Tag Archives: Q&A

Agile Organization Incorporating Various Disciplines

I started thinking about this recently because there was an Agile Austin QA SIG meeting that I sadly couldn’t attend entitled “How does a QA manager fit into an Agile organization?” which wondered about how to fit members of other disciplines (in this case QA) in with agile teams. Over the last couple years I’ve tried this, and seen it tried, in several ways with DevOps, QA, Product Management, and other disciplines, and I thought I’d elaborate on the pros and cons of some of these approaches.

Two Fundamental Discoveries

There are two things I’ve learned from this process that are pretty universal in terms of their truth.

1. Conway’s Law is true. To summarize, it states that a product will tend to reflect the structure of the organization that produces it. The corollary is that if your organization has divisions which are of no practical value to the product’s consumer, you will be creating striations within your product that impact client satisfaction. Hence basic ITSM and Agile doctrines on creating teams around owning a service/product.

2. People want to form teams and stay with them. This should be obvious from basic psychology/sociology, but if you set up an organization that is too flexible it strongly degrades the morale of your workers. In my previous role we conducted frequent engineer satisfaction surveys and the most prominent truth drawn from them is the more frequently people are asked to change roles, reorg, move to different teams, the less happy they are. Even people that want to move around to new challenges frequently are happier if they are moving to those new challenges with a team they’ve had an opportunity to move through Tuckman’s stages of group development with.

I have seen enough real-world quantified proof of both of these assertions that I will treat them as assumptions going forward.

Organizational Options

We tried out all four of these models within the same organization of high performing engineers and thus had a great opportunity to compare their results.

Separate Teams

When we started, we had the traditional model of separate teams which would hand off work to each other.  “Dev,” “Ops,” “QA,” “Product” were all under separate management up through several levels and operated as independent teams; individual affinities with specific products were emergent and simply matters of convenience (e.g. “Oh, he knows a lot about that BI stuff, let him handle that request”) and not a matter of being dedicated to specific product(s).

Embedded Crossfunctional Service Teams

Our first step away from the pure separate team model was to take those separate teams and embed specific members from them into service oriented teams, while still having them report to a manager or director representing their discipline. In some cases, the disciplinary teams would reserve some number of staff for tool development or other cross-cutting concerns. So QA, for example, had several engineers assigned to each product team, even though they were regarded as part of the permanent QA org primarily.

We (very loosely) considered our approach to be decentralized and microservice based; Martin Fowler is doing a good article in installments on Microservice Architecture if you want more on that topic.

Fully Integrated Service Teams

With our operations staff we went one step farther and simply permanently assigned them to product teams and removed the separate layer of management entirely. Dev and “DevOps” engineers reported to the same engineering manager and were a permanent part of a given product team. Any common tooling needed was created by a separate “platform” engineering team which was similarly integrated.

Project Based Organization

Due to the need to surge effort at times, we also had some organizations that were project, not product, based. Engineers would be pulled either from existing teams or entire teams would additionally be pulled into a short term (1, 2, 3 month) effort to try to make significant headway across multiple products, and then dissolve afterwards.

Hmm, this looks like it’s getting big (and I need to do some diagrams).  I’ll break it up into separate articles for each type of org and its pros and cons, and then a conclusion.


Filed under Agile, DevOps

Scrum for Operations: Order from Chaos

Welcome to the second installment in Scrum for Operations, a series where I talk about (and go through) the process of doing systems work as part of a DevOps team according to the Scrum methodology. Last time, I introduced the basics of Scrum as it generally is used, and its key benefit of frequently delivering useful functionality. But I already hear the objections – “How can that turn out all right?” It is so light on process that one’s initial inclination is to dismiss it as “cowboy coding”, and we already know not to be “cowboy sysadmