What Agile Really Means When It Comes to Software Quality

What Agile Really Means When It Comes to Software Quality

Agile Methodology, High-Performance Collaboration, Software Development, Strategic Digital Nearshoring

Written by: Monserrat Raya 

Team reviewing Agile workflows and technical diagrams, illustrating the connection between Agile delivery practices and software quality outcomes.

What Agile Really Means When It Comes to Software Quality

Agile has become the go-to framework for software development in many tech organizations. But despite its widespread adoption, many teams still misunderstand one of its most critical aspects: quality. Too often, “working software” is equated with “quality software”—a misconception that can erode long-term product value and customer satisfaction.

At Scio, we work with engineering leaders across the U.S. to build high-performing nearshore Agile teams. And one pattern we’ve seen time and again is this: Agile isn’t just about delivering fast—it’s about delivering value. And that’s where the real conversation around quality begins.

The Problem With “Done” in Agile Projects

Why Features That Work Aren’t Always Valuable

Many Agile teams celebrate shipping new features as a sign of progress. But just because a feature functions doesn’t mean it’s valuable. In fact, one of the most common Agile software quality issues is mistaking «done» for «done right.»

When teams are under pressure to deliver, it’s easy to check boxes and move on—ignoring whether what was delivered actually improved the product. In our blog on The Benefits of Agile Development, we explore how this disconnect can waste resources and lead to bloated software that’s technically functional but strategically weak.

“Working software is not enough. If it doesn’t solve a user’s problem, it’s just noise.”

The Risks of Equating ‘Done’ With ‘Delivered’

In Agile, the definition of done should go beyond just passing QA. It should reflect actual value delivered to the end-user—a concept often lost in the rush to push code to production.

When “done” equals “delivered,” but not validated, teams risk accumulating technical and functional debt that undermines quality over time. Without a feedback loop, there’s no guarantee that what you ship matters to your users.

What Agile Actually Says About Quality

Working Software as a Principle

The Agile Manifesto famously states: “Working software over comprehensive documentation.” But this doesn’t mean software that merely compiles or runs. It refers to software that delivers consistent value.

In practice, working software must be:

  • Maintainable
  • Usable
  • Valuable
  • Secure

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) adds that modern development—especially in distributed teams—should also ensure IP protection, sustainability, and legal clarity across jurisdictions.

The Role of User Feedback and Continuous Delivery

Continuous delivery best practices help close the gap between development and feedback. Agile isn’t just iterative—it’s adaptive. By incorporating user input regularly, you can ensure the product evolves in the right direction.

At Scio, our nearshore teams embed feedback loops at every stage of the sprint—through internal demos, usability tests, and stakeholder reviews—ensuring quality is validated in real-world scenarios, not just test environments.

Redefining Quality in Agile Teams

Person evaluating software quality metrics on a laptop, with visual icons for performance, rating, and continuous improvement in an Agile environment.

Functional vs. Strategic Quality

Functional quality means a feature does what it’s supposed to. But strategic quality means it serves the product’s broader goals. For example, a “notifications” module may function perfectly—but if users find it annoying or irrelevant, its quality is questionable.

This is why our teams work closely with Product Owners to ensure that user stories align with product vision—not just technical requirements.

Code That Works vs. Code That Solves

A major pitfall in Agile teams is shipping code that meets the “definition of done,” but fails to solve the real problem. In our article Why “If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It” Can Be a Costly Mistake in 2025, we explore how legacy decisions can erode innovation and, ultimately, software quality.

Business Value as a Quality Metric

Agile quality metrics should focus on value delivered, not just velocity or code coverage. Metrics like:

  • Feature adoption
  • Customer satisfaction (e.g., NPS)
  • Time-to-value

…are more useful than story points alone. This concept aligns with agile quality metrics frameworks promoted by Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) for modern software teams.

Practical Guidelines for Delivering Value Over Features

Collaborative Definition of Done

A truly effective definition of done involves more than QA sign-off. It should include user feedback, documentation, and business validation. At Scio, this is a collaborative process between engineers, QA analysts, and stakeholders—built into sprint planning from day one.

