Agile Methodology, Featured, Product Development, Project Management
When you develop software products in a repeatable, production fashion, you have to step back occasionally and take the long view so you can properly discuss the process with clients. We’ve been involved in that exercise recently and I thought it might be useful to share the what and why of our approach to software product development for online products.
First, there is one basic idea that informs all of this:
We define the “Big Bang” Market Release model as:
- A black-box project where significant work is done up front to bring together requirements documents which detail the features and functionality in great depth for a software development project that typically lasts from 12 months to two years.
- The time expended on requirements development is expected to provide prospective developers with a very specific vision of the product that can be put out for bid, will put a box around scope, cost and time, and will last throughout the project.
- On release, the exhaustive feature list is expected to drive market adoption and leapfrog existing competitors.
This is different from the closed box, rapid development method that is sometimes also called «Big Bang.» In that in that case, no time is expended on specifications or plans with users or clients. In Big Bang Development, the development team comes up with all the features and implementation based on a rudimentary concept, goes away, and hopefully comes back with something useful. To say we are not believers in this software development methodology is something of an understatement. It is high risk and low reward because the client does not fully understand what they want or what they will get.
In contrast, the concept of the Big Bang Market Release comes from the simple idea that a product can create a market simply by existing in a complete vision that will bring out buyers for a concept that may have never existed before. Specifying software product development in this situation is tricky. Apple has been the leading success story that is cited when this concept is brought forward. Companies that want to create markets, but cannot do the entire product development in house, strongly understand their need to reduce the risk of failure to realize their vision when the application is ready for release. And often, because of the technology and innovation involved, they know they cannot provide the in-depth technical oversight needed during the project. So rather than allow interpretation or adaptation during development, extreme care is exercised to write very specific requirements and lock them down.
Regardless of those worthy aims, these projects continue to fail because:
- Controlling scope over the life of a project becomes increasingly difficult as the project complexity and time span increase. Prediction accuracy degrades geometrically over time – eventually yielding a project plan that can only be relied on at a high level.
- Technology continues to respond to Moore’s Law. The longer the requirement development takes, the longer the project goes on, the less likely it is to meet the expectations of the market on delivery. User expectations have moved on, informed by alternatives they have tried in the interim. In addition, the technology assumptions at the beginning of a long, complex project don’t always work out when development actually takes on the complexity of feature integration. So the choice of a tool, framework, or library may seem like it solves a lot of problems at first, but in practice may turn out to be a black hole into which resource time disappears.
- No matter how detailed requirements are – they are limited by two things: point of view (the classic story of the blind men and the elephant is the common point of reference) and actual feedback from end users of the resulting application. No matter how carefully feedback from end users is brought together for requirements, it is only as good as their vision of the final product. As we and others have said many times – if you asked people at the start of the 1900′s what they wanted for personal transportation – the requirements would only lead to better horses. It is rare for requirements to both anticipate user needs correctly and the complexity of delivering them in a particular way. The risk in requirements actually increases the more detailed they become – especially in cases where they are so specific they cannot respond to end-user feedback early in the development process.
So – what is the alternative?
Consider “Lean Product Development» as a base. We have developed an adaption of the lean concept to software product development that we have leveraged over several projects and across several industries :
Lean Software Product Development
The phases and their aims break down this way:
- Sprint 0 – During this phase, requirements are verified, technology choices are made in detail (architecture, stack), user stories are built (we use agile development techniques – user stories are roughly equivalent to use cases), and the user experience (more than just interface, how a user will use the product) approach is developed to set interaction standards. The outcome of this phase is a set of technical specifications, personalities (roles to a degree), and prioritized user stories with effort estimates for each story.
- Alpha Version – During this phase, the underlying framework is built and core functionality is developed for key end-users. The point of this phase is to verify the product vision with the key audience of the application – the end users who perform the most critical tasks and use the application most. This means the alpha version needs to be actually be tried by the core end-users. This usually requires client partners – which in the case of a new vendor requires getting out into the market and bringing in some early adopters. The outcome is to lower risk. The cost at this point is low, compared to the whole project, so changes can still be absorbed without loss of large portions of developed code and sunk costs. Also, at this point, the approach of the development team in carrying out the vision of their client can be verified early – so that adjustments can be made and trust between the client and the development team can grow. This approach follows the sage advice articulated by Steve Blank – the point of early user validation is to get «out of the building» and get in front your audience early so they can inform development before costly mistakes are made.
