you have more than one bean implementing a given interface. Trying to autowire just one bean of such interface is doomed to fail because Spring has no idea which particular instance you need. You can work around that by using @Primary annotation to designate exactly one "most important" implementation that will have priority over others. But there are many legitimate use cases where you want to inject all beans implementing said interface. For example you have multiple validators that all need to be executed prior to business logic or several algorithm implementations that you want to exercise at the same time. Auto-discovering all implementations at runtime is a fantastic illustration ofOpen/closed principle: you can easily add new behavior to business logic (validators, algorithms, strategies - open for extension) without touching the business logic itself (closed for modification). Just in case I will start with a quick introduction, feel free to jump straight to subsequent sections. So let's take a concrete example. Imagine you have a StringCallableinterface and multiple implementations: interface StringCallable extends Callable { } @Component class Third implements StringCallable { @Override public String call() { return "3"; } } @Component class Forth implements StringCallable { @Override public String call() { return "4"; } } @Component class Fifth implements StringCallable { @Override public String call() throws Exception { return "5"; } } Now we can inject List, Set or evenMap (String represents bean name) to any other class. To simplify I'm injecting to a test case: @SpringBootApplication public class Bootstrap { } @ContextConfiguration(classes = Bootstrap) class BootstrapTest extends Specification { @Autowired List list; @Autowired Set set; @Autowired Map map; def 'injecting all instances of StringCallable'() { expect: list.size() == 3 set.size() == 3 map.keySet() == ['third', 'forth', 'fifth'].toSet() } def 'enforcing order of injected beans in List'() { when: def result = list.collect { it.call() } then: result == ['3', '4', '5'] } def 'enforcing order of injected beans in Set'() { when: def result = set.collect { it.call() } then: result == ['3', '4', '5'] } def 'enforcing order of injected beans in Map'() { when: def result = map.values().collect { it.call() } then: result == ['3', '4', '5'] } } So far so good, but only first test passes, can you guess why? Condition not satisfied: result == ['3', '4', '5'] | | | false [3, 5, 4] After all, why did we make an assumption that beans will be injected in the same order as they were... declared? Alphabetically? Luckily one can enforce the order with Orderedinterface: interface StringCallable extends Callable, Ordered { } @Component class Third implements StringCallable { //... @Override public int getOrder() { return Ordered.HIGHEST_PRECEDENCE; } } @Component class Forth implements StringCallable { //... @Override public int getOrder() { return Ordered.HIGHEST_PRECEDENCE + 1; } } @Component class Fifth implements StringCallable { //... @Override public int getOrder() { return Ordered.HIGHEST_PRECEDENCE + 2; } } Interestingly, even though Spring internally injects LinkedHashMap andLinkedHashSet, only List is properly ordered. I guess it's not documented and least surprising. To end this introduction, in Java 8 you can also inject Optionalwhich works as expected: injects a dependency only if it's available. Optional dependencies can appear e.g. when using profiles extensively and some beans are not bootstrapped in some profiles. Composite pattern Dealing with lists is quite cumbersome. Most of the time you want to iterate over them so in order to avoid duplication it's useful to encapsulate such list in a dedicated wrapper: @Component public class Caller { private final List callables; @Autowired public Caller(List callables) { this.callables = callables; } public String doWork() { return callables.stream() .map(StringCallable::call) .collect(joining("|")); } } Our wrapper simply calls all underlying callables one after another and joins their results: @ContextConfiguration(classes = Bootstrap) class CallerTest extends Specification { @Autowired Caller caller def 'Caller should invoke all StringCallbles'() { when: def result = caller.doWork() then: result == '3|4|5' } } It's somewhat controversial, but often this wrapper implements the same interface as well, effectively implementing composite classic design pattern: @Component @Primary public class Caller implements StringCallable { private final List callables; @Autowired public Caller(List callables) { this.callables = callables; } @Override public String call() { return callables.stream() .map(StringCallable::call) .collect(joining("|")); } } Thanks to @Primary we can simply autowire StringCallable everywhere as if there was just one bean while in fact there are multiple and we inject composite. This is useful when refactoring old application as it preserves backward compatibility. Why am I even starting with all these basics? If you look very closely, code snippet above introduces chicken and egg problem: an instance of StringCallable requires all instances of StringCallable, so technically speaking callables list should includeCaller as well. But Caller is currently being created, so it's impossible. This makes a lot of sense and luckily Spring recognizes this special case. But in more advanced scenarios this can bite you. Further down the road a new developer introduced this: @Component public class EnterpriseyManagerFactoryProxyHelperDispatcher { private final Caller caller; @Autowired public EnterpriseyManagerFactoryProxyHelperDispatcher(Caller caller) { this.caller = caller; } } Nothing wrong so far, except the class name. But what happens if one of theStringCallables has a dependency on it? @Component class Fifth implements StringCallable { private final EnterpriseyManagerFactoryProxyHelperDispatcher dispatcher; @Autowired public Fifth(EnterpriseyManagerFactoryProxyHelperDispatcher dispatcher) { this.dispatcher = dispatcher; } } We now created a circular dependency, and because we inject via constructors (as it was always meant to be), Spring slaps us in the face on startup: UnsatisfiedDependencyException: Error creating bean with name 'caller' defined in file ... UnsatisfiedDependencyException: Error creating bean with name 'fifth' defined in file ... UnsatisfiedDependencyException: Error creating bean with name 'enterpriseyManagerFactoryProxyHelperDispatcher' defined in file ... BeanCurrentlyInCreationException: Error creating bean with name 'caller': Requested bean is currently in creation: Is there an unresolvable circular reference? Stay with me, I'm building the climax here. This is clearly a bug, that can unfortunately be fixed with field injection (or setter for that matter): @Component public class Caller { @Autowired private List callables; public String doWork() { return callables.stream() .map(StringCallable::call) .collect(joining("|")); } } By decoupling bean creation from injection (impossible with constructor injection) we can now create a circular dependency graph, where Caller holds an instance of Fifth class which references Enterprisey..., which in turns references back to the same Callerinstance. Cycles in dependency graph are a design smell, leading to unmaintainable graph of spaghetti relationships. Please avoid them and if constructor injection can entirely prevent them, that's even better. Meeting getBeansOfType() Interestingly there is another solution that goes straight to Spring guts:ListableBeanFactory.getBeansOfType(): @Component public class Caller { private final List callables; @Autowired public Caller(ListableBeanFactory beanFactory) { callables = new ArrayList<>(beanFactory.getBeansOfType(StringCallable.class).values()); } public String doWork() { return callables.stream() .map(StringCallable::call) .collect(joining("|")); } } Problem solved? Quite the opposite!getBeansOfType() will silently skip (well, there isTRACE and DEBUG log...) beans under creation and only returns those already existing. Therefor Callerwas just created and container started successfully, while it no longer references Fifth bean. You might say I asked for it because we have a circular dependency so weird things happens. But it's an inherent feature of getBeansOfType(). In order to understand why using getBeansOfType() during container startup is a bad idea, have a look at the following scenario (unimportant code omitted): @Component class Alpha { static { log.info("Class loaded"); } @Autowired public Alpha(ListableBeanFactory beanFactory) { log.info("Constructor"); log.info("Constructor (beta?): {}", beanFactory.getBeansOfType(Beta.class).keySet()); log.info("Constructor (gamma?): {}", beanFactory.getBeansOfType(Gamma.class).keySet()); } @PostConstruct public void init() { log.info("@PostConstruct (beta?): {}", beanFactory.getBeansOfType(Beta.class).keySet()); log.info("@PostConstruct (gamma?): {}", beanFactory.getBeansOfType(Gamma.class).keySet()); } } @Component class Beta { static { log.info("Class loaded"); } @Autowired public Beta(ListableBeanFactory beanFactory) { log.info("Constructor"); log.info("Constructor (alpha?): {}", beanFactory.getBeansOfType(Alpha.class).keySet()); log.info("Constructor (gamma?): {}", beanFactory.getBeansOfType(Gamma.class).keySet()); } @PostConstruct public void init() { log.info("@PostConstruct (alpha?): {}", beanFactory.getBeansOfType(Alpha.class).keySet()); log.info("@PostConstruct (gamma?): {}", beanFactory.getBeansOfType(Gamma.class).keySet()); } } @Component class Gamma { static { log.info("Class loaded"); } public Gamma() { log.info("Constructor"); } @PostConstruct public void init() { log.info("@PostConstruct"); } } The log output reveals how Spring internally loads and resolves classes: Alpha: | Class loaded Alpha: | Constructor Beta: | Class loaded Beta: | Constructor Beta: | Constructor (alpha?): [] Gamma: | Class loaded Gamma: | Constructor Gamma: | @PostConstruct Beta: | Constructor (gamma?): [gamma] Beta: | @PostConstruct (alpha?): [] Beta: | @PostConstruct (gamma?): [gamma] Alpha: | Constructor (beta?): [beta] Alpha: | Constructor (gamma?): [gamma] Alpha: | @PostConstruct (beta?): [beta] Alpha: | @PostConstruct (gamma?): [gamma] Spring framework first loads Alpha and tries to instantiate a bean. However when runninggetBeansOfType(Beta.class) it discovers Beta so proceeds with loading and instantiating that one. Inside Beta we can immediately spot the problem: when Beta asks for beanFactory.getBeansOfType(Alpha.class) it gets no results ([]). Spring will silently ignore Alpha, because it's currently under creation. Later everything is as expected: Gamma is loaded, constructed and injected, Beta sees Gamma and when we return to Alpha, everything is in place. Notice that even moving getBeansOfType() to@PostConstruct method doesn't help - these callbacks aren't executed in the end, when all beans are instantiated - but while the container starts up. Suggestions getBeansOfType() is rarely needed and turns out to be unpredictable if you have cyclic dependencies. Of course you should avoid them in the first place and if you properly inject dependencies via collections, Spring can predictably handle the lifecycle of all beans and either wire them correctly or fail at runtime. In presence of circular dependencies betweens beans (sometimes accidental or very long in terms of nodes and edges in dependency graph) getBeansOfType() can yield different results depending on factors we have no control over, like CLASSPATH order. PS: Kudos to Jakub Kubryński for troubleshooting getBeansOfType().

I wrote a lot about InterruptedException and interrupting threads already. In short if you call Future.cancel() not inly given Future will terminate pending get(), but also it will try to interrupt underlying thread. This is a pretty important feature that enables better thread pool utilization. I also wrote to always prefer CompletableFuture over standardFuture. It turns out the more powerful younger brother of Future doesn't handle cancel() so elegantly. Consider the following task, which we'll use later throughout the tests: class InterruptibleTask implements Runnable { private final CountDownLatch started = new CountDownLatch(1) private final CountDownLatch interrupted = new CountDownLatch(1) @Override void run() { started.countDown() try { Thread.sleep(10_000) } catch (InterruptedException ignored) { interrupted.countDown() } } void blockUntilStarted() { started.await() } void blockUntilInterrupted() { assert interrupted.await(1, TimeUnit.SECONDS) } } Client threads can examine InterruptibleTask to see whether it has started or was interrupted. First let's see how InterruptibleTask reacts to cancel() from outside: def "Future is cancelled without exception"() { given: def task = new InterruptibleTask() def future = myThreadPool.submit(task) task.blockUntilStarted() and: future.cancel(true) when: future.get() then: thrown(CancellationException) } def "CompletableFuture is cancelled via CancellationException"() { given: def task = new InterruptibleTask() def future = CompletableFuture.supplyAsync({task.run()} as Supplier, myThreadPool) task.blockUntilStarted() and: future.cancel(true) when: future.get() then: thrown(CancellationException) } So far so good. Clearly both Future and CompletableFuture work pretty much the same way - retrieving result after it was canceled throws CancellationException. But what about thread in myThreadPool? I thought it will be interrupted and thus recycled by the pool, how wrong was I! def "should cancel Future"() { given: def task = new InterruptibleTask() def future = myThreadPool.submit(task) task.blockUntilStarted() when: future.cancel(true) then: task.blockUntilInterrupted() } @Ignore("Fails with CompletableFuture") def "should cancel CompletableFuture"() { given: def task = new InterruptibleTask() def future = CompletableFuture.supplyAsync({task.run()} as Supplier, myThreadPool) task.blockUntilStarted() when: future.cancel(true) then: task.blockUntilInterrupted() } First test submits ordinary to and waits until it's started. Later we cancel and wait until is observed. will return when underlying thread is interrupted. Second test, however, fails. will never interrupt underlying thread, so despite looking as if it was cancelled, backing thread is still running and no is thrown from . Bug or a feature? , so unfortunately a feature: Parameters:mayInterruptIfRunning - this value has no effect in this implementation because interrupts are not used to control processing. RTFM, you say, but why CompletableFuture works this way? First let's examine how "old" Future implementations differ from CompletableFuture. FutureTask, returned from ExecutorService.submit() has the following cancel() implementation (I removed Unsafe with similar non-thread safe Java code, so treat it as pseudo code only): public boolean cancel(boolean mayInterruptIfRunning) { if (state != NEW) return false; state = mayInterruptIfRunning ? INTERRUPTING : CANCELLED; try { if (mayInterruptIfRunning) { try { Thread t = runner; if (t != null) t.interrupt(); } finally { // final state state = INTERRUPTED; } } } finally { finishCompletion(); } return true; } FutureTask has a state variable that follows this state diagram: In case of cancel() we can either enter CANCELLED state or go to INTERRUPTEDthrough INTERRUPTING. The core part is where we take runner thread (if exists, i.e. if task is currently being executed) and we try to interrupt it. This branch takes care of eager and forced interruption of already running thread. In the end we must notify all threads blocked on Future.get() in finishCompletion() (irrelevant here). So it's pretty obvious how old Future cancels already running tasks. What aboutCompletableFuture? Pseudo-code of cancel(): public boolean cancel(boolean mayInterruptIfRunning) { boolean cancelled = false; if (result == null) { result = new AltResult(new CancellationException()); cancelled = true; } postComplete(); return cancelled || isCancelled(); } Quite disappointing, we barely set result to CancellationException, ignoringmayInterruptIfRunning flag. postComplete() has a similar role tofinishCompletion() - notifies all pending callbacks registered on that future. Its implementation is rather unpleasant (using non-blocking Treiber stack) but it definitely doesn't interrupt any underlying thread. Reasons and implications Limited cancel() in case of CompletableFuture is not a bug, but a design decision.CompletableFuture is not inherently bound to any thread, while Future almost always represents background task. It's perfectly fine to create CompletableFuture from scratch (new CompletableFuture<>()) where there is simply no underlying thread to cancel. Still I can't help the feeling that majority of CompletableFutures will have an associated task and background thread. In that case malfunctioning cancel() is a potential problem. I no longer advice blindly replacing Future with CompletableFutureas it might change the behavior of applications relying on cancel(). This meansCompletableFuture intentionally breaks Liskov substitution principle - and this is a serious implication to consider.

Java Mission Control (JMC) enables you to monitor and manage Java applications without introducing the performance overhead normally associated with these types of tools. It uses data which is already getting collected for normal dynamic optimization of the JVM resulting in a very lightweight approach to observe and analyze problems in the application code. The JMC consists of three different types of tools. A JMX browser which let's you browse all available JVM instances on a machine and a JMX console which let's you browse through the JMX tree on a connected JVM. Last but not least the most interesting aspect is the Java Flight Recorder (JFR). This is exactly the part of the tooling which does the low overhead profiling of JVM instances. Disclaimer: A Word On Licensing The tooling is part of the Oracle JDK downloads. In particular the JMC 5.4 is part of JDK 8u20 and JDK 7u71 and is distributed under the Oracle Binary Code License Agreement for Java SE Platform products and commercially available features for Java SE Advanced and Java SE Suite. IANAL, but as far as I know this allows for using it for your personal education and potentially also as part of your developer tests. Make sure to check back with whomever you know that could answer this question. This blog post looks at it as a small little how-to and assumes, that you know what you are doing from a license perspective. Adding Java Optional Parameters Unlocking the JFR features requires you to put in some optional parameters to your WildFly 8.x/EAP 6.x configuration. Find the $JBOSS_HOME/bin/standalone.conf|conf.bat and add the following parameters: -XX:+UnlockCommercialFeatures -XX:+FlightRecorder You can now use jcmd command like described in this knowledge-base entry to start a recording. Another way is actually to start a recording directly from JMC. Starting A Recording From JMC First step is to start JMC. Find it in the %JAVA_HOME%/bin folder. After it started you can use the JVM Browser to find the WildFly/EAP instance you want to connect to. Right click on it to see all the available options. You can either start the JMX Console or start a Flight Recording. The JMX console is a bit fancier than the JConsole and allows for a bunch of metrics and statistics. It also allows you to set a bunch of triggers and browser MBeans and whatnot. Please look at the documentation for all the details. What is really interesting is the function to start a Flight Recording. If you select this option, a new wizard pops up and lets you tweak the settings a bit. Beside having to select a folder where the recording gets stored you also have the choice between different recording templates. A one minute recording with the "Server Profiling" template with barely any load on the server results in a 1.5 MB file. So, better keep an eye on the volume you're storing all that stuff at. You can also decide the profiling granularity for a bunch of parameters further down the dialogues. But at the end, you click "Finish" and the recording session starts. You can decide to push it to the background and keep working while the data gets captured. Analyzing Flight Recorder Files This is pretty easy. You can open the recording with JMC and click through the results. If you enabled the default recording with the additional parameter: -XX:FlightRecorderOptions=defaultrecording=true you can also directly dump the recording via the JVM browser. It is easy to pick a time-frame that you want to download the data for or alternatively you can also decide to download the complete recording.

In this blog post I will look into the basics of configuring Role Based Access Control (RBAC) in EAP and Wildfly. RBAC was introduced in EAP 6.2 and WildFly 8 so you will need either of those if you wish to use RBAC. For the purposes of this blog I will be using the following: OS - Ubuntu 14 Java - 1.7.0_67 JBoss - EAP 6.3 Although I'm using EAP these instructions should work just the same on Wildfly. What is RBAC? Role Based Access Control is designed to restrict system access by specifying permissions for management users. Each user with management access is given a role and that role defines what they can and cannot access. In EAP 6.2+ and Wildfly 8+ there are seven predefined roles each of which has different permissions. Details on each of the roles can be found here: https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/JBoss_Enterprise_Application_Platform/6.2/html/Security_Guide/Supported_Roles.html In order to authenticate users one of the three standard authentication providers must be used. These are: Local User - The local user is automatically added as a SuperUser so a user on the server machine has full access. This user should be removed in a production system and access locked down to named users. Username/Password - using either the mgmt-users.properties file, or an LDAP server. Client Certificate - using a trust store For the purposes of this blog and to keep things simple we will use username/passwords and the mgmt-users.properties file Why do we need RBAC? The easiest way to show this is through a practical demo. Configuration can be done either via the Management Console or via the Command Line Interface (CLI). However, only a limited set of tasks can be done via the management console whereas all tasks are available via the CLI. Therefore, for the purposes of this blog I will be doing all configuration via the CLI. In our test scenario we have 4 users: Andy - This user is the main sys-admin and therefore we want him to be able to access everything. Bob - This user is a lead developer and therefore will need to be able to deploy apps and make changes to certain application resources. Clare & Dave - These users are standard developers and will need to be able to view application resources but should not be able to make changes. First of all we will set up a number of users. In order to do so we will use the add-user.sh script which can be found in: /bin Create the following users in the stated groups. (Enter No for the final question for all users) Andy - no group Bob - lead-developers Clare - standard-developers Dave - standard-developers In /domain/configuration you will find a file called mgmt-users.properties. At the bottom of this file you will see a list of the users we've created similar to this: Andy=82153e0297590cceb14e7620ccd3b6ed Bob=06a61e836d9d2d5be98517b468ab72cc Clare=63a8ff615a122c56b1d47fc098ff5124 Dave=2df8d1e02e7f3d13dcea7f4b022d0165 In the same directory you will find a a file called mgmt-groups.properties, at the bottom of this file you will see a list of users and the groups they are in, like so: Andy= Bob=lead-developers Clare=developers Dave=developers Now point a browser at http://localhost:9990 and log in as the user Dave. Navigate around and you will see you have full access to everything. This is precisely why RBAC is needed! Allowing all users to not only access the management console but to be able to access and alter anything is a recipe for disaster and guaranteed to cause issues further down the line. Often users don't understand the implications of the changes they have made, it may just be a quick fix to resolve an immediate issue but it may have long term consequences that are not noticed until much further down the line when the changes that were made have been forgotten about or are not documented. As someone who works in support we see these kind of issues on a regular basis and they can be difficult to track down with no audit trail and users not realising that the minor change they made to one part of the system is now causing a major issue in some other part of the system. OK, so we now have our users set up but at the moment they have full access to everything. Next up we will configure these users and assign them to roles. First of all start up the CLI. Run the following command: /bin/jboss-cli.sh -c Change directory to the authorisation node cd /core-service=management/access=authorization Running the following command lists the current role names and the standard role names along with two other attributes ls -l The two we are interested in here are permission-combination-policy and provider. The permission-combination-policy defines how permissions are determined if a user is assigned more than one role. The default setting is permissive. This means that if a user is assigned to any role that allows a particular action then the user can perform that action. The opposite of this is rejecting. This means that if a user is assigned to multiple roles then all those roles must permit an action for a user to be able to perform that action. The other attribute of interest here is provider. This can be set to either simple (which is the default) or rbac. In simple mode all management users can access everything and make changes, as we have seen. In rbac mode users are assigned roles and each of those roles has difference privileges. Switching on RBAC OK, lets turn on RBAC... Run the following commands to turn on RBAC cd /core-service=management/access=authorization :write-attribute(name=provider, value=rbac) Restart JBoss Now point a browser at http://localhost:9990 and try to log in as the user Andy (who should be able to access everything). You should see the following message : Insufficient privileges to access this interface. This is because at the moment the user Andy isn't mapped to any role. Let's fix that now: If you look in domain.xml in the management element you will see the following: This shows that at the moment only the local user is mapped to the SuperUser role. Mapping users and groups to roles We need to map our users to the relevant roles to allow them access. In order to do this we need the following command: role-mapping=ROLENAME/include=ALIAS:add(name=USERNAME, type=USER) Where rolename is one of the pre-configured roles, alias is a unique name for the mapping and user is the name of the user to map. So, lets map the user Andy to the SuperUser role. ./role-mapping=SuperUser/include=user-Andy:add(name=Andy, type=USER) In domain.xml you will see that our user has been added to the SuperUser role: Now point a browser at http://localhost:9990 you should now be able to log in as the user Andy and have full access to everything. Next we need to add mappings for the other roles we want to use. ./role-mapping=Deployer:add ./role-mapping=Monitor:add Now we need to give role mappings to all our other users. As we have them in groups we can assign the groups to roles, rather than mapping by user. The command is basically the same as for a user but the type is GROUP rather than user. Here we are mapping lead developers to the Deployer role and standard developers to the Monitor role. ./role-mapping=Deployer/include=group-lead-devs:add(name=lead-developers, type=GROUP) ./role-mapping=Monitor/include=group-standard-devs:add(name=developers, type=GROUP) If you look in domain.xml you should now see the following showing that the user Andy is mapped to the SuperUser role and the two groups are mapped to the Deployer and Monitor roles. You can also view the role mappings in the admin console. Click on the Administration tab. Expand the Access Control item on the left and select Role Assignment. Select the Users tab - this shows users that are mapped to roles. Select the Groups tab and you will see the mapping between groups and roles. Log in as the different users and see the differences between what you can and can't access. Conclusion So, that's it for Part One. We have switched on RBAC, set up a number of users and groups and mapped those users and groups to particular roles to give them different levels of access. In Part Two of this blog I will look at constraints which allow more fine grained permission setting, scoped roles which allow you to set permissions on individual servers and audit logging which allows you to see who is accessing the management console and see what changes they are making.