Integrating QA in Every Sprint

A common myth is that QA happens after development. In Agile, QA and testing should begin in the planning phase. According to TestRail’s QA in Agile guide, this integrated approach helps catch issues early and raises the overall standard of code delivery.

Our QA engineers participate in backlog refinement, standups, and retrospectives—ensuring quality isn’t a task, it’s a shared responsibility.

Building Feedback Loops Into Your Dev Process

Agile thrives on feedback-driven iteration. Our nearshore teams build automated testing, capture usage analytics, and host biweekly demos to ensure continuous improvement.

The ability to quickly adapt is one of the reasons our nearshore model excels—shared time zones, cultural alignment, and high English proficiency eliminate the friction often experienced in offshore setups. We discuss this further in 10 Risks of Offshore Outsourcing.

How Scio Ensures Agile Quality Standards

At Scio, quality isn’t optional—it’s embedded in how we work. Here’s how we uphold Agile software quality across all our engagements:

  • QA engineers embedded in every sprint
  • Collaborative sprint planning with Product Owners
  • Use of Scio Elevate, our proprietary quality and performance framework
  • Continuous refactoring, code review, and user-centered design
  • Bi-weekly audits on testing, UX consistency, and stakeholder feedback

Combined with our nearshore engineering teams based in Mexico, Scio provides the transparency, speed, and expertise required for teams that want to build software that lasts.
Hand stacking wooden blocks with an upward arrow, symbolizing continuous value delivery and incremental improvement in Agile software development.

Final Thoughts: Agile Quality Is About Continuous Value

Agile isn’t a process—it’s a philosophy. When you shift your mindset from “finishing tickets” to delivering continuous value, quality becomes a natural byproduct.

If your current Agile practice feels like a checklist with little strategic impact, maybe it’s time to revisit what “done” really means—for your users, your business, and your product.

At Scio, we’ve seen firsthand how teams transform when they start thinking in terms of outcomes instead of outputs. It’s not just about how many features you ship—it’s about how each one contributes to a better, smarter, more resilient product. Agile quality isn’t measured at the end of a sprint; it’s measured when your software makes a difference for real users.

When you embed that mindset into your Agile culture—with collaborative planning, built-in QA, and clear communication across teams—you not only improve the product, you improve the way your team works. And that’s where true software quality begins.

In a world where speed is a given, value is the differentiator. Agile done right helps you deliver both.

FAQs

What does Agile really mean by “working software”?

In Agile, “working software” refers to more than code that compiles without errors. It means the software is usable, valuable, tested, and ready for deployment. It’s a product that delivers functional outcomes and solves real user problems—not just a feature completed on a Jira board. This is why many Agile teams define working software based on how it performs in the hands of users, not just in QA environments.

How do Agile teams measure software quality?

Agile teams measure quality through a combination of automated testing, functional acceptance criteria, user satisfaction metrics (like NPS or CSAT), and business KPIs such as feature adoption and retention. Some teams also track agile quality metrics like escaped defects, cycle time, and time-to-feedback. The key is to align your definition of “quality” with both technical performance and business value.

How is QA integrated into Agile development sprints?

In high-performing Agile teams, QA is not a separate phase—it’s embedded in every sprint. QA engineers participate in planning, refinement, and standups, and write tests before or alongside development. Practices like test-driven development (TDD), pair testing, and continuous integration help Agile teams maintain high quality without slowing down delivery. At Scio, QA is part of our cross-functional teams from day one, not brought in at the end.

Is nearshoring better than offshore for Agile teams?

Yes. For Agile teams, nearshoring—especially to regions like Mexico under USMCA—offers faster feedback cycles, real-time communication, and greater cultural alignment, which are all crucial for Agile practices like sprint planning, retrospectives, and backlog refinement. Unlike traditional offshore models, nearshoring allows for daily collaboration without time zone delays, which is key when your team is focused on continuous delivery and iteration.

What’s the difference between “done” and “delivered” in Agile?

This is one of the most common Agile misunderstandings. “Done” often means a task has passed internal QA, but “delivered” means the value has reached the user and been validated. Teams that confuse the two can end up with features that technically work but deliver no real value. A clear, collaborative Definition of Done should include user feedback, business validation, and documentation—not just functional testing.