- Beta Version – This phase produces the first cut of the market version of a product. It is important to understand that the scope of this version is intentionally limited to just what is necessary to deliver value to end users. In other words – deliver just what they will use and PAY FOR. This is a critical assessment that is informed by both the vision of the subject experts and the feedback from the Alpha Version. The problem is, however, no matter how good the vision and feedback are, there will be additional feedback when the product hits the many different contexts of actual target end-users in the market. The release of the beta version also provides the “kick-off” of internal operations for the provider – and in the case of most products – support, sales, and marketing. The lessons learned from beta release then inform the next phase so that beta adopters are rewarded (and retained) and operations deliver the message and services needed to drive new customers and user adoption. Because of the incremental nature of agile-based release cycles, the actual point when sales are made during this phase varies a lot between products – but development doesn’t stop. What changes is that development is now more directly informed as new customers come on and participate in the beta. Some companies test pricing and marketing more aggressively at this point than others – but the general recommendation is to establish pricing early and test it against the perceived value from users. The outcome isn’t expected to be an adjustment to pricing directly but rather an adjustment of features or packaging to better align with perceived value.
- Market Release – This phase marks the release of the full market product and the beginning of “normal” product enhancements to continue to grow functionality in alignment with user feedback. We sometimes add a phase for development up to market release itself that is separate from beta – but for general purposes – development has now slipped into an enhancement mode, rather than full out development unless there is a significant difference from what is planned for release to beta customers and the general market. The outcome of this phase is a product informed by target user feedback, tested business operations and a change of focus from getting the product “out the door” to getting customers and continuing to enhance features and functionality. It is not an end point – it is just the start of the natural evolution and “pull” of a “consumerized” online product.
The outcomes of this process are:
- Early release and feedback from the people who count – the actual paying users in the field.
- Early validation that both the vision and the requirements are resulting in a product that delivers value and will meet market expectations.
- Lower up front risk and lower time to profit. Waiting over a year to put a product in the market with real users is a recipe for disaster. Getting into the market, proving operational assumptions and kick-starting cash flow as soon as practical is key to success. The sooner you get into the market, the more time you have to adjust to reality before your startup cash pile is burned up.
- Simple – a higher chance of success measured by what counts – adoption, cash flow from customers and retention of users.
However, some of our customers face a little more difficult situation – they have an existing product in the field that started life as a traditional premise-based product and is now being pulled to adopt a more dynamic, online model. That brings an additional set of issues:
- If the development cycle is long, existing clients may jump ship before the full online version is available.
Support and maintenance of the existing product can overwhelm the key members of the product team that need to be available to shape the new product. Finding a point when transition can begin in an orderly fashion, without cannibalizing existing sales is critical.
- The new direction provides an opportunity to develop new markets, adopt new pricing levels and transition to a pull-driven feature model (rather than the push of traditional product releases) but timing is key. For a complex product meeting the needs of the top of a vertical market this becomes a huge exercise and is frankly very difficult to break down into manageable pieces.
To deal with that we have a general model that takes the new product template above and turns it into a phased development of a suite of products. In the diagram below – you can think of each of the blue boxes as a modified run of the our typical product develop cycle:
Progressive development for a suite of online software products
The major steps in this are:
- Sprint 0 – A holistic project-level requirements, technical specifications and feature breakdown that sets the stage for the entire project – but doesn’t lock assumptions down. The point of this entire project is as before, get products out early, get feedback and cash flow as soon as practical. This also includes a more detailed look at the first product in the suite.
- Web Enhancements – This part of the first product release is optional, but worth considering as a way to ensure existing customers stay onboard for the long run and can see the long vision early – so they will become key in feedback as the product progresses through the lifecycle. What form this product takes varies, but the idea is to enhance the existing product with features that suit the Internet environment particularly well and extend it in ways not possible before because of technology or restrictions inherent in the on-premise version.
- Broad Market Version – To allow early feedback and to get into the market as soon as possible, the first product needs to be a focused subset of the expertise expressed in the legacy product that addressed the top of the market previously. Generally, this means providing a set of features that will provide value for the 2nd and perhaps 3rd tier of the market. Again, all the points of a typical product release as we first described need to happen in this release so the product is informed by actual end-users in the target market – which coincidentally is a new market for the vendor.