I often get asked what it takes to be an effective product manager or product owner, which product skills the individuals should have, and how a company can strengthen its product management function. Answering these questions requires an understanding of what effective product management looks like in the digital age. The following picture shows how I view product management: It depicts a product management framework that consists of six core knowledge areas and by six supporting ones. The core areas are orange and placed centrally. The supporting ones are purple and located at the edge of the circle. You can download the picture for free by simply clicking on it or from romanpichler.com/tools/product-management-framework. The core areas are particularly important for doing a great job as a product manager or product owner. You should hence strive to become knowledgeable in all of them. The supporting areas are also important for your work, especially when you manage commercial products, but generally not as crucial. If the product management framework with its knowledge areas feels overwhelming then don’t worry: Product management is a complex and demanding discipline that is not easy to master. It takes time and effort to become a competent product manager or product owner. The good news is that you can use the framework to spot gaps in your skill set so you can address them. The Core Knowledge Areas Vision and Leadership: Working as an effective product managers or product owner requires vision and leadership skills. You should be able to establish a shared vision, set realistic goals, and describe the benefits your product should deliver. You should be able to actively listen to others and negotiate to reach agreement and get buy-in. At the same time, you should not shy away from making the right product decisions even if they are tough and do not please everyone. You should be able to manage the stakeholders including customers and users, senior management, development, marketing, sales, support, and other business groups that have to contribute to the product success. You should be able to effectively communicate with and influence them. You be comfortable working with a broad range of people from diverse backgrounds including a cross-functional development team. Product Lifecycle Management: Managing a product successfully involves more than getting it built and released. You should understand the product lifecycle with its stages and the key events in the life of your product including launch, product-market fit, and end of sales; you should know how the lifecycle helps you maximise the benefits your product creates across its entire life; this includes the lifecycle’s impact on the product performance (revenue and profits), the product goals, the pricing and the marketing strategy; the options to revive growth as your product matures and growth starts to stagnate; and the process best suited for each lifecycle stage. (An iterative, Lean Startup and Scrum-based process tends to beneficial while your product is young; Kanban is usually preferable when your product starts to mature.) Product Strategy and Market Research: Your product exists to serve a market or market segment, a group of people whose need the product addresses. You therefore should be able to identify your target users and customers and segment the market; you should be able to clearly state the value proposition of your product, why people would want to use and buy it and why your product does a great job at creating value for them. You should be able to carry out a competitor analysis to understand their respective strengths and weaknesses; you should be able to position your product, and determine the values the brand needs to communicate. You should be able to perform the necessary market research work to test your ideas and assumptions about the market segment and the value proposition. This includes qualitative and quantitative methods including problem interviews, direct observations, and employing minimum viable products (MVPs); you should be able to leverage data to make the right decisions. This includes using an analytics tool, analysing the data effectively, and deciding if you should pivot and change your strategy or if you should persevere and refine it. Business Model and Financials: To provide an investment incentive for your company and to make developing and providing the product sustainable, you have to be able to determine the value the product creates for your firm. You should be able to formulate and prioritise business goals, for instance, enter a new market, meet a revenue or profit goal, save cost, or develop the brand. You should be able to describe how your product’s value proposition is monetised and capture how the business model works including the revenue sources and the main cost factors. You should also be able to create a financial forecast or business case that describes when a break-even is likely to occur and when your product may become profitable. In practice, you may want to partner with a colleague from the finance department to carry out this work. Product Roadmap: Many people have to contribute to the success of a digital product. To help them do their work and to provide visibility of how your product is likely to evolve, you should be able to create and use a product roadmap. This includes formulating realistic product goals (benefits), metrics and key performance indicators (KPIs), release dates or timeframes, and key features (deliverables or results). You should be clear on the relationship between the product strategy and the product roadmap. You should be able to formulate a go-to-market strategy and capture it in your roadmap. You should understand when the roadmap should be reviewed and changed. User Experience and Product Backlog: A great product has to offer a great user experience (UX). You should be able to describe the desired user experience. This includes describing users and customer as personas, capturing the user interaction, the visual design, the functional and the non-functional aspects of your product together with the help of the cross-functional team (a UX/UI expert should be part of the team). You should be able to create scenarios, epics, user stories, storyboards, workflow diagrams and storymaps, and be able to work with user interface sketches and mock-ups. You should be able to stock and manage the product backlog, prioritise it effectively, and select sprint goals. You should know how to understand if you develop a product with the right features and the right UX, how to test the appropriate aspects of your product and how to collect the relevant feedback and data. This includes the ability to perform product demoes, solution interviews, usability tests, A/B tests, and direct observation. You should be able to use an analytics tool to retrieve the relevant data and be able to analyse it effectively. You be able to change (or “groom”) the product backlog using the newly gained insights. Continue reading... The Supporting Knowledge Areas General Market Knowledge: Understand who your current customers and users are, what product you offer them today including their value proposition and business model, what competitors you have, how big your market share currently is, and which market segments you serve well. Development/Technologies: Be a competent partner for development/IT/engineering, have an interest in software technologies, be comfortable collaborating with a cross-functional technical team. Marketing: Be a respected partner for (product) marketing; be able to help select the right select the right marketing channels and to determine the right marketing mix; help marketing with creating the marketing collateral. Sales and Support: Be a respected partner for sales and support; be able to help select the right sales channels and create the sales collateral and training. Project/Release management: Be able to determine the primary success factor for a major release/product version and to steer the development project; be able to determine the project progress to forecast the progress, for instance, using a release burndown chart; be able to work with the Definition of Done; be able to trade-off scope, time, and budget. Process: Have a good understanding of ideation and innovation processes to generate and select ideas and to bring new products and new features to life. These should include Customer Development/Lean Startup, Business Model Generation, Scrum, and Kanban. Defining Product Roles with the Framework My product management framework helps you define product roles and the skills and responsibilities they should have. Using the framework, I can, for instance, define the role of a product owner in the following way: As the picture above shows, a product owner should have strategic product management skills such as product strategy and roadmapping as well as tactical ones (UX and product backlog). I have circled the areas, which are required by Scrum – the framework in which the role originated – in dark orange. The other areas are necessary to allow the product owner to do a great job and achieve product success even though they are not mandated by Scrum. You may, of course, disagree with my take on the product owner role and may want to use the framework to capture your definition of the role. Another example of how you can apply the framework is the description of the role of a tech product manager, a product manager who looks after a technical product and requires more in-depth technology/development skills, as the following picture illustrates. For instance, one of my clients is a major games development company, which has its own in-house developed physics engine, a complex piece of software that does all the clever animation. The product owner of the physics engine is a former developer. This makes sense, as the individual requires a detailed technical knowledge about the product and has to be able to communicate effectively with the users, the game developers. If you work as a product manager who looks after digital products that are developed and used in-house, for instance, a finance or HR application, then you probably have to tailor the supporting areas as the following picture shows: In the picture above, I have removed “Marketing” and replaced “Sales and Support” with “Operations”. I have kept “General Market Knowledge” as it is desirable for the product manager of a finance application to understand the market, that is, how the finance group works, what problems people struggle with, which products they use, and so forth. Determining Learning Measures with the Framework You can also use the product management framework to identify gaps in your skill set. Use the knowledge areas and reflect on your own knowledge. Then identify the areas where you lack some knowledge and skills, as I have done in the picture below by high-lightening the areas, which product owners often need to strengthen in my experience. Then rank them by determining how much the lack of knowledge is preventing you from doing a great job. For instance, a lack of product lifecycle management and product roadmap skills may be hurting you most if you manage a product that is in the growth stage. Finally identify how you best close the gap, for instance, reading one or more books, or blogs, attending a training course, finding someone to mentor or coach you, forming a community of practice with your fellow product managers or product owners to share knowledge and support each other. You can do the same exercise for a group of product managers or product owners to identify learning measure for the entire function. Learn More You can learn more about specific areas such as vision and leadership, product strategy and market research, product roadmap, or user experience and product backlog by attending one of my training courses. I also teach my courses onsite and in from of interactive virtual training sessions. If you would like me to help you apply the framework, define roles, or identify the right learning and development measures for product managers and product owners, then please contact me.

Gephi comes with tools to analyse properties of a graph.

Security is one of the most important features while running a JBoss server in a production environment. Implementing SSL and securing communications is a must do, to avoid malicious use. This blogs details the steps you could take to secure JBoss EAP 6 running in Domain mode. These are probably documented by RedHat but the documentation seems a bit scattered. The idea behind this blog is to put together everything in one place. In Order to enhance security in JBoss EAP 6, SSL/encryption can be implemented for the following Admin console access – enable https access for admin console Domain Controller – Host controller communication – Communication between the main domain controller and all the other host controllers should be secured. Jboss CLI – enable ssl for the command line interface The below example uses a single keystore being both the key and truststore and also uses CA signed certificates. You could use self-signed certificates and/or separated keystores and truststores if required. Create the keystores (certificates for each of the servers) keytool -genkeypair -alias testServer.prd -keyalg RSA -keysize 2048 -validity 730 -keystore testServer.prd.jks Generate a certificate signing request (CSR) for the Java keystore keytool -certreq -alias testServer.prd -keystore testServer.prd.jks -file testServer.prd.csr Get the CSR signed by the Certificate Authorities Import a root or intermediate CA certificate to the existing Java keystore keytool -import -trustcacerts -alias root -file rootCA.crt -keystore testServer.prd.jks Import the signed primary certificate to the existing Java keystore. Keytool -importcert -keystore testServer.prd.jks -trustcacerts -alias testServer.prd -file testServer.prd.crt Repeat steps 1-6 for each of the servers. In order to establish trust between the master and slave hosts, Import the signed certificates of all the (slave) servers that the Domain Controller must trust onto the Domain Controllers Keystore keytool -importcert -keystore testServer.prd.jks -trustcacerts -alias slaveServer.prd -file slaveServers.prd.crt repeat step for all slave hosts. Import the signed certificate of the Domain controller onto the slave hosts keytool -importcert -keystore slaveServer.prd.jks -trustcacerts -alias testServer.prd -file testServer.prd.crt repeat steps for all slave hosts This has be to done because (as per RedHat’s Documentation) There is a problem with this methodology when trying to configure one way SSL between the servers, because there the HC's and the DC (depending on what action is being performed) switch roles (client, server). Because of this one way SSL configuration will not work and it is recommended that if you need SSL between these two endpoints that you configure two way SSL Once this is done, we now have signed certificates loaded onto the java keystore. In Jboss EAP 6 , the http-interface which provides access to the admin console, by default uses the ManagementRealm to provide file based authentication. (mgmt.-users.properties).The next step is to modify the configurations in the host.xml, to make the ManagementRealm use the certificates we created above. The host.xml should be modified to look like: view source print? 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. On the Slave hosts, In addition to the above configuration, the following needs to be changed view source print? 1. 2. 3. " 4. 5. Once you make the above changes and restart the servers, you should be able to access the admin console via https. https://testServer.prd:9443/console Finally, in order to secure cli authentication Modify /opt/jboss/jboss-eap-6.1/bin/jboss-cli.xml for each server and add view source print? 01. 02. 03. testServer.prd 04. 05. /opt/jboss/jboss-eap-6.1/domain/configuration/testServer.prd.jks 06. 07. xxxx 08. 09. /opt/jboss/jboss-eap-6.1/domain/configuration/testServer.prd.jks 10. 11. xxxx 12. 13. true 14. 15.