From SEO to AI: How Blog Content Needs to Evolve for Generative Search – and What It Means for Nearshore Partners 

From SEO to AI: How Blog Content Needs to Evolve for Generative Search – and What It Means for Nearshore Partners 

Agile Methodology, AI, Customer Experience

By Rod Aburto — Nearshore Staffing Expert at Scio Consulting
Person interacting with AI-powered search interface on a laptop, symbolizing the shift from traditional SEO to generative search content strategies.

While attending SaaStr 2025 this past May in San Mateo, California, I noticed a subtle but powerful shift in how tech leaders are thinking about content strategy. A recurring theme throughout the sessions and conversations was the rising influence of Generative AI platforms like ChatGPT, Claude, and Perplexity, as the new front door to online discovery.

This trend made me reflect on how we, at Scio Consulting, share our experience and insights through our blog. Traditionally, we’ve followed SEO best practices to ensure our content gets found. But the game has changed.

Now, your audience might not be typing keywords into Google. They’re asking AI tools natural-language questions—and expecting nuanced, trustworthy answers. That shift changes everything.

Person typing on a computer with a digital interface overlay, representing the shift from traditional keyword search to AI-powered question-based discovery.

From “Googling” to “Asking”

In the old model, keywords, backlinks, and structured metadata were enough to give your blog post a fighting chance at visibility. But today, users searching for insights about nearshore software development, remote engineering teams, or Latin America tech talent are using AI platforms that respond with curated, synthesized summaries.

Instead of reading ten blog posts, people ask:

  • “What’s the best nearshore partner for Agile delivery in Mexico?”
  • “How can I build a scalable development team in Latin America?”
  • “Who offers flexible staff augmentation models for software outsourcing?”

If your content isn’t well-structured, specific, and authoritative, it simply won’t be included in the AI’s answer set.

How Generative AI is Changing Content Discovery

At its core, Generative AI rewards content that is:

  • Expert-led, not generic
  • Conversational, not keyword-stuffed
  • Structured, using clear subheadings and semantic flow
  • Helpful, addressing real questions from real users

That’s a big deal for nearshore partners like Scio. We’re not just writing for a search algorithm—we’re writing to be understood and surfaced by AI.

This means our posts on staff augmentation, agile delivery, and software outsourcing need to clearly explain what we do, how we do it, and why it matters—with a level of transparency and authority that resonates with both humans and machines.

How Scio is Adapting

At Scio Consulting, we’re evolving our content strategy to reflect this shift. We’re aligning our blog posts with the way AI platforms index and summarize information, while staying true to our core voice and expertise.

That includes:

  • Highlighting our experience with nearshoring to Mexico/LATAM and service delivery management
  • Showcasing our ability to scale remote engineering teams for long-term impact
  • Sharing real lessons learned from building scalable development teams across borders
  • Addressing questions we know tech leaders are asking AI tools today

Our goal is to meet CTOs and Software Development Managers exactly where they are—whether they’re browsing a blog or chatting with an AI assistant.

Person typing on laptop with AI assistant icons floating above, symbolizing how generative search is changing access to expert content and thought leadership.

The Future of Thought Leadership

If you’re a tech leader navigating software outsourcing or exploring nearshore options in Latin America, know this: The content you find today may not come from traditional search engines. It may come from a well-trained AI that understands your question—and knows where to look.

We believe nearshore providers like Scio have a responsibility to make our knowledge accessible in this new format. Because if you’re trusting AI to guide your decisions, you should be confident that the right voices—voices grounded in experience, transparency, and delivery excellence—are part of the answer.

Let’s talk about how Scio’s nearshore model and flexible team structures can help you move faster, scale smarter, and deliver better. Visit https://sciodev.com or reach out directly—AI may be the new search engine, but real conversations still matter most

Rod Aburto

Rod Aburto

Nearshore Staffing Expert

Technical Debt vs. Misaligned Expectations: Which Costs More? 

Technical Debt vs. Misaligned Expectations: Which Costs More? 