- Professional Version – Building on the same code base as the Broad Market Version, the professional version targets the features which will satisfy 70-80% of their installed base. This sets the stage for migration and broadens potential adoption by a group of customers who will pay significantly more for the value the product delivers. This also marks the point where legacy support and maintenance can begin to turn the corner and clearly move toward the new product.
- Enterprise Version – Again, on the same code base, enterprise functionality is added and now the entire “product suite” has reached levels of functionality never achieved in the legacy version. Users pick levels by feature packages within the suite – so if properly architected – there is a lot of variation in pricing and packaging possible to meet needs in different markets.
It should be said that the timeframes proposed here are generalizations and will vary, but – they are based on the assumption that development should focus on delivering features with value to end users. Everywhere else, the simple rule “less is more” should be followed with the leverage of services and frameworks wherever practical. The architecture needs to allow those services to be used as long as necessary, but to be replaced as growth provides the option to drive down the cost of service. It should also be said that features and customization in this approach come from choices of what is made available to roles in market packages and configuration – not separate versions.
Now, I’ll admit this is a big vision and a lot to absorb in any context – either as a startup or a software company with legacy products in the market. And – it is a big shift in how we have looked at software product development. It comes from our own experience of the issues we find repeatedly in the market. I can’t say it is an approach that every development group can provide successfully. It depends on making clear choices that will provide these outcomes and not waffling with half measures.
What do you think? Can you see your company going down this road? Can you see the benefits? Let me know…
Do you want to develop a lean software product? Contact us right now!
Agile Methodology, Customer Experience, Mobile, Nearshore, Outsourced Engineering Team, Product Development, Technologies
When building any kind of company, there are steps you must take that will do the most to ensure your success. These steps are especially lucrative when building a company that works for other companies such as the ever-growing industry of software-as-a-service. It may be difficult to know on your own what are some of the ways you can ensure success in your software service company. To make it simpler for you, we have compiled a couple of the ways that you can see to it that your company has the best shot of success.
Keep it simple
Because software is often self-serve it is best to keep it simple and easy to use considering the majority of business owners aren’t computer geniuses. Making it more user-friendly will mean that more people will want to use your software for their business. Keep it simple, tidy, and user-friendly.
Never stop improving
O
ne way that a lot of software service companies fail is that they become complacent with their software. A good software service company listens to their customers and continuously improves and updates its product to make it work even better and smoother. Monitoring what the consumer is saying allows the software service company to cut out unnecessary functionality which ties into the “Keep it simple” rule.
Offer several different packages
You should always have more than one package available where the first and lowest functioning one is basically free. From there you can increase the price per software based on customer needs, usability, willingness to pay, and ROI.
Display a path to profitability
Oftentimes a company will not be profitable simply because they invest their resources to sustain growth. Good service software companies must show that they plan to be profitable in the next few years and that they have a path to profitability. The best way for a company to achieve this is to hit profitability every couple of years before reinvesting.
Offer the perfect mix of services
Offering the right amount of services can be difficult for a company but it is highly lucrative to the success of a said company. On one hand, they increase revenue and reduce churn rates whereas on the other hand they reduce margin and increase deployment time and cost of sales.
Commit to the success of your customer
One of the most important things to remember when growing a software service company is to sign new customers as well as commit to grow and secure its recurring revenue from previously signed customers. To accomplish this, the company must be monitoring its customer’s usage levels continuously as well as send them customer satisfaction surveys and product updates among other things.
These are just a few of the major points to remember when you are trying to build a successful and profitable software service company. Along with these, you will find that you discover things that work for your company and your specific product and what does not.
Are you ready to develop your App?
Click here and schedule a meeting
Scio provides end-to-end engineering services in a collaborative partnership to ensure that your team is an integral part of the solutions you require. We can offer a wide range of skills to make up a team that you can depend on – and work with directly. And when you need something more – we’re flexible. From helping to assess your needs to developing, implementing and maintaining solutions, we can offer as much or as little help as you need. Our teams can work with you virtually or on your site – but most companies need some type of combination of the two and we’re more than happy to find that blend too. If you think that sounds interesting – Contact Us. We’re ready.
Agile Methodology, Nearshore, Outsourced Engineering Team
Software development projects use different types of software development life cycle (SDLC) methodologies, depending on their nature and requirements. They basically define the way that software development work is organized.
The two main approaches are the traditional or waterfall method and the agile software development method. How are they different from each other and which one should you choose for your project?