1 Start with Personas The first step towards writing the right user stories is to understand your target users and customers. After all, user stories want to tell a story about the users using the product. If you don’t know who the users are and what problem we want to solve then it’s impossible to write the right stories and you end up with a long wish list rather than a description of the relevant product functionality. Personas offer a great way to capture the users and the customers with their needs. They are fictional characters that have a name and picture; relevant characteristics such as a role, activities, behaviours, and attitudes; and a goal, which is the problem that has to be addressed or the benefit that should be provided. Let’s look at an example. Say we want to create a game for children, which is fun to play and which educates the kids about music and dancing. We would then create at least two personas, one to represent the children, and one for the parents, as the following picture illustrates. The two sample personas above use my simple yet effective persona template. It encourages you to keep your personas concise, to focus on what really matters and to leave out the rest. You can download the template from romanpichler.com/tools/persona-template where more information on writing personas and using the template is available. Once you have created a cast of characters, select a primary persona, the persona you are mainly designing and building the product for. This helps you make the right product decision and get the user experience (UX) right. In the example above, I have chosen Yasmin as the primary persona. 2 Derive Epics from the Persona Goals Once you have created your personas, use their goals personas to identify the product functionality. Ask yourself what the product should do to address the personas’ problems or to create the desired benefits for them, as the following picture shows. Start with your primary persona and capture the functionality as epics, as coarse-grained, high-level stories. Write all the epics necessary to meet the persona goals but keep them rough and sketchy at this stage. For the dance game, we could write the epics below assuming that the game will be initially launched as an iPad app: As the epics above show, the game should allow the players to select different characters, to make them dance, to choose different dance floors and music tracks, to play the game with their friends, and to post a snapshot of their game on Facebook. While epics are great to sketch the product’s functionality, there is more to your product than epics and stories: You should also capture the user interaction and the sequences in which the epics are used, the visual design of your product, and the important nonfunctional qualities such as interoperability and performance. Use, for instance, workflow diagrams, story maps, storyboards, sketches, mock-ups, and constraint cards to describe them. You can find out more about describing the different product aspects in my post “User Stories are Not Enough to Create a Great User Experience”. 3 Progressively Decompose the Epics into User Stories With a holistic but coarse-grained description of your product in place start progressively decomposing your epics. Rather than detailing all epics and writing all user stories in one go, you derive your stories step by step as the following picture shows. As long as there are some significant risks present and you are figuring out what the product should look like and do, it’s best to derive just enough user stories just in time for the next sprint. Use your sprint goal or hypothesis to determine which epics to decompose and which stories to write as the following diagram illustrates. The approach depicted above minimises the amount of detailed items in your product backlog. This makes it easier to integrate new insights derived from exposing product increments or minimum viable products (MVPs) to users and customers. Say that we want to address the risk of creating the wrong game characters by developing an executable prototype that allows us to run a usability test with selected children. We could then write the following user stories: The stories above are derived from the epics “Choose character” and “Play with character”. The resulting prototype only partially implements the two epics – just to the extent of being able to test if the characters resonate with the users. Once you understand better how to meet the customer and user needs, you can start pre-writing user stories and have a larger inventory of detailed items on your product backlog as you are unlikely to experience bigger changes to your epics and your overall backlog. 4 Get the Stories Ready Before the development team starts working on the stories, check that each user story is ready: clear, feasible, and testable. A story is clear if there is a shared understanding between the product owner and the team about its meaning. It is feasible if it can be delivered in the next sprint according to the Definition of Done. This implies that the story is small enough to fit into the sprint but also that the necessary user interface design, test, and documentation work can be carried out. In the case of the sample stories above, we would have to add acceptance criteria, ensure that the stories are small enough to fit into the next sprint, and consider creating some very rough design sketches to indicate what the characters look like. For instance, to get the story “Yas chooses the little girl” ready, we could create the following rough sketch: The sketch above complement the user story and allows the team to implement the entire story including the visual design in the next sprint. With ready user stories in place the development team is in a good position to progress your product in an effective manner. For more details on getting user stories ready please take a look at my post “The Definition of Ready in Scrum”. Learn More You can learn more about writing the right epics and user stories by attending my Writing Great User Stories training course. If you want to learn more about the creating the UX artefacts mentioned in this post, then attend my Agile UX and Scrum training course. Please contact me if you are interested in having the courses delivered at your office. The persona pictures and the Manga girl sketch were created by Ole Størksen. Thanks Ole!

The objectives of Test Driven Development and unit testing are generally misunderstood. The problem is the word ‘test’, it is much less about testing and much more about specification of requirements, showing your working – as in maths, and the impact it has on design. TDD is much more important than only testing. Robert C Martin has a good analogy, he likens TDD to double entry bookkeeping: Software is a remarkably sensitive discipline. If you reach into a base of code and you change one bit you can crash the software. Go into the memory and twiddle one bit at random and very likely you will elicit some form of crash. Very, very few systems are that sensitive. You could go out to one of these bridges over here, start taking bolts out and they probably wouldn’t fall. I could pull out a gun and start shooting randomly and I probably wouldn’t kill too many people. I might wound a few but — you know — you get a bullet in the leg or a lung and you’d probably survive. People are resilient — they can survive the loss of a leg and so forth. Bridges are resilient — they survive the loss of components. But software isn’t resilient at all: one bit changes and — BANG! — it crashes. Very few disciplines are that sensitive. But there is one other [discipline] that is, and that’s Accounting. The right mistake at exactly the right time on the right spreadsheet — that one-digit error can crash the company and send the offenders off to jail. How do accountants deal with that sensitivity? Well, they have disciplines. And one of the primary disciplines is dual-entry bookkeeping. Everything is said twice. Every transaction is entered two times — once on the credit side and once on the debit side. Those two transactions follow separate mathematical pathways until they end up at this wonderful subtraction on the balance sheet that has to yield to zero. This is what test-driven development is: dual-entry bookkeeping. Everything is said twice — once on the test side and once on the production code side and everything runs in an execution that yields either a green bar or a red bar just like the zero on the balance sheet. It seems like that’s a good practice for us: to manage these sensitivities of our discipline… -Robert C. Martin The sensitivity of software is a good point to reflect upon, there is little in human experience that is so complex and yet so fragile. Without a strong focus on showing your working, no matter how good you are as a developer, if you omit the tests., your software will be worse than it could have been. The double-entry bookkeeping analogy only holds up though if you do test first development. If you write your test after the code it is generally not sufficiently independent to provide a valid “separate path” check. Test first is the idea that your write the test before you write the code that is being tested. This seems like a bizarre idea to many people at first, but actually makes perfect sense. If you write the test first and run it, you get to see it fail, so you are testing the test. If you write the test first then you are expressing what you want of your software from the outside in. It leads you to design for behaviour and so you have less of a tendency to get lost in irrelevant technicalities. This is a much more effective design approach than testing after you have written the code, and as a by product it leads inevitably to software that is easy to test – you have to be pretty dumb to write a test before you have written the code for an idea that can’t be tested! Finally there is a virtuous circle here. Software is easy to test when it is modular. It is easy to test when dependencies are externalised and it is easy to test when there is a clear separation of concerns. Now the software industry is famous for change, but if there is any idea that has remained constant for, literally, decades it is that quality software is modular, has well defined dependencies and clear separation of concerns – sound familiar? This has been how computer science has defined quality since before I started, and that was a very long time ago! Using TDD as a practice makes you produce higher quality software, not because it is well tested (though that is a nice by-product) but because it improves the quality of your designs. Want more detail: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TestDrivenDevelopment http://www.agiledata.org/essays/tdd.html http://butunclebob.com/ArticleS.UncleBob.TheThreeRulesOfTdd http://unitmm.sourceforge.net/fibonacci_example.shtml http://clean-cpp.org/test-driven-development/ http://agile2007.agilealliance.org/downloads/presentations/TDD-Cpp-Agile2007-HandsOnTddInCpp.ppt_801.pdf http://www.growing-object-oriented-software.com/

I find it helpful to consider three questions when choosing a sprint goal: Why do we carry out the sprint? How do we reach its goal? And how do we know that the goal has been met? My sprint goal template therefore consists of three main parts: the actual goal, the method employed to reach the goal, and the metrics to determine if the goal has been met. It additionally provides a header section that allows you to state to which product and sprint the goal belongs, as the picture below shows. You can download the template as a PDF from romanpichler.com/tools/sprint-goal-template/ or by clicking on the image below. The template above has grown out of my experience of working with Scrum for more than ten years, and it is inspired by the scientific method and Lean Startup. Let’s have a look at the template sections in more detail. The Goal Section The goal section states why it is worthwhile to undertake the sprint. Examples are: Test an assumption about the user interaction and learn what works best for the user, for instance: “Will users be willing to register before using the product features?” Address a technical risk such as: “Does the architecture enable the desired performance?” Release a feature, for instance: “Get the reporting feature for general release.” The sprint goal hence differs from listing the user stories that should be implemented. It communicates the reason for carrying out the work, and it provides a motivation for running the sprint. The sprint goal should be shared: The product owner and the development team should believe that working towards the goal is the right thing to do. To choose the right sprint goal I find it helpful to consider the amount of uncertainty present. In the early sprints, addressing risks and testing assumptions allows me to learn about what the product should look like and do and how it is built. Once the key risks and critical assumptions have been dealt with, I like to focus on completing and optimising features, as the following picture shows: The Method Section This section addresses the question of how the goal is met. The default Scrum answer is simple: Create a (potentially shippable) product increment using the high-priority product backlog items, and demo it to the stakeholders in the sprint review meeting. But writing software and employing a product demo are not always the best methods to achieve the goal! A paper prototype can be good enough to test a visual design idea or an assumption about the user interaction, for instance. What’s more, other methods such as carrying out a usability test or releasing software to run an A/B test may well be more effective than a product demo. You should therefore carefully choose the right method and state it in this section. But don’t stop there. Determine the test group, the people who should provide feedback and data. Who these individuals are depends on the sprint goal: If you are validating an assumption about the visual design, the user interaction or the product functionality, then you probably want to collect feedback and data from the users. But if you are addressing a technical risk, then users may not be able to help you. Consider inviting a senior developer or architect from another team instead. Stating the test group clarifies who “the stakeholders” are, who is required to provide feedback so that the right product is developed. The Metrics Section The metrics section communicates how you determine if the goal has been met. Which metrics you use depends on the method chosen. For a product demo, you may state that at least two thirds of the stakeholders present should respond positively to the new feature, for instance; for a usability test, at least three of the five testers are complete the task successfully in less than a minute; and for the release of a new feature, you might say that at least 80% of the users use the new functionality at least once within five days after launching the feature. Whichever metrics you choose, make sure that they allow you to understand if and to which extent you have met the goal. The Header Section The header section consists of the two subsections “Product” and “Sprint”. They simply allow you to state which product and which sprint the goal belongs to. Customise this section according to your needs. If you work for an agencies or an IT solution provider, you could replace “Product” with “Project”, for instance. User Stories and the Sprint Goal You may be wondering how the template relates to the user stories. Let me first reiterate that your sprint goal should differ from your user stories. The goal explains the why it is a good idea to carry out the sprint an implement the stories. The user stories enable you to reach the goal. It’s a common mistake to confuse the two. To connect the template and the stories you have two options: You can state the relevant user stories in the template’s method section, or you can list them separately on the sprint backlog, as the following picture illustrates. In the picture above, the sprint goal is stated on the left to the sprint backlog, which lists the user stories and the tasks required to meet the goal in form of a task board. Learn more You can learn more about choosing effective sprint gaols and applying the sprint goal template by attending my Certified Scrum Product Owner training course. I have written in more detail about sprint planning in my book “Agile Product Management with Scrum”. Please contact me for onsite and virtual product owner training.