Agile Methodology, High-Performance Collaboration, Outsourced Engineering Team, Project Management, Software Development, Strategic Digital Nearshoring

Written by: Monserrat Raya 

Wooden scale with yellow blocks representing technical debt and misaligned expectations imbalance

Introduction:

What Causes Software Project Delays—and What Costs More?

For U.S. tech companies—especially those in Texas—technical debt and misaligned expectations are two silent risks that can compromise delivery when working with nearshore software development teams in Latin America.

We all know that poorly written, unmaintained, or rushed code (technical debt) leads to bugs and cost overruns. But what about when your team builds exactly what was asked—only to realize it wasn’t what was expected?

This article explores:

  • What technical debt really costs
  • How misaligned expectations silently sabotage agile teams
  • Which problem costs more—and why
  • How strategic digital nearshoring can reduce both risks

According to the 2023 State of Agile Report by Digital.ai, 49% of agile teams cite misaligned expectations and unclear requirements as the leading cause of delivery delays. This makes expectation alignment not just a communication issue—but a strategic priority in distributed and nearshore software development environments.

What Technical Debt Really Means in Software Projects

Technical debt refers to the hidden cost of choosing quick, suboptimal solutions in code that must be “paid back” through future refactoring, bug fixes, and maintenance.

Common causes of technical debt:

  • Rushed development for MVPs or deadlines
  • Poor architectural decisions
  • Lack of automated testing
  • Legacy code and developer turnover
  • No time allocated for refactoring

A 2023 study by Beta Breakers reveals that 50% of a project’s software budget is often spent fixing issues after delivery, highlighting how unchecked technical debt becomes a massive drain on engineering resources—and ROI.

How technical debt impacts your project:

  • Slows down development velocity
  • Increases cost of maintenance
  • Introduces fragile, hard-to-scale systems
  • Undermines team morale and innovation

What Are Misaligned Expectations in Agile Software Projects?

Misaligned expectations occur when stakeholders and teams have differing understandings of project goals, timelines, or definitions of completion. This misalignment can lead to inefficiencies, increased costs, and project delays.

How Do Misaligned Expectations Affect Agile Teams?

  • Stakeholders may expect fully production-ready features.
  • Developers might consider «done» as «coded, not tested or deployed.»
  • Product owners could assume a shared understanding of backlog priorities.

Such discrepancies can result in:

  • Endless rework and scope creep.
  • Tension between teams and stakeholders.
  • Delivery of features that don’t align with business needs.
  • Frustration stemming from perceived underperformance.

According to McKinsey, technical debt can consume up to 40% of the value of a company’s technology estate, diverting resources from innovation to maintenance.

Furthermore, companies with mature product and operating models have 60% greater total returns to shareholders, indicating the financial benefits of alignment and effective operating structures.

Illustration representing the contrast between technical debt and misaligned development efforts

Technical Debt vs. Misaligned Expectations: Which Costs More?

Aspect
Technical Debt
Misaligned Expectations
Definition Quick fixes that sacrifice long-term code quality Gaps in understanding between teams and stakeholders
Root Cause Rushed code, lack of testing, no refactoring Unclear goals, vague scope, poor communication
Visibility Measurable via code quality tools and reviews Often invisible until delays or dissatisfaction arise
Impact on Cost 33% loss in developer productivity (Stripe) Up to 60% increase in maintenance and rework (McKinsey)
Agile Risk Medium – usually technical in nature High – especially with distributed or nearshore teams
Cultural Sensitivity Low – mostly code-centric High – often caused by cultural or communication gaps
Prevention Strategy Refactoring, CI/CD, quality standards Frequent alignment sessions, shared backlog, agile onboarding

Real Example: When Misalignment Was Costlier Than Code

A U.S.-based healthtech company nearshoring to Latin America delivered multiple sprints on time and within budget—but friction grew.

The issue?

  • The development team built what the backlog described.
  • The stakeholders expected a production-ready MVP.
  • The client assumed weekly demos; the team delivered monthly updates.

The result: two sprints of rework and loss of trust—not due to technical errors, but due to misaligned expectations.