First, we want to define each methodology:
According to Wikipedia «the traditional methodology or waterfall is a sequential development approach, in which development is seen as flowing steadily downwards through several phases»
On the other hand, Agile methodology is defined as a way of building software through incremental, iterative work cadences, known as sprints. «The highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software» – Agile Manifesto
Comparison between Agile and Traditional Software Development Methodologies
-
Software Development Lifecycles
One main difference between the traditional and agile methodologies is the sequence of the phases in which the software development project is completed.
The traditional method uses a linear approach where the stages of the software development process must be completed in sequential order. This means that a stage must be completed before the next one begins. These stages usually comprise the following:
- Requirements gathering and documentation
- System design
- Code and unit testing
- System testing
- User acceptance testing
- Bug fixes
- Product delivery
On the other hand, the agile methodology uses an iterative and team-based approach. Its main objective is to quickly deliver the application with complete and functional components. Instead of completing the software development tasks in sequence, they are completed in sprints that run from around 1 to 4 weeks and where a list of deliverables is completed in each sprint. The tasks that do not get completed within the sprint are then reprioritized and included in future sprints. This also means that the different stages of the software development life cycle can be revisited as needed.
The agile software development method uses an iterative and team-based approach
The typical agile development lifecycle involves the following phases:
- Requirements
- Plan
- Design
- Develop
- Release
- Track and Monitor
With the traditional method, the details of the entire project have been visualized and defined before the project starts. In contrast, the agile methodology allows for more flexibility in that changes can more easily be made even after the project starts.
It is best employed if the scope of the project cannot be clearly defined in advance. This also means that making unplanned software development changes with the traditional method is costlier than with agile.
Customers are highly involved in the early stages of the software development process when employing the traditional methodology. More specifically, their input is needed during the requirements gathering phase, as they must provide a detailed description of what their requirements are with regards to the software application to be developed and how they envision it to function.
However, they have limited involvement after the software development process starts, aside from attending status meetings, doing reviews, and providing approvals. They usually get to see the product in its entirety after a software development life cycle is completed.
The agile software development method requires more customer involvement
In contrast, the customers are highly involved in every stage when employing the agile development process. They can review the application at every phase and make suggestions for improvement.
As a result, the customers are more engaged in the entire software development process, in turn ensuring that they are satisfied with the finished product.
The traditional method has more formal documentation and review process than the agile approach. Each phase of the development process is properly documented and reviewed when using the traditional approach.
On the other hand, due to the quick delivery time required with the agile method, changes are usually made directly on the code, with the developers just adding comments and annotations. This doesn’t mean that documentation is not an important part of agile software development projects.
Documentation in agile is typically seen as a strategic part of the development process, where all that is written has a purpose. It is a simplified document with executable specifications and stable concepts.
Which software development method should you choose?
When choosing the methodology most suitable for your software development project, some of the things you should consider are:
- The speed of completion.
- The size of the system.
- The level of collaboration and interaction that is possible among the software development team members.
In particular, if you need to quickly release a basic product that you can later build on and add more features too, then the agile methodology may be more appropriate for your project. It works best if you have a startup, which means that you have limited resources but need a basic software application to get your business up and running. Likewise, this approach is suitable for small-to-medium-sized software applications.
On the other hand, the traditional method is better suited for projects in large enterprises where the specifications and requirements must be clearly defined before the project commences. Although the project may be divided into smaller components, each of which is developed with the agile approach, this comes with the risk that the individual components may not be compatible with each other once they are integrated to complete the final product.
Finally, the agile software development method requires a high level of collaboration among the stakeholders involved where each stakeholder must be readily available for input or feedback. In this regard, if you’re working with various groups (software developers, vendors, testers, customers, and others) that do not work in a single physical location or that may have limited availability, then the traditional approach may be the better option for you.
Agile vs Traditional
Both traditional and agile software development methods have their own advantages and disadvantages.
However, whenever feasible, the agile approach should be considered, as it provides more benefits, especially for startups. It enables a complete functional software application to be released faster. It is also more cost-effective, as making changes is less costly than with the traditional approach. Budgets can also be determined on a per-sprint rather than a per-project basis.
Moreover, because the customer is highly involved and changes are constantly made to the application, a higher quality of work is achieved.
With the use of technologies such as webcams, VoIP, and others, a high level of interaction is still possible even among remote teams. In this regard, this collaborative nature of agile fosters trusts between the customer and the software development team.