Background SPNego is RFC 4178 used for negotiation either NTLM or Kerberos based SSO. A typical use case is for web applications to reuse the authentication used by Desktops such as Windows or Linux. In this article, we will explore approaches for SPNego authentication with JBoss Enterprise Application Platform. JBoss Negotiation is the library that provides the SPNego authentication support in JBoss. This library has been integrated in JBoss EAP and WildFly Application Server. Checklist Obtain JBoss EAP from jboss.org. Enable your JavaEE Web Application for SPNego Authentication. Configure JBoss EAP for SPNego. Configure your Browsers for SPNego. Start JBoss EAP. Test your web application. Obtain JBoss EAP from jboss.org Download JBoss EAP 6.2 or newer from http://www.jboss.org/products/eap You can also use WildFly Application Server from http://www.wildfly.org. Your configuration may vary slightly. Enable your JavaEE Web Application for SPNego Authentication It is easier to use a demo web application as a starting point. You can then modify your web application for SPNego authentication. The demo web application we use for this article is called spnego-demo, by my colleague, Josef Cazek. The demo web application is available at https://github.com/kwart/spnego-demo . You can also download the spnego-demo.war from here . Fully configured web application spnego-demo.war can be obtained from this location . Copy the spnego-demo.war in your jboss-eap-6.2/standalone/deployments directory. Configure JBoss EAP for SPNego Authentication You will need to configure a couple of security domains and system properties in JBoss EAP6. There are two ways by which you can configure: either manual editing or using CLI tool. Manual Editing of configuration file standalone.xml in jboss-eap-6.2/standalone/configuration Add system properties to this file. Remember to put this block right after the extensions block (around line 25 of the configuration file). Add security domains to this file. Remember to put these blocks in the block. Using Command Line Interface to update JBoss EAP Go to the bin directory of JBoss EAP 6.2 and run the following. $ cat << EOT > $SPNEGO_TEST_DIR/cli-commands.txt /subsystem=security/security-domain=host:add(cache-type=default) /subsystem=security/security-domain=host/authentication=classic:add(login-modules=[{"code"=>"Kerberos", "flag"=>"required", "module-options"=>[ ("debug"=>"true"),("storeKey"=>"true"),("refreshKrb5Config"=>"true"),("useKeyTab"=>"true"),("doNotPrompt"=>"true"),("keyTab"=>"$SPNEGO_TEST_DIR/http.keytab"),("principal"=>"HTTP/[email protected]")]}]) {allow-resource-service-restart=true} /subsystem=security/security-domain=SPNEGO:add(cache-type=default) /subsystem=security/security-domain=SPNEGO/authentication=classic:add(login-modules=[{"code"=>"SPNEGO", "flag"=>"required", "module-options"=>[("serverSecurityDomain"=>"host")]}]) {allow-resource-service-restart=true} /subsystem=security/security-domain=SPNEGO/mapping=classic:add(mapping-modules=[{"code"=>"SimpleRoles", "type"=>"role", "module-options"=>[("[email protected]"=>"Admin"),("[email protected]"=>"User")]}]) {allow-resource-service-restart=true} /system-property=java.security.krb5.conf:add(value="$SPNEGO_TEST_DIR/krb5.conf") /system-property=java.security.krb5.debug:add(value=true) /system-property=jboss.security.disable.secdomain.option:add(value=true) :reload() EOT $ ./jboss-cli.sh -c --file=$SPNEGO_TEST_DIR/cli-commands.txt This is explained in https://github.com/kwart/spnego-demo/blob/master/README.md We will need a keytab file. In this example, we will use the Kerberos Server using ApacheDS (as explained in Appendix A). $ java -classpath kerberos-using-apacheds.jar org.jboss.test.kerberos.CreateKeytab HTTP/[email protected] httppwd http.keytab Note that the http.keytab has been configured in the security domain called "host" in standalone.conf. So place the keytab file appropriately while correcting the path defined in security domain. More information is available at https://github.com/kwart/kerberos-using-apacheds/blob/master/README.md JBoss EAP will need a keytab file. In this example we use a keytab called as http.keytab Different tools such as ktutil exist to create keytab files. Keytab files contain Kerberos Principals and encrypted keys. It is important to safeguard keytab files. It is very important that JBoss EAP configuration for keytab in the security domain "host" refers to the actual path of the keytab file. Configure your Browsers for SPNego The browsers such as Microsoft IE, Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome, Apple Safari have different settings for enabling SPNego or Integrated Authentication. Start JBoss EAP Go to the bin directory of JBoss EAP 6.2 and either use standalone.sh (Unix/Linux) or standalone.bat to start your instance. Test your Web Application Assuming you have followed Appendix A steps to start the kerberos server and done kinit, you are ready to test the web application. In this article we have used spnego-demo, we can test that by going to http://localhost:8080/spnego-demo/ You can click on the "User Page" link and you should be able to see the principal name as "[email protected]" Appendix A Local Kerberos Server Download the zip file https://github.com/kwart/kerberos-using-apacheds/archive/master.zip Unzip the zip file into a directory. Build the package using maven. $ mvn clean package Start the Kerberos Server as $ java -jar target/kerberos-using-apacheds.jar test.ldif A krb5.conf file has been created. Login now using [email protected] $ kinit [email protected] Password for [email protected]: secret Launch Firefox via command line from where the kinit was run On MacOSX $open -a firefox http://localhost:8080/spnego-demo/ Appendix B Kerberos Command Line Utilities klist can be used to see the current kerberos tickets. $ klist Credentials cache: API:501:10 Principal: [email protected] Issued Expires Principal Feb 9 21:19:30 2014 Feb 10 07:19:27 2014 krbtgt/[email protected] kdestroy can be used to clear the current kerberos tickets. References SPNego Demo Web Application: https://github.com/kwart/spnego-demo Kerberos Server using ApacheDS: https://github.com/kwart/kerberos-using-apacheds JBoss EAP 6 http://www.jboss.org/products/eap PicketLink Open Source Project: http://www.picketlink.org Troubleshooting https://docs.jboss.org/author/display/PLINK/SPNego+Support+Questions Remember krb5.conf is important for client side kerberos interactions. You can use a environment variable on Unix/Linux/Mac systems called KRB5_CONFIG to point to your krb5.conf Acknowledgement Darran Lofthouse for the wonderful JBoss Negotiation Project and Josef Czacek for the SPNego-demo and Kerberos_using_Apache DS projects.

A product roadmap is a high-level, strategic plan, which provides a longer-term outlook on the product. This creates a continuity of purpose, and it helps product managers and owners acquire funding for their product; it sets expectations, aligns stakeholders, and facilitates prioritization; it makes it easier to coordinate the development and launch of different products, and it provides reassurance to the customers (if the product roadmap is made public). Unfortunately, I find that many product managers and product owners struggle with their roadmaps, as they are dominated by features: There are too many features, and the features are often too detailed. This turns a roadmap into a tactical planning tool that competes with the Product Canvas or product backlog. What’s more, the features are sometimes regarded as a commitment by senior management than part of a high-level plan that is likely to change. The GO Product Roadmap Explained Faced with this situation, I have developed a new goal-oriented agile roadmap — the GO product roadmap, or “GO” for short. GO is based on my experience of teaching and coaching product managers and product owners, as well as using product roadmaps in my own business. The following pictures shows what the GO product roadmap looks like. You can download a PDF and Excel template by simply clicking on the picture. The first row of the GO roadmap depicted above contains the date or timeframe for the upcoming releases. You can work with a specific date such as 1st of March, or a period such as the first or second quarter. The second row states the name or version of the releases, for instance, iOS 7 or Windows 8.1. The third row provides the goal of each release, the reason why it is worthwhile to develop and launch it. Sample goals are to acquire or to activate users, to retain users by enhancing the user experience, or to accelerate development by removing technical debt. Working with goals shifts the conversation from debating individual features to agreeing on desired benefits making strategic product decisions. The development team, the stakeholders, and the management sponsor should all buy into the goals. The fourth row provides the features necessary to reach the goal. The features are means to an end, but not an end in themselves: They serve to create value and to reach the goal. Try to limit the number of features for each release to three, but do not state more than five. Refrain from detailing the features, and focus on the product capabilities that are necessary to meet the goal. Your product roadmap should be a high-level plan. The details should be covered in the Product Canvas or product backlog, and commitments should be limited to individual sprints. The last row states the metrics, the measurements or key performance indicators (KPIs) that help determine if the goal has been met, and if the release was successful. Make sure that the metrics you select allow you to measure if and to which extent you have met the goal. A Sample GO Product Roadmap To illustrate how the GO template can be applied, imagine we are about to develop a new dance game for girls aged eight to 12 years. The app should be fun and educational allowing the players to modify the characters, change the music, dance with remote players, and choreograph new dances. Here is what the corresponding GO roadmap could look like: While the roadmap above will have to be updated and refined at a later stage (particularly the metrics), I find it good enough to show how the product may evolve and make an investment decision. When creating your GO roadmap make sure you determine the goal of each release before you identify the features. This ensures that the features do serve the goal. Filling in the roadmap template from top to bottom and from left to right works well for me. Wrap-up The GO product roadmap provides a new, powerful way to do product roadmapping. Rather than focussing on features, GO emphasizes the importance of shared goals. This makes it easier to communicate the roadmap, create alignment, and use it as a strategic planning tool that provides an umbrella for the Product Canvas and the product backlog. The metrics provided by the tool ensure that the goals are measurable rather than lofty and fuzzy ideas. Download the template now, and try it out! You can learn more about creating effective product roadmap and working with the GO product roadmap by attending my Agile Product Planning training course. I would love to hear your questions about the roadmap and your experiences of creating product roadmaps. Please leave a comment below, or contact me.