Related: How to Build Culturally Aligned Nearshore Teams That Actually Work

How Misalignment Increases Technical Debt Risks

Misaligned expectations don’t just create communication problems—they actively accelerate technical debt:

  • Developers build without full product context.
  • Features are rewritten multiple times to meet business needs.
  • Refactoring is skipped to meet misunderstood deadlines.

This loop creates what we call “compounding failure”:
→ Vague goals → Rushed features → Tech debt → Rework → Lower velocity → More misalignment.

How to Prevent Scope Misalignment in Agile Teams

Here are proven strategies for managing expectations with distributed teams and avoiding costly misalignment:

1. Clarify the Definition of «Done»

Ensure it includes design, testing, documentation, and stakeholder approval. A shared definition of done eliminates misunderstandings about the state of a task or feature.

2. Hold Frequent Expectation Check-ins

Especially with nearshore teams, use retrospectives and backlog grooming sessions to re-align priorities. Continuous communication ensures alignment stays intact.

3. Enable Cross-Border Collaboration Tools

Tools like Jira, Confluence, Loom, and Miro help bridge communication gaps across time zones and ensure documentation, visibility, and feedback loops.

4. Invest in Agile and Cultural Onboarding

Help your team understand the why, not just the what—especially in distributed environments. Business context and cultural fluency directly improve collaboration.

Related reading: Overcoming Challenges in Nearshore Development: Tips for Seamless Collaboration

Diagram comparing technical debt with misaligned team objectives in software development

What to Ask a Nearshore Partner Before You Start

Question
Why It Matters
How do you define project “success”? Ensures alignment on goals, scope, and delivery standards
How do you manage technical debt? Shows long-term engineering discipline
Do you onboard developers into our business? Prevents context gaps that lead to misaligned expectations
How are blockers and scope changes communicated? Maintains trust and prevents surprises
What agile frameworks and ceremonies do you use? Confirms process compatibility across teams and cultures

Related reading: Why Nearshore Software Development Makes More Sense Than Ever in 2025

Final Thoughts: Balancing Code and Clarity

So, is technical debt worse than misaligned expectations?

  • If you’re managing an internal agile team, technical debt may be your biggest challenge.
  • But if you’re scaling with distributed or nearshore partners, misaligned expectations can quietly cost more—in time, trust, and delivery quality.

The solution: Combine technical excellence with human alignment—and work with partners who understand both.

Looking for a Nearshore Team That Gets It Right?

Scio, a nearshore software development partner based in Mexico, helps U.S. companies in Austin, Dallas, and beyond build teams that deliver—technically and strategically.

  • English-fluent developers
  • Agile maturity and cultural alignment
  • Proactive communication and shared success metrics

Let’s talk about building a team that fits your goals

FAQ Section

Is technical debt worse than misaligned expectations?

It depends. Technical debt is visible and can be tracked, while misaligned expectations often remain hidden until delivery problems arise—especially in distributed teams.

How do misaligned expectations affect agile projects?

They cause rework, delays, scope creep, and stakeholder dissatisfaction. Agile depends on shared understanding—when that breaks, delivery quality drops.

What causes software project delays most often?

According to The Standish Group, unclear requirements and communication failures are top causes—more than technical execution.

How do you prevent misalignment in distributed teams?

Use shared collaboration tools, define «done» clearly, hold regular expectation check-ins, and provide both agile and cultural onboarding to all team members.

Scrum vs. EOS: How Scio is Evaluating EOS to Complement Our Agile Expertise 

Scrum vs. EOS: How Scio is Evaluating EOS to Complement Our Agile Expertise 

Agile Methodology, High-Performance Collaboration, Project Management, Strategic Digital Nearshoring

Written by: Adolfo Cruz – 

Scrum vs. EOS: How Scio is Evaluating EOS to Complement Our Agile Expertise

At Scio, we have used Scrum to execute software development projects for over 10 years, refining our approach and delivering high-quality solutions through agile methodologies. Scrum has been instrumental in helping us manage projects efficiently, ensuring adaptability, continuous improvement, and alignment with client needs.

As we look toward the next 10 years, we recognize the need for a complementary framework that helps us reinforce our business strategy, scale effectively, and maintain alignment across all teams. This is why we are evaluating the Entrepreneurial Operating System (EOS) as a potential addition to our operational toolkit. EOS offers a structured business framework that can provide clarity in vision, enhance leadership alignment, and drive long-term growth.