In summary, the software development method most appropriate for your project will depend on factors such as schedule, cost, quality, and the other resources available to the project. As such, it should be the first decision that you and your software development team make.
By organizing the different stages of your project efficiently, you can better ensure its successful completion — that is, a project that is developed on time, within budget, and where the customers are happy.
Want to start building your next software idea? Want to give it a shot on the Agile methodology? Contact us we have been working with this methodology for more than 8 years now. So, let us know how we can be helpful to you. We love to help!
Agile Methodology, Customer Experience, Nearshore, Product Development, Project Management
Technical Best Practices
Building on the discussion of distributed agile-scrum teams in software development we started in the first post in this series, in this post we will discuss some of the principle technical best practices our team at Scio has found to be beneficial for distributed agile teams.
Communications for Distributed Agile Teams
One of the most important areas to consider technically is the use of flexible instant messaging platforms. While these platforms cannot fully replace face-to-face interaction in all cases (especially for first-time encounters), they can go a long way toward building the trust and open relationships that are expected in an agile environment. They must be flexible enough to adapt to a wide range of network speeds and requirements while providing text chat, file transfer, desktop/app share, voice, and video interaction. This requires an understanding of the available bandwidth at each location included in the project, technical constraints of the end user environment, and fallbacks that can be used when the normal application doesn’t function correctly for some reason. Messaging tools must be as «transparent» as possible – not creating extra overhead for ad-hoc meetings that are necessary to iron out important details on the fly, while still providing some extra tools that smooth interaction in larger meetings like side-channel text chats. It may seem trivial to simply adopt one of the many tools available for the purpose, but in practice, finding something that can be widely adopted and quickly brought into daily use is more challenging than you might think. Issues to consider include:
- Messaging security – Some industries (such as health care) and some projects may require security over and above that provided by the messaging application itself.
- Standards – Special situations may require some standards or rules of the road for users and in a lot of cases, enforced rules may be the easiest route to providing compliance for issues like branding, copyright, and industry compliance. This can be especially important when desktop sharing is used – are there areas in users systems that should not be shared for some reason?
- Special needs users – Are there users on the team that require or could benefit from voice to text (rather than keyboard) interaction? Is video easier for some users? It is better to find a platform that provides options for special needs rather than trying to build in workarounds after the fact.
- Availability – There is nothing worse than a messaging system no one takes seriously. If it needs to be tucked away, if it is only used when «planned for,» if there is no response when it is needed to answer a critical question, it is just another bit of project overhead and not a useful communication tool. If everyone does not adopt the same tool – much the same is true. This is really not a technical issue, it is more organizational in nature, but it is a waste of time to implement a special system no one is using. Make it part of the agreements in the project kickoff – and use it.
And one additional tool that is indispensable for communications – a camera. It can be as simple as using a smartphone, but having a way to capture white boards, project artifacts and even selfies of team members can be invaluable to bring everyone to the «same page» quickly and to act as a project memory in future interactions or to bring missing members up to speed. It seems like a small point, but if you only think of photos after the fact – it will be too late.
Project Management, Testing and Source Control
Deciding on the project management tools to be used (or not used) during the initial planning session is critical to success. The actual tool used may depend on the standards adopted by the client team before the project starts or they may depend on the type of project involved. Regardless, they must be network-based (so everyone sees the same project status without forcing updates), agile-scrum aware (backlog, burndown charts, etc.), and easy to adopt without a great deal of unnecessary overhead. Another point to consider – can individuals take responsibility for stories and status transparently? Can they update their status as a part of their regular work? For this reason, we use the Team Foundation Server as an integrated part of our Visual Studio environment as a standard. It has agile templates built in and allows individuals to manage their work as part of their development environment. No jumping out to another application. Of course, that said, we do adapt Trello for shorter projects and smaller teams. The right tool for the job is always important to consider.
Today, testing automation, continuous integration, and standardized configuration management are not just good ideas, they should be standard for every project. That said, access and availability for members of a distributed agile team is an important technical hurdle to solve immediately at the start of the project. Along with rules (more on that in the next article in this series) to push early and often rather than «once in a while» it is a critical element of any team environment – especially for distributed teams. It is not something you can easily back into «when you decide it is needed.» It requires consideration for implementation, training and the processes that will be used. Again, this is a subject to be fully discussed in the project kickoff, regardless of who is implementing and using the systems. A single code repository with logging enforced will go a long way toward understanding clearly where the team is and what is really complete at any stage. Again, this isn’t just a best practice for distributed agile teams – all development teams should be regularly using these tools so there is little to no time required to reach productivity with them.