The second blog post in the Exploring the landscape of large scale agile frameworks - series “Wet agile”, “the agile waterfall” and “the Agile-Waterfall Hybrid” … this controversial, mixed-method baby has as many names as formats. Some have received a lot of dedicated thought, are fit-for-purpose and manage to preserve the main benefits of the more pure methods. Other hybrid models have resulted by accident; either as a consequence of… … a half-way-stopped agile transitioning program that dropped dead somewhere between waterfall and scrum in an unsuccessful change initiative … a compromise between method-promoters of different ideologies (often management being on the more waterfall friendly side vs. developers generally promoting more agility) The result of the latter two cases can be horrible to witness and worse to experience for everyone involved regardless if they sit within the development organization or are on the receiving end waiting for the product. However, I do not think the frequent occurrence of poor agile-waterfall hybrids we can witness in the industry is a reason to consistently argue against mixing the two arts as many agilists do. Rather, these cases highlight the need to bring the successful and proven versions of agile-waterfall hybrids into the light and reserve a place for them among their purer cousins in the landscape for large scale agile frameworks. Founders of more successful hybrid versions often come from product development companies that deal with both software and hardware. The driver behind the method mixing in these cases is, if we simplify to the extreme, the realization that many aspects of hardware development benefit from waterfall processes, whereas software development has much to gain from an agile approach. The Agile-Waterfall Hybrid described by Erick Bergmann and Andy Hamilton from Schneider Electric is a great example of a model that merges Agile and Project Management Process/waterfall in a good way without compromising the methods’ core principles to much. Erick Bergmann and Andy Hamilton presented the Agile-Waterfall Hybrid at Agile 2013 and the key concepts of the model can be well understood from the presenting material; https://submissions.agilealliance.org/system/sessions/attachments/000/000/760/original/Agile-Waterfall_Hybrid_01AUG2013.pdf The model allows software teams to adapt agile practices while hardware development and overall product management is handled through a traditional PMP/waterfall approach The overall PMP process has a well-defined interface to the agile software development which is continuous right from the start of the concept/feasibility study up until validation and production. The interface has the format of close collaboration for all activities ranging from definition of requirements and scoping to continuous software deliveries and feedback between the agile side and the waterfallish PMP side The model accommodates development where the same/similar software is used in several products with separate POs. Eg., the software teams need to deliver features to multiple stakeholders continuously in a similar fashion as component teams typically need to act towards feature teams. The very challenging backlog management situation resulting for teams in environments like this is addressed in a good way by the model. In short, it describes how you can achieve swift product releases by putting effort into the feature releases planning on the software side There is no perfect alternative. Just like any other hybrid model, this Agile-Waterfall Hybrid compromises with some of the principles of the non-hybrid methods. The waterfall side of development is forced to live with the flexibility surrounding the software requirements and the agile teams must commit to time-fixed delivery dates, cost forecasts and risk assessment. Hybrid development models face many challenges. It is not easy to combine the dependency tracking and clarity of waterfall with the flexibility and openness to change of Agile development without diluting the benefits and create complex work processes. However, examples like the one referred to above prove that it is possible and as the industry need for these types of models is evident I hope to see more of these being published in the future.

Because Agile development teams work from a backlog of stories, one way to inject application security into software development is by writing up application security risks and activities as stories, making them explicit and adding them to the backlog so that application security work can be managed, estimated, prioritized and done like everything else that the team has to do. Security Stories SAFECode has tried to do this by writing a set of common, non-functional Security Stories following the well-known “As a [type of user] I want {something} so that {reason}” template. These stories are not customer- or user-focused: not the kind that a Product Owner would understand or care about. Instead, they are meant for the development team (architects, developers and testers). Example: As a(n) architect/developer, I want to ensure AND as QA, I want to verify that sensitive data is kept restricted to actors authorized to access it. There are stories to prevent/check for the common security vulnerabilities in applications: XSS, path traversal, remote execution, CSRF, OS command injection, SQL injection, password brute forcing. Checks for information exposure through error messages, proper use of encryption, authentication and session management, transport layer security, restricted uploads and URL redirection to un-trusted sites; and basic code quality issues: NULL pointer checking, boundary checking, numeric conversion, initialization, thread/process synchronization, exception handling, use of unsafe/restricted functions. SAFECode also includes a list of secure development practices (operational tasks) for the team that includes making sure that you’re using the latest compiler, patching the run-time and libraries, static analysis, vulnerability scanning, code reviews of high-risk code, tracking and fixing security bugs; and more advanced practices that require help from security experts like fuzzing, threat modeling, pen tests, environmental hardening. Altogether this is a good list of problems that need to be watched out for and things that should be done on most projects. But although SAFECode’s stories look like stories, they can’t be used as stories by the team. These Security Stories are non-functional requirements (NFRs) and technical constraints that (like requirements for scalability and maintainability and supportability) need to be considered in the design of the system, and may need to be included as part of the definition of done and conditions of acceptance for every user story that the team works on. Security Stories can’t be pulled from the backlog and delivered like other stories and removed from the backlog when they are done, because they are never “done”. The team has to keep worrying about them throughout the life of the project and of the system. As Rohit Sethi points out, asking developers to juggle long lists of technical constraints like this is not practical: If you start adding in other NFR constraints, such as accessibility, the list of constraints can quickly grow overwhelming to developers. Once the list grows unwieldy, our experience is that developers tend to ignore the list entirely. They instead rely on their own memories to apply NFR constraints. Since the number of NFRs continues to grow in increasingly specialized domains such as application security, the cognitive burden on developers’ memories is substantial. OWASP Evil User Stories – Hacking the Backlog Someone at OWASP has suggested an alternative, much smaller set of non-functional Evil User Stories that can be "hacked" into the backlog: A way for a security guy to get security on the agenda of the development team is by “hacking the backlog”. The way to do this is by crafting Evil User Stories, a few general negative cases that the team needs to consider when they implement other stories. Example #1. "As a hacker, I can send bad data in URLs, so I can access data and functions for which I'm not authorized." Example #2. "As a hacker, I can send bad data in the content of requests, so I can access data and functions for which I'm not authorized." Example #3. "As a hacker, I can send bad data in HTTP headers, so I can access data and functions for which I'm not authorized." Example #4. "As a hacker, I can read and even modify all data that is input and output by your application." Thinking like a Bad Guy – Abuse Cases and Abuser Stories Another way to beef up security in software development is to get the team to carefully look at the system they are building from the bad guy's perspective. In “Misuse and Abuse Cases: Getting Past the Positive”, Dr. Gary McGraw at Cigital talks about the importance of anticipating things going wrong, and thinking about behaviour that the system needs to prevent. Assume that the customer/user is not going to behave, or is actively out to attack the application. Question all of the assumptions in the design (the can’ts and won’ts), especially trust conditions – what if the bad guy can be anywhere along the path of an action (for example, using an attack proxy between the client and the server)? Abuse Cases are created by security experts working with the team as part of a critical review – either of the design or of an existing application. The goal of a review like this is to understand how the system behaves under attack/failure conditions, and document any weaknesses or gaps that need to be addressed. At Agile 2013 Judy Neher presented a hands-on workshop on how to write Abuser Stories, a lighter-weight, Agile practice which makes “thinking like a bad guy” part of the team’s job of defining and refining user requirements. Take a story, and as part of elaborating the story and listing the scenarios, step back and look at the story through a security lens. Don’t just think of what the user wants to do and can do - think about what they don’t want to do and can’t do. Get the same people who are working on the story to “put their black hats on” and think evil for a little while, brainstorm to come up with negative cases. As {some kind of bad guy} I want to {do some bad thing}… The {bad guy} doesn’t have to be a hacker. They could be an insider with a grudge or a selfish customer who is willing to take advantage of other users, or an admin user who needs to be protected from making expensive mistakes, or an external system that may not always function correctly. Ask questions like: How do I know who the user is and that I can trust them? Who is allowed to do what, and where are the authorization checks applied? Look for holes in multi-step workflows – what happens if somebody bypasses a check or tries to skip a step or do something out of sequence? What happens if an action or a check times-out or blocks or fails – what access should be allowed, what kind of information should be shown, what kind shouldn’t be? Are we interacting with children? Are we dealing with money? With dangerous command-and-control/admin functions? With confidential or pirvate data? Look closer at the data. Where is it coming from? Can I trust it? Is the source authenticated? Where is it validated – do I have to check it myself? Where is it stored (does it have to be stored)? If it has to be stored, should it be encrypted or masked (including in log files)? Who should be able to see it? Who shouldn’t be able to see it? Who can change it, and to the changes need to be audited? Do we need to make sure the data hasn't been tampered with (checksum, HMAC, digital signature)? Use this exercise to come up with refutation criteria (user can do this, but can’t do that; they can see this but they can’t see that), instead of, or as part of the conditions of acceptance for the story. Prioritize these cases based on risk, add the cases that you agree need to be taken care of as scenarios to the current story, or as new stories to the backlog if they are big enough. “Thinking like a bad guy” as you are working on a story seems more useful and practical than other story-based approaches. It doesn’t take a lot of time, and it’s not expensive. You don’t need to write Abuser Stories for every user Story and the more Abuser Stories that you do, the easier it will get – you'll get better at it, and you’ll keep running into the same kinds of problems that can be solved with the same patterns. You end up with something concrete and functional and actionable, work that has to be done and can be tested. Concrete, actionable cases like this are easier for the team to understand and appreciate – including the Product Owner, which is critical in Scrum, because the Product Owner decides what is important and what gets done. And because Abuser Stories are done in phase, by the people who are working on the stories already (rather than a separate activity that needs to be setup and scheduled) they are more likely to get done. Simple, quick, informal threat modeling like this isn’t enough to make a system secure – the team won’t be able to find and plug all of the security holes in the system this way, even if the developers are well-trained in secure software development and take their work seriously. Abuser Stories are good for identifying business logic vulnerabilities, reviewing security features (authentication, access control, auditing, password management, licensing) improving error handling and basic validation, and keeping onside of privacy regulations. Effective software security involves a lot more work than this: choosing a good framework and using it properly, watching out for changes to the system's attack surface, carefully reviewing high-risk code for design and coding errors, writing good defensive code as much as possible, using static analysis to catch common coding mistakes, and regular security testing (pen testing and dynamic analysis). But getting developers and testers to think like a bad guy as they build a system should go a long way to improving the security and robustness of your app.