What is Scrum?

Scrum is an agile project management framework designed for iterative product development. It helps teams break down complex projects into Sprints (short, time-boxed iterations) and enables continuous improvement through frequent feedback loops.

Key Components of Scrum:

 

  • Roles: Product Owner, Scrum Master, Development Team
  • Artifacts: Product Backlog, Sprint Backlog, Increment
  • Meetings: Sprint Planning, Daily Standup, Sprint Review, Sprint Retrospective
  • Cadence: Iterations of 1-4 weeks (Sprints)
  • Goal: Deliver working software efficiently through iterative cycles
What is EOS?

What is EOS?

EOS is a business operating system designed to help organizations gain clarity, alignment, and traction in executing their long-term vision. It provides a structured approach to defining a company’s purpose, setting goals, and ensuring accountability across all departments.

Key Components of EOS:

 

  • Vision: Defined in the Vision/Traction Organizer (V/TO)
  • People: Right People, Right Seats (People Analyzer)
  • Data: Scorecard to track key metrics
  • Issues: Identifying and solving business challenges
  • Process: Documenting and standardizing key business workflows
  • Traction: Quarterly Rocks (90-day goals) and Level 10 Meetings
What is EOS?

Why Scio is Considering EOS

While Scrum has been invaluable in managing project execution, we recognize that as we scale our business, we need a structured framework to align our vision, strengthen leadership accountability, and ensure strategic growth. EOS provides a long-term operational structure that complements our agile execution methodology.

1. Aligning EOS Rocks with Scrum Sprints

  • EOS Rocks (90-day priorities) can guide high-level business objectives, while Scrum Sprint Goals help break them down into actionable development tasks.
  • Leadership sets Rocks at the company level, and Scrum teams translate them into Sprint deliverables.

2. Using Level 10 Meetings for Business Strategy, Daily Standups for Execution

  • Scrum Standups focus on immediate project tasks and execution.
  • Level 10 Meetings provide leadership with a structured way to track company-wide priorities and resolve high-level business issues.

3. Tracking Progress with EOS Scorecards & Scrum Burndown Charts

  • EOS Scorecards will help us measure and track company-wide KPIs.
  • Scrum teams will continue using Burndown Charts to measure Sprint progress.

4. Applying EOS People Principles to Scrum Teams

  • EOS’s Right People, Right Seats framework will help ensure Scrum teams remain well-structured with the right talent.
  • People Analyzer can assist in assessing team alignment with company values and culture.
The Road Ahead for Scio

The Road Ahead for Scio

As we explore the integration of EOS, our goal is not to replace Scrum but to enhance our business execution at a leadership level. Scrum will continue to drive project-level agility, while EOS will provide a long-term strategy to manage growth, accountability, and business alignment.

By integrating EOS at the business level and Scrum at the project level, we believe Scio can achieve even stronger execution, scalability, and alignment—ensuring we remain at the forefront of agile software development while preparing for the future.

We’re excited about this journey and will continue to refine our approach as we implement EOS principles. If you’re also using Scrum and considering EOS, let’s connect and share insights!

Adolfo Cruz - PMO Director

Adolfo Cruz

PMO Director

Agile Austin Takeaways: Refining Your Software Development Approach for Mid-Sized Tech Companies

Agile Austin Takeaways: Refining Your Software Development Approach for Mid-Sized Tech Companies

Agile Methodology, Successful Outsourcing

As a nearshore software development staff augmentation company with over 20 years of experience, Scio understands the challenges faced by mid-sized tech companies (30-200 employees) in the software development industry (SaaS, Mobile, or On-premises). Recently, our team participated in the Agile Austin virtual event, a valuable forum fostering collaboration and knowledge sharing within the Agile community. This experience provided us with fresh perspectives directly applicable to your team’s success. 