One more thing? Clocks on the wall, for each part of the distributed team, with labels. It seems simple – but when you need to reach someone before they leave for the day – it can make all the difference.
Wiki?
It might seem trivial, but a networked team wiki with space for sharing assets, current status (including builds, etc.), coming meetings, etc. can make all the difference to both communication and «personalizing» interactions between team members. A project wiki can include:
- Project wiki with procedures, contact lists, learning during development, editable spring plans, project artifacts (photos, documents) both up to date and historical.
- Team member profiles with photos, fun facts, recent changes, etc.
- Photos and notes from casual and social team meetings (games, lunches, etc.)
- Hours, holidays by location, agreed core team core hours and days when all team members will be available.
Each individual project may have additional technical issues that have to be considered, but this is the starting point we use to consider the set up for every project. In the next segment of this series, we will consider the organizational issues involved in adapting the agile-scrum framework to distributed agile teams. Stay tuned!
Did you come to the party late? You can find the first article of this series here
Agile Methodology, Customer Experience, Nearshore, Product Development, Project Management
Practices required for distributed teams: Basically Agile (and Scrum!)
The use of the agile methodology in combination with the Scrum framework is a widely accepted industry standard for software development throughout the world. Together the methodologies provide an iterative and collaborative system that has been proven to be adaptable and resilient over a wide range of implementations by teams in the industry.
What makes the combination of these methodologies so attractive and useful in the development of software?
- An adaptable framework for iterative software development that provides the customer working software for evaluation in regular, short increments.
- The ability to deal with incomplete or fluctuating product development concepts during the process of development in a way that allows discovery and adjustment as needed.
- The project team includes formal roles and responsibilities for both the client, development team and each individual in decision making during the development process.
- The inclusion of systems for communication, trust, and collaboration across the entire product development team.
- Recognition that the availability of team members for consultation during core working hours is critical to the iterative production process to assure alignment and to allow adjustment as needed.
- The production process includes regular daily meetings, as well as meetings for production assessment and planning that are focused on understanding the status of committed work, clearing production obstacles, and making adjustments where necessary to achieve goals the team has committed to accomplish.
- Outcomes that have proven to be beneficial to both the client and the development team in the development of successful software applications.
Of course, if you dig into the implementation details of agile and scrum for software development, you will find a number of additional benefits. Each team and project can and does adapt the processes within the framework to fit the constraints of their situation. But with the focus on real-time collaboration and face-to-face interaction, what happens when circumstances combine to require the use of agile and scrum across a team that is distributed across geography? Can the agile-scrum framework be adapted to a distributed team? That is the focus of this five-part series – Best Practices for Distributed Agile Teams.
Adapting Agile & Scrum to a Distributed Team
With the availability of broadband network access across the Internet, as well as the benefits and pressures provided by a global marketplace and workforce – it is critical that the benefits of the agile – scrum framework can be both adapted and scaled to provide their benefits to distributed teams. For the purposes of this series, we will consider any team that has members who are not physically in the same location during core working hours, they are distributed. That could mean the team is spread across a metropolitan area where colocation is both time-consuming and expensive or the team is spread across a wider area – across states or national borders.
The business advantages of opening horizons for software development by distributed teams are relatively obvious:
- A distributed model brings a wider field of skills and expertise into play, often with lower costs.
- Varied experience in both technology and problem-solving can bring more answers to the table with a lower cost of recruitment and faster fulfillment of specialized requirements
- Entire teams can be sourced with less time, training and deeper experience in leveraging agile-scrum for software and product development.
The scenarios for distributed development can include:
- Development team together in a development center with
- Client in a different location, same time zone
- Client in different location and time zone
- Split development team
- The development team is split between locations or combined with a client team in another location or both
- Same time zones or different time zones
- Various combinations – split client team, outside consultants, single team members remotely located
Continuity is Key
Regardless of where the client is, adaption to a distributed agile – scrum model is critical to ensure the involvement of key stakeholders, development and product teams and to achieve the benefits of the framework in projects. In fact, at Scio, we have found that consideration and inclusion of the practices required for distributed teams are critical to all our software development projects – whether they are considered to be «distributed» or not. We have found:
- Using the practices required for distributed teams provides a more scalable base for all software development teams.