Some months ago I wrote an article on how to transition between Scrum and a Lean Kanban operation. It's an important capability for an organization to have, because when a Scrum project finishes it is likely to enter a "leaner" BAU (Business As Usual) support phase. There are consequences arising from such a move which experienced Scrum hands may find surprising, and perhaps even a little off-putting. In this article we'll look at the shift in mindset that is required to do this. "Whoa! Something screwy has happened to our task board, it looks different" Kanban boards are subtly different to the task boards commonly used in Scrum. At first blush they might look similar. Both have columns showing the progress of user story "tickets" from a backlog through states such as in progress, peer review, in test, and done. In either case there might also be a blocked column, although it is equally acceptable to add a "blocked" sticker, or to simply invert the ticket on the board. As the name suggests, a task board will show the progress of the tasks that are needed to complete user stories. Often these tasks will be kept within horizontal swim lanes - one lane per user story. When all of the tasks are done, the user story will also move into done. Each user story therefore "chases" its tasks across the board. A Kanban board on the other hand - which is meant to deal with smaller and finer-grained pieces of work - will typically track the progress of user stories themselves across the board. The requirements should be well understood and there should be little appreciable depth to the solutioning; there will be few if any explicit tasks associated with the user stories. There is therefore no need for horizontal swim lanes to keep tasks and user stories aligned. You might also notice that Work in Progress limits are given particular emphasis in Lean Kanban. This is because scope is not timeboxed into sprints. The only way to throttle the rate of ticket throughput, and to keep it to manageable levels, is therefore by making sure that WIP limits are rigorously enforced. These are often annotated to the column headers on a Kanban board. For example, if there are 3 developers and 1 tester, the WIP for in progress would be 3, and 1 for in test. "Hey…there's just one backlog" That's right. Since there are no sprints in Lean Kanban, there can be no meaningful separation between a "sprint backlog" and a "product backlog". Instead there's just a single backlog of enqueued work items being brought into progress. This has repercussions for product ownership because you no longer have a clear separation between the prioritization that a team does for itself on a sprint backlog, and the prioritization done by a Product Owner on the product backlog. In effect you've just got a product backlog. In this situation clear product ownership can become more important then ever…or it can become a complete non-issue. "The Product Owner has too much power, he keeps jerking our chain" Since there is only one backlog, the Product Owner (or customer representative) must constantly reprioritize the user stories within it. The Product Owner needs to have more operational control in Lean Kanban than in Scrum. Developers can action tickets from the backlog on a daily or even hourly basis. There is no notion of getting a product backlog in shape before "the next sprint starts". Product Owners are therefore much more closely involved in day-to-day delivery than they would be in Scrum, and their involvement in daily standups becomes much more important. Note that the extent of a Product Owner's decision making should not extend beyond the backlog, and a good Kanban Leader will protect the team and its work in progress just like a good ScrumMaster would. "Now the Product Owner has disappeared altogether" Business as Usual work often boils down to the maintenance of existing systems post-delivery. Depending upon the level of demand, it's quite plausible to have one Lean-Kanban team responsible for the maintenance of multiple systems. In this situation there is no product being delivered as such, and consequently there is no clear product ownership. Instead, work items are raised as change requests and triaged by the team who then manage and prioritize their own backlog. This means that the team needs a strong and shared sense of direction and purpose. "There's no vision for this project" That's because a Lean Kanban operation typically isn't a project at all. A defined end point is likely to be missing… remember that it's covering "Business as Usual work". These are small, repeatable changes that may affect diverse systems and without any sort of narrative to bind them together. There'll certainly be a purpose and a rationale for operating a Lean Kanban… but don't expect a project vision. "We don't even seem to have decent sprint goals any more" Yep, they've gone too. Since there is no project vision and no sprints on a Lean Kanban, we won't have any "sprint goals" either. What we might get is a grouping of work requests that fall within a larger epic of changes…but if we do, it could well be a cause for concern. We must ask: are those related changes really representative of "Business as Usual" work, or are they too high risk? Do they constitute a project? "Lean Kanban work seems very bitty. I can't get a decent chunk to chew on" The diet of a Lean Kanban should consist of small, "digestible" pieces of work that do not require much breaking down in order to action them. By definition they must be well-understood and low-risk. A team must know how to handle them without the need for impact analysis or de-scoping. You're unlikely to get a meaty piece of work; you're more likely to be sucking these things up through a straw. Velocity and lead times are particularly significant metrics in Lean Kanban. Having said that, substantial and time consuming pieces of work can be taken on board if they satisfy the criteria of low risk and clear scope. An example would be the sort of work that conforms to a templated change. Of course, this sort of work might not appeal to an agile developer. So let's be clear: it takes a different temperament to do Lean Kanban BAU work than project work in Scrum. They are different skill sets. Agile developers who are happy doing one can find it unsettling, or even unrewarding, if they are switched to the other. "Why aren't we doing planning poker any more?" Without a sprint backlog there is no budget of story points to be brought into a sprint. This in turn means that estimation exercises such as planning poker lose much of their significance. In a Lean Kanban operation velocity can be measured not in terms of story points - either estimated or actual - but simply as the number of tickets actioned over a set period. This also provides an indication of the lead time before a ticket is handled. If tickets are of too variable a size - for example, if they include small ones as well as larger templated changes - then they can be awarded points for how long, or how much effort, they took. T-Shirt sizes is one approach. Remember that these points should represent the actuals, not estimates, so there's still no need for planning poker. Velocity can be averaged for each size. Alternatively the sizes can be mapped to points (e.g. small = 1, medium = 3, large = 7) and an aggregate velocity calculated. "Some of the BAU work that's been coming through looks like project work to me" You could well be right. It's important that you raise your suspicions with your team lead. There's often politics involved, but here's the lowdown. In many organizations "Business as Usual" work is classed - you could almost say "written off" - as an operational expenditure (OpEx), and is not drawn from the capital expenditure (CapEx) assigned to projects. Internal customers often have an incentive to sneak through initiatives as BAU work so as not to incur capital expense on their departmental budgets. This is indeed a political issue. But be on your guard otherwise your team could be hobbled with project work being slipped in on the sly. Be particularly wary of significant numbers of related changes, large changes, a seemingly high level of risk with any work items, or changes of uncertain scope. These suggest, but do not prove, that a fast one might be being pulled. Your team lead (who is analagous to a ScrumMaster) should try and defend against this, so if you as a team member have your suspicions, it's important to bring them to your lead's attention. Conclusion, and what's next In this post we've looked at the important differences between Lean Kanban and Scrum, and what that means for a team. We've also reviewed how a reasonably informed choice can be made between them. In my next post we'll look at a hybrid approach known as ScrumBan which can potentially address both project and BAU work. ScrumBan is becoming increasingly popular and has significant ramifications for project scalability.

When I’m teaching training courses (as I was this week at Skills Matter) or advising clients on the requirements-side of software development (which I’m doing a lot of just now), I talk about a model I call the “3 Styles of Agile.” Incredibly, I’ve never blogged about this -- although the model is hidden inside a couple of articles over the years. So now the day has come… I don’t claim the “3 Styles Model” is the way it should be, I only claim that it is the way I find the world. While “doing Agile” on the code side of software development always comes back to the same things (stand-up meetings, test/behavior driven development, code review/pair programming, stories, boards, etc.) the requirements side is very very variable. The advice that is given is very variable and the degree to which that advice is compatible with corporate structures and working is very variable. However, I find three reoccurring styles in which the requirements side operates and interfaces to development. I call these styles: Iterative, Incremental and Evolutionary, and I usually draw this diagram: I say style because I’m looking for a neutral word. I think you can use Scrum, XP and Kanban (or any other method) in any of the three styles. That said, I believe Kanban is a better fit for evolutionary while Scrum/XP are a better fit for Iterative and Incremental. I try not to be judgmental, I know a lot of Agile folk will see Evolutionary as superior, they may even consider Evolutionary to be the only True Agile but actually I don’t think that is always the case. There are times when the other styles are “right.” Let me describe the three styles: Iterative In this style the development team is doing lots of good stuff like: stand up meetings, planning meetings, short iterations or Kanban flow, test driven development, code review, refactoring, continuous integration and so on. I say they are doing it but it might be better to say “I hope they are doing” because quite often some bit or other is missing. That’s not important for this model. The key thing is the dev team are doing it! In this model, requirements arrive in a requirements document en mass. In fact, the rest of the organization carries on as if nothing has changed, indeed this may be what the organization wants. In this model you hear people say things like “Agile is a delivery mechanism” and “Agile is for developers." The requirement document may even have been written by a consultant or analyst who is now gone. The document is “thrown over the fence” to another analyst or project manager who is expected to deliver everything (scope, features) within some fixed time frame for some budget. Delivery is most likely one “big bang” at the end of the project (when the team may be dissolved). In order to do this they use a bacon slicer. I’ve written about this before and called it Salami Agile. The requirements document exists and the job of the “Product Owner” is to slice off small pieces for the team to do every iteration. The development team is insulated from the rest of the organization. There is probably still a change review board and any increase scope is seen as a problem. I call this iterative because the team is iterating but that’s about it. This is the natural style of large corporations, companies with annual budgets, senior managers who don’t understand IT and in particular banks. Incremental This style is mostly the same as Iterative, it looks similar to start with. The team are still (hopefully) doing good stuff and iterating. There is still a big requirements document, the organization still expects it all delivered and it is still being salami sliced. However, in this model, the team is delivering the software to customers. At the very least, they are demonstrating the software and listening to feedback. More likely, they are deploying the software and (potential) users can start using it today. As a result, the customer/users give feedback about what they want in the software. Sometimes this is an extra feature and functionality (scope creep!) and sometimes it is about removing things that were requested (scope retreat!). The “project” is still done in the traditional sense that everything in the document is “done,” but now some things are crossed out rather than ticked. Plus some additional stuff might be done over and above the requirements document. I call this incremental because the customers/users/stakeholders are seeing the thing grow in increments -- and hopefully early value is being delivered. I actually believe this is the most common style of software development -- whether that work is called Agile, waterfall or anything else. However, in some environments this is seen as wrong, wrong because the upfront requirements are “wrong” or because multiple deliveries need to be made, or because the team aren’t delivering everything they were originally asked to deliver. Evolutionary Here again the development team are iterating much as before. However, this time there is no requirements document. Work has begun with just an idea. Ideally I would want to see a goal, an objective, an aim, which will guide work and help inform what should be done -- and this goal should be stated in a single sentence, a paragraph at most. But sometimes even this is missing, for better or worse. In this model the requirements guy and developers both start at the beginning. They brainstorm some ideas and select something to do. While Mr. Requirements runs off to talk to customers and stakeholders about what the problem is and what is needed, the tech team (maybe just one person) gets started on the best idea so far. Sometime soon (2 weeks tops) they get back together. Mr. Requirements talks about what he has found and the developers demonstrate what they have built. They talk some more and decide what to do next. With that done, the developers gets on with building and Mr. Requirements gets on his bike again, he shows what has been built and talks to people -- some people again and some new people. As soon as possible the team starts to push software out to users and customers to use. This delivers value and provides feedback. And so it goes. It finishes, if it finishes, when the goal is met to the organization decided to use its resources somewhere else. Evolutionary style is most at home in Palo Alto, Mountain View, and anywhere else that start-ups are the norm. Evolutionary is actually a lot more common than is recognized but it is called maintenance or “bug fixing” and seen as something that shouldn’t exist. Having set out the three styles I’ll leave discussion of how to use the model and why you might use each style to another entry. If you want to know more about each model and how I see Agile as spectrum have a look my 2011 “The Agile Spectrum” from ACCU Overload or the recently revised (expanded but unfinished) version by the same title: “Agile Spectrum” (the 2013 version I suppose, online only).