Shifting the Agile Paradigm: From Methodology to Mindset 

One key takeaway emphasized the importance of viewing Agile as a core company principle, rather than simply a defined methodology. Think of it as a cultural shift, not just a process change. Agile principles such as iterative development, continuous improvement, and collaboration become ingrained in your team’s DNA. One of our Scio Project Manager, Jesús, found a quote from Bob Galen, particularly resonant:  

«While intricate solutions hold a certain allure, their complexity can present risks.»  

Bob Galen, KAA 2024 Keynote Speaker

This sentiment underscores the crucial role of resilience within Agile environments. Complex methodologies can be cumbersome and hinder adaptability, a key strength of Agile. 

Jesús also presented the concept of a «help-o-meter» – a tool that fosters a growth culture by tracking instances of offering and seeking assistance within the development team. This straightforward practice not only strengthens team dynamics and promotes a collaborative spirit, but also encourages knowledge sharing and continuous learning. 

Prioritization and Psychological Safety: Cornerstones of Effective Agile Teams 

Another member of our team, Angeles, Scio Business Analyst, highlighted the significance of prioritization within Agile teams. By clearly identifying the features that deliver the most value to your customers, you ensure a laser focus on what truly matters. However, the benefits of Agile extend beyond project management frameworks and feature sets. Establishing a culture of psychological safety empowers team members to openly communicate concerns, take calculated risks, and contribute their best ideas. This fosters a more creative and innovative environment, leading to better problem-solving and ultimately, a more successful product. Additionally, tracking Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) allows for data-driven decision-making and facilitates continuous progress. Regularly measuring progress against defined goals allows you to identify areas for improvement and adapt your approach as needed. 

Building Successful Agile Teams: Communication, Collaboration, Adaptability 

The Agile approach thrives on effective communication, collaboration, and adaptability. Daily scrums become a platform for active participation, transparency, and shared goal alignment. Team members openly discuss progress, identify roadblocks, and work together to find solutions. This fosters a sense of ownership and accountability, leading to a more engaged and productive team. By nurturing these core elements, Agile teams thrive in a constantly evolving environment and consistently deliver value to your customers. 

Scio: Your Partner in Agile Success 

At Scio, we leverage our extensive experience in nearshore software development staff augmentation to help you build successful Agile teams. We provide highly skilled and experienced developers who seamlessly integrate into your existing teams, fostering an Agile environment that drives results. Our dedication to clear communication, collaboration, and cultural understanding ensures a smooth transition and a successful partnership. 

Contact Scio today to discuss your specific needs and explore how we can help you build a high-performing Agile team that consistently delivers value to your customers. 

The Expert Blindspot, or why you should let junior developers do code review.

The Expert Blindspot, or why you should let junior developers do code review.

Agile Methodology, Software Development

Curated by: Sergio A. Martínez

When you are trying to bring a new application to life, code reviews are an essential part of the development process. They help ensure the quality of the code, identify potential problems and bugs early enough to squash them and provide the perfect opportunity to get feedback from your peers. This is a source of insight and helpful criticism that can help a developer grow.

The-Expert-Blindspot-or-why-you-should-let-junior--icono

After all, in big collaborative projects such as software development, no part of the process is made in isolation; receiving advice is an important part of every good team, cultivating a better collaborative environment, and establishing a sense of trust and camaraderie among the team. Code reviews, for example, are one of the most important steps in this process, but how they should be conducted, and by whom, are questions to keep in mind when trying to guarantee the quality of any product. 

Naturally, this task tends to fall on the shoulders of the more experienced developers of a team, as seniors should know what they are doing and what to look for, but is their input the only valid one? Or should junior developers be allowed to do code reviews for their more experienced teammates? What benefits can a team have by giving the least experienced members such a responsibility?

We want to make the case that allowing junior developers to review the code written by a senior collaborator not only helps them grow their skills, but it’s a procedure essential to ensure quality in the codebase. Any team that doesn’t employ this strategy might be missing a great opportunity there, but what’s the reasoning behind it?

“You can’t win against someone who makes a bet for fun”

The Expert Blindspot, or why you should let junior develop

In professional poker, winning against amateurs is not exactly guaranteed. Of course, luck is involved, but the technique is important too. Knowing how to read the tells of your opponent, having a good idea of which cards are currently in play, and learning to push your bets at the most strategic moments are part of the toolset of any professional player. And all this can be disrupted rather easily by an amateur with less experience at the game because they are harder to estimate and bluff.