- If distributed team practices are not in the standard agile repertoire:
- New projects that require a distributed team have a longer ramp to productivity because team members have to adapt to new tools and practices.
- Projects face a higher risk because situational adaptions selected by teams may not be proven and optimal.
- Teams may have to spend many cycles dealing with organizational issues to reach full productivity.
So, from our experience – adaptations of the agile-scrum methodology and framework to allow a distributed team environment is just good practice. They bring many benefits, including better communication, formalized technical environments, and organizational adaptions. They are a critical part of our work environment and our commitment to our clients.
During the following four parts of this series, we will explore some of the best practices Scio has found to be beneficial for distributed teams and some of the myths that we find are common when the idea is considered by organizations. We hope you will stay with us because there is a lot to know about leveraging a distributed team environment successfully for software development.
Agile Methodology, Customer Experience, Nearshore, Project Management, Successful Outsourcing
First, let me say this is not an article for budding sociologists or business leaders who think that the last 20 years of increased person-to-person connectivity across the world, with the Internet, social media, entertainment and globalization, have broken down the differences in cultures across the world. The world has changed to be sure, but not on the scale you might imagine. People across the world still see things differently and interact based on their point of view, and that is as true in business as it is in international politics.
Culture actually takes a long time to change, whether we are considering an established business or even more so, a country or region. Studies have shown that the recent growth in communications across the world has only added to the social stereotypes we have to cut through to understand individuals from other cultures. And this is not to say that everyone within a culture will have the same values and drivers. While sociological texts provide many comparisons between cultures, they are at best, a general understanding of the expectations of people inside a society and how they interact with each other.
But at a business level, for a company wanting to outsource software development, what does this really mean? Why should you care? Software development is just a form of work and technology is pretty ubiquitous in the modern world. If people have the skills and experience to do the work wherever they are located, do their cultural values matter?
To investigate this question, let’s imagine a scenario that we (as an nearshore outsourcing vendor in Mexico, serving clients in North America) can relate to. You are starting a project with an agile software development team located in the central area of Mexico. Your team is located in the US Plains region. You might assume that because Mexico is just south of the border – they would know a lot about your culture – and you would be right. People in Mexico and the US consume a very similar range of entertainment and consumer goods and they cross borders in both directions for vacations and visiting their families. But does that fill in the gaps in understanding generated by sensational news reports and differing political agendas on each side?
Sadly, no. Although people in the US visit Mexico in increasing numbers every year, their destinations tend to be resort enclaves like Cancun. Unfortunately, those locations have more in common with the US than Mexico – with good reason. They are intended to make a US and international traveling public comfortable during their stay in another country, not confront them with challenges of language or culture.
On the other side of the coin, people in Mexico generally have relatives in the US and many have visited at different times, outside of the vacation areas like Disneyland. They have a good general understanding of US society, but in most cases, from an outsider’s point of view, even if they have been a resident of the US for an extended period of time. So, while people in Mexico have a fairly good understanding of US social interactions, it may not translate to an easy transition to a working team without some additional understanding and work on both sides.
To understand the differences between the two cultures, take a look at a comparison between the US and Mexico as outlined by studies done by the Hofstede Center.
Hofstede measures cultures based on six areas (adapted from the descriptions provided by the center) :
- Power Distance – The degree to which the less powerful members of a society accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. The fundamental issue here is how society handles inequalities among people. People in societies exhibiting a large degree of Power Distance accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. In societies with low Power Distance, people strive to equalize the distribution of power and demand justification for inequalities of power.
- Individualism – The high side can be defined as a preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of only themselves and their immediate families. Its opposite, collectivism, represents a preference for a tightly-knit framework in society in which individuals can expect their relatives or members of a particular in-group to look after them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. A society’s position on this dimension is reflected in whether people’s self-image is defined in terms of “I” or “we.”
- Masculinity – The high side represents a preference in society for achievement, heroism, assertiveness and material rewards for success. Society at large is more competitive. Its opposite, femininity, stands for a preference for cooperation, modesty, caring for the weak and quality of life. Society at large is more consensus-oriented. In the business context, Masculinity versus Femininity is sometimes also related to as «tough versus tender» cultures.