i went to the local capital kanban meetup yesterday evening. it was a bunch of project managers discussing kanban and waste in it. seemed completely out of my comfort zone and a way to meet new people in tech here in town so i attended. it turned out to be really cool and way more interesting than my expectations were. i wanted to mention some of those here, specifically some of the it wastes that were mentioned i see all the time, the insights i got from the paper airplane factory game, and some after meeting talk that changed my perspective on what i perceive as problems in our industry with good software east of california (hah, trick question, there is no good software done east of california…). it wastes andrea ross did a presentation about waste in it. kanban, the production process used by toyota then turned into a project management and software development, has 7 or 8 forms of what it calls waste. these are primarely in the factory line production process, so you have to draw your own metaphors and similes, and that’s what andrea’s presentation extrapolated on. from a high level, these are: defects / rework overproduction waiting non-standard over processing transportation / logistics intellect motion excess inventory her slides that have bullet point examples for each one are pretty self-explanatory. what was interesting to me was the sheer volume of bullet points i see all the time, together, in the same projects i work on. some can’t be avoided, nature of the business and all that. still, it was pretty eye opening to see that a traditional factory production process has identified these items as the core waste items, and software development has plenty of them with just about the same meanings. i won’t cover them in detail here as her slides do. kanban, bottlenecks, and waste the concept of kanban is to quickly identify bottlenecks in the existing production process, and iterate to improve the process to fix them. notice i said “existing” and “process”. the existing part is where kanban has been easier to market than say six sigma which is bought into wholesale, hence why it’s easier to be a six sigma consultant than a kanban one. kanban you basically overlay on top of what you have and it surfaces the problems your existing process has pretty clearly. meaning, if you see a bunch of cards on a kanban board that are in the “analysis” column, and very few in the rest, it’s pretty clear where the bottle neck is located. now the “process” part is analogous to the production line; in this case all that goes into making software from the traditional waterfall perspective: design, development, deployment. however, the key here is you aren’t fixing the “bottleneck”, but rather the process itself. that is what i learned through our paper airplane factory exercise quite clearly. there are a series of games like this that can be modified, but the point is they help teach the bottleneck vs. process modification process extremely clearly. the key takeaway for me was fixing the bottleneck, like the 5 developers + 1 manager in a war room during a troubling moment during a software project, is actually a form of waste. yes, it’s great teams rise up to tackle these problems in the moment. however, it’s important to note that it’s the project manager’s job to both recognize this as waste and fix the actual process problem. i’ll explain this below. note: if you’re concerned about spoilers, please be aware of 2 things. first, there are more than just the airplane factory game that you can find online. second, if you do read the following section and later participate in the exercise, please either let the teacher/presenter know, or try not to modify the process too much to allow others to learn. airplane factory the game is like so (abridged version, you can find the full instructions here ): divide your people into 4 groups, each sitting adjacent to each other. circle or semi-circular seating arrangements works best to encourage intentional bottleneck adjustment engagement. cut up the airplane folding instructions alone the designated lines. give the first part of the instructions to the first group in the line. give the second part of the instructions to the second group, and repeat on down the line. some people may not necessarily have designated jobs beyond passing papers, etc. this is intentional to illustrate the intellect waste of not using human ip… and also to note how they’ll often become efficient passers, helpers, or even qa. ensure the group/person who’s last in line is aware of how far the plane must fly as a metric of defining a successful plane. setup a 5 minute timer, start it, and yell “go!” after 5 minutes, identify how many successfully flown airplanes were made as well as how much waste (crumpled papers, non-flying planes, etc) were created. that’s the round 1 score. iterate. the iterate step is where you reflect on what just happened and attempt to modify the process. i’ll go over how ours went down so you get an idea. round 1 line setup : we had 8 people in our line. round 1, we had 1 lady do the half fold, the 2nd guy do the additional 2 folds + paper sides cut, andrea and i pass the paper to our left, another lady handle the 1st wing folds, and a gentleman at the end to make the wings and throw it. our last person was a lady who handled qa and scoring. process : very quickly we had a bottleneck with the lady at my stations left. the instructions weren’t very clear and she struggled to learn how to do the first one. both andrea and i quickly went to help; andrea attempting to do it with her, me taking a picture of the instructions with my iphone, and attempting to duplicate at my desk while ensuring i kept passing the planes to my left into an ever growing pile. once i figured it out (i had actually built the exact same plane last week for my daughters birthday present which has an electronic propeller you attach), i told the ladies to ignore the “requirements” as they were crap and i walked them through how to successfully complete their step. i then quickly returned to my desk which had a pile of unmoved inventory. the only person who didn’t struggle with their assembly was the 1st in the line who had to fold paper in half. i believe we ended up with 2 planes and 1 waste. takeaway : our teacher quickly pointed how we went “downstream” to fix the production line process. this is a reactionary, and completely normal mode, to fix production line problems. it’s also wrong. you’re supposed to identify the upstream problem causing it and fix that. additionally, we didn’t stop the line to ensure we fixed this problem first before continuing, also wrong. car companies like toyota do this via a chain that’s pulled to stop the line so they can ensure the problem is resolved. sometimes they even take part of their line off the main line to ensure things keep moving. as a side note, apparently gm used to keep going. door doesn’t fit right? keep going; jam the mofo on there. they’d end up with a lot full of cars pretty quickly… even if they were low quality. ford was similar, but they’d ensure the cars were actually sold first before they sold them, thus not resulting in lots full of inventory they couldn’t sell like gm… even if the quality of pre-sold cars was still low. we also noted various other problems such as no training in each plane’s building instructions, no one stopping if the station after them go overwhelmed with their ever growing stack, and sometimes idle resources (people with not much to do). round 2 improvements : first, the teacher actually implemented designated stack areas with a piece of paper on each station, and then wrote a number on the paper; this was the max amount of completed planes you could place for the next station to build so you didn’t exacerbate a bottleneck. second, i become a designated passer to my left while my partner moved to the left station to have a 2 women team doing the complicated folding. process : my job was pretty easy; pass, and ensure i don’t bottleneck it. every single station was faster since they had practiced their portion. the guy to my right had actually done his first 3 paper cuts wrong in round 1 which caused confusion to my left station, but had it down pat in round 2. the last station still experimented with various angles of folding to see how far the plane could actually fly. we actually had the last women in the line, qa, send a messed up plane back through the line as an unfolded piece of paper because it didn’t fly right; w00t, less waste! a bottleneck, again, formed to my left, but the girls found a way to divide up the 2 step process between them to be more efficient. as our 5 minutes progressed, they got faster and eventually started making progress on the backlog. we made 5 planes, 1 waste. takeaway : we built 4 planes with 1 waste. the first person, as usual, was too fast. the guy to my right had an inefficient process because he’d have to fold, pick up the scissors, cut, then put ‘em down again. we had all abandoned our airplane instructions by this point. round 3 improvements : everything else was fine, so we decided to give me the cutting job and the guy to my right would just fold. the girls to my left on-the-fly modification was good and we kept it. process : my first 3 were slow, but once i practiced, i was uber fast and we were humming. the girls to my left were killing it. i managed to keep my right stack always below or at 2 in the pile. very quickly it became apparent the 1st person was too fast; she was constantly folding and then waiting before she was allowed to make another. we made 8 airplanes, no waste. takeaway : those of with spouses were already getting texted like mad to leave, but we all wanted to see round 3 succeed better than 2, and see if we made the process perfect. we didn’t; it went the complete opposite direction to the front of the line needing minor modifications. overall, though, our output increased a lot, our waste went down, and it was very clear that the adjustments we made + the teachers maximum stack amounts were working well. my overall takeaways i went to this meeting to both meet new people in town to network with as well as to get out of my comfort zone. i find when i do the latter, i learn a lot and sometimes get a new perspective. it gave me a new appreciation for project managers who have not just 1, but 5 projects they have to manage to make an attempt to do this on. this also assumes they get enough time to really learn about each teams issues, where those bottlenecks are, and what the best ways are to address them. not by just fixing the bottlenecks, but by fixing the process itself, ensuring stop guards are in place not as many items/cards in a column, etc. it also made me intimately aware of how i, as a consultant, immediately want to fix the bottleneck, and have learned ways (such as the war room) to solve them… when in reality, it’s a pm issue for a greater process problem. the other thing that makes it more complex is the whole “all things being equal”. for example, a kanban board a pm would use on the whole process vs. just the kanban board my software team would use. if my team fails to do tdd and ends up with a variety of bugs in the system because we’re forced to develop quickly and produce bad work, this show up on hers as us being the bottleneck. without time to talk to us and really empower us to change our process, nothing will change. i see this time and time again. the excuses, which are sometimes valid, range from “the software’s good enough even with the bugs”, or “tdd is too much work for not enough value” or “we can’t write a test suite for a huge mess that isn’t even testable”. …and that’s just a small portion of what i’ve seen gone wrong. if you’ve ever worked for a design agency, or even a large firm that has a huge new client, it’s very apparent many teams have a hard time getting sign off from clients which causes a bottleneck in the analysis column on the kanban board because the items either pile up, or priority constantly shifts… yet they never actually make it out of their column. a pm there who works with the government offered his strategies for dealing with the strange qa cycles government agencies will have where it goes into a black hole for 6 weeks thus really screwing up his kanban metrics. overall, it was neat to be in a room with people who were geeking out on improving process. you see a lot of software developers get bored with programming or frustrated with how their lack of process is going, so they read up on xp and agile. when you look at what these pm’s deal with, it makes you feel like just a small part in a larger overall process. more importantly, my preconceptions about leadership being the problem 99% of my problem projects really had a wrench thrown in. i was bitching about it to one of the pm’s, and quickly explained, in great detail, why some big companies which don’t have a hard line metric such as money to predict performance will often use lean methodologies since “ensuring customer satisfaction” is hard to measure depending on your business, and requires a more exploratory way of doing business. that said, it was great to hear that the common problems i experience in software dev with solutions were the same, just 1 of many that pm’s have to deal with. i highly encourage software developers to partake in one of these exercises, even if you do scrum vs. kanban. really eye opening stuff.

We’re all works in progress, honey. And believe me when I tell you that I’ve had to work harder than most. ― Susan Elizabeth Phillips, "Ain't She Sweet" It's pretty well understood that limiting Work In Progress - or WIP as it is often abbreviated - is a good thing. Ideally, WIP should be limited to one item in progress at a time. Having multiple pieces of inventory on-hand is a form of waste, since each incurs a handling cost, and any work done on one of them will depreciate while another is being worked on. In theory at least, restricting WIP to one item at a time will reduce this waste and get value out of the door as quickly as possible. This principle of Single Piece Flow (SPF) is central to Lean-Kanban ways of working, especially in a manufacturing context. In a software context the accepted WIP limits tend to be rather higher. It is often limited to one item per developer, such as by allowing each developer only one avatar to place on an item, and it can be reduced further if pair-programming is in use. As such, software teams might not often achieve SPF but the value of limiting WIP as far as possible is still understood. There are however problems in interpreting limited WIP in Scrum. This is because a Scrum board will often take the form of a task board ... not a Kanban board. In other words, the work being limited by Scrum teams is not always a user story or similar requirement. It is often a task. Task-limited WIP allows developers to progress tasks from any user story in any order. They could potentially limit themselves to one or two tasks from a story, complete them, then move on to a task from a different story and maybe a task from a third. In effect multiple stories - perhaps even the entire Sprint Backlog of stories - can be in progress before so much as one story gets completed. None of this breaks Scrum rules. There's nothing to stop a team, in Sprint Planning, from organizing the Sprint Backlog into any number of tasks which can be progressed in any order they choose, and from delivering all of the user stories in one go at the end of the Sprint. The Sprint Goal can of course be met by this approach, and there should still be a nice task burn-down to show the associated technical risks being managed. The problem is that it defers approval of each user story to the end of the Sprint (i.e. the Sprint Review), when it is best-practice to get continual sign-off by a Product Owner throughout the iteration. On-going inspection allows the business risks of delivery to be managed well, and not just the technical risks. This is an issue that all Scrum teams must consider when they formulate a Sprint Plan. Is it important to limit WIP in terms of user stories rather than tasks, and thereby facilitate early approval of those stories by a Product Owner? Or would this compromise the team's principle of incremental delivery ... and amount to Lean-Kanban by the back door?