This interesting irony was noted by movie critic Gene Siskel, an experienced player when he lost against his equally famous partner Roger Ebert at a bachelor party: “You can’t win against someone who makes a bet for fun”. In other words, professional player has very specific expectations if they are going against another pro, and their decisions come from a place of knowledge and experience where possibilities tend to be more studied and controlled. So, if you are an experienced developer reviewing the code written by another experienced developer, what exactly do you expect to see? Is that different from reviewing the code written by a junior programmer? Of course, the answer is yes. This phenomenon is called “the expert blind spot”:

“The experts will have difficulty to understand why the beginners don’t understand. For them, the concept feels obvious. The learners, on the other side, won’t be able to ask the good questions either, since they’re not aware of what they don’t know. How to ask good questions if you have no idea what kind of answer you want?”

Although the expert blind spot is usually used in the context of teaching, the difficulties a veteran might have to pass along his knowledge in the context of code reviews are similar to our earlier poker example. A senior reviewing the code of a senior tends to have certain expectations about it, which is both a benefit and a risk: certain things might be taken as “obvious” and not be considered until it’s too late.  

After all, anyone who has ever worked on a complex project knows the frustration of feeling where something might be wrong but can’t quite see it. That’s why it’s always a good idea to take a look at it with fresh eyes. In that sense, junior developers can bring a lot to the table when it comes to code reviews, free from all assumptions and rigid pathways that might trip up even the best programmers.

A good way to conduct a code review

The Expert Blindspot, or why you should let junior 2

However, that is not to say that junior developers should bear the entire responsibility of code reviews; guidance and backup are still needed to ensure they are properly conducted during the sprint. In the words of Carlos Estrada, a Lead Developer Application at Scio:

“It’s generally a good idea to have a junior dev participate in code reviews, it’s useful for them to see what changes a senior does, and learn to find and track changes, but they cannot be the ones to approve the review. There have been a few internal projects I supervised where mostly juniors were involved, and when the time was short, the juniors had to do it themselves, learning from the comments I have left on earlier reviews.”

In short, junior developers are the backbone of any software development team. They may not have as much experience as their senior colleagues, but they can make up for it with a desire to learn and master the craft, which makes them a perfect addition to a thorough code review: 

  1. As already said, by conducting code reviews, junior developers can see for themselves how code written by a veteran looks; which good practices are implemented, proper comment discipline, and readability, which can help them become better programmers. 
  2. A junior reviewing code can spot mistakes that a veteran might otherwise overlook due to the expert blind spot; a fresh perspective, free of all the expectations and assumptions a senior can unconsciously have, can sometimes obtain a better insight of the code.  

However, not all code review processes are created equal, and for one to be effective, it should follow a few simple steps that ensure the resulting review is useful. Many veteran developers may know these steps by heart, but to a junior starting to learn the value of these exercises, the following procedure is always recommended: 

  • First, developers should submit their code for review early and often.

    This allows for more frequent feedback and helps to prevent errors from becoming entrenched in the codebase. 

  • Second, all reviewers should have a common understanding of the project’s goals.

    This helps to ensure that everyone is on the same page when it comes to evaluating the code. 

  • Finally, reviewers should focus on providing constructive feedback.

    By indicating what works well and what could be improved, reviewers can help developers produce better code with fewer errors. 

So, to recap, code reviews are an important part of the software development process, and juniors can learn a lot from participating in them. However, they need guidance from seniors to make sure that the code is correct and meets the standards that these projects strive for. And the final approval always must come from a senior member of the team, keeping an eye on the process, and making sure everyone can learn from it. After all, experience builds on the chance to bring new perspectives and let them teach new things.

Scio is an established Nearshore software development company based in Mexico that specializes in providing high-quality, cost-effective technologies for pioneering tech companies. We have been building and mentoring teams of engineers since 2003 and our experience gives us access not only to the knowledge but also the expertise needed when tackling any project. Get started today by contacting us about your project needs – We have teams available to help you achieve your business goals. Get in contact today!