- Uncertainty Avoidance – Expresses the degree to which the members of a society feel uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity. The fundamental issue here is how a society deals with the fact that the future can never be known: should we try to control the future or just let it happen? Countries exhibiting strong UAI maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. Weak UAI societies maintain a more relaxed attitude in which practice counts more than principles.
- Long Term Orientation – Every society has to maintain some links with its own past while dealing with the challenges of the present and the future. Societies prioritize these two existential goals differently. Societies who score low on this dimension, for example, prefer to maintain time-honoured traditions and norms while viewing societal change with suspicion. Those with a culture which scores high, on the other hand, take a more pragmatic approach: they encourage thrift and efforts in modern education as a way to prepare for the future.
- Indulgence – On the high side, societies allow relatively free gratification of basic and natural human drives related to enjoying life and having fun. Restraint stands for a society that suppresses gratification of needs and regulates it by means of strict social norms.
From the comparisons generated by the surveys behind the studies, You can begin to see some basic differences between the expectations of people in the US versus Mexico:
- People in the US are generally less accepting of inequality in their interactions than people in Mexico. Business and organizations in Mexico tend to be more hierarchical and less accepting of «flat» organizational structures.
- In line with their lower acceptance of inequality, people in the US have a higher level of individuality. In Mexico, although this dimension is changing rapidly and different among segments of the population, individuality is less evident.
- In areas of masculinity versus femininity, the two countries are very similar, but Mexico is slightly higher. This shows in a what to outsiders may find to be a surprising amount of competitiveness between individuals and in business within Mexico.
- Mexicans have a high propensity for avoiding uncertainty in comparison to people in the US. This plays out in less propensity for risk and higher reliance on pragmatic solutions.
- People in the US and Mexico have very little difference in their orientation to long-term versus short-term goals. Both societies generally favor conservative goals.
- In contrast to the difference between the two societies’ individualism, Mexico is much higher on the scale of indulgence than the US.
Understanding these basic differences however, doesn’t tell you a lot about how a team of individuals might deal with a business situation. If you imagine a situation when the Mexican team is faced with working over the Christmas holidays to meet a deadline – you might expect some strong push-back because of long-term family traditions and expectations. But you could also expect that in the end, the team would go along with the need because of the value of having work and stability over the long term. But, if you didn’t understand underlying cultural expectations, could you also provide enough incentive to ensure production would not suffer during the period? You could generally expect that some special indulgences for the team would help, but what would really drive them?
Dealing with a specific problem requires more than a general understanding of a team’s cultural distance from your society. There are many layers of the cultural onion, including at a minimum societal, business, and individual levels, that impact the way a team interacts. Almost no one in business today has the time or resources to do the work required to really do a «deep dive» into comparative cultures to find a perfect match for their project. It is important to know we have cultural differences between us when we start a project, but from a pragmatic point of view, it is more important to know how to bridge them than to find «someone just right.»
Bridging the cultural divides goes back to best practices in starting all outsourced projects with remote teams – the initial period of team formation and alignment. Getting teams together, face-to-face, is critical to breaking down barriers and creating an atmosphere where cultural understanding can grow. You can’t expect either side of a team to change their own cultural profile, but you can put them in situations where their awareness of cultural norms within the team is improved and their ability to work together improves. Direct communication and interaction, in both work and casual situations, opens up opportunities to remove stereotypes and replace them with real, dimensional understandings of individuals.
In the end, the simple fact is that there are cultural differences between teams, even in the same company and in the same region. The cultural studies available should simply reinforce that understanding and the importance of dealing with them, not drive you away from using outside teams. You cannot use studies that give you only a general understanding of society to understand a specific team, although they may help you understand where to start.
From that point of view, if you are interested in finding an outsourced team, vendors that understand cultural dimensions and have ways to deal with them from the outset are going to be your best bet. Particularly in agile or DevOps implementations, trust and understanding are among the most important parts of team formation. Scio provides outsourced development teams to our nearshore clients in North America, with the elements necessary to ensure success, including team building approaches to fit your specific situation and assignment. Our teams have less geographical distance and more working-hour overlap than offshore providers which lowers the issues that new teams have to deal with at the outset. We would be glad to discuss your next project and how we can help.
Now we would be happy if you could help us share this page on your social networks so that we can reach more people who need help in these areas or are looking for a software development partner. All you need to do is click on one of the buttons below. Thank you very much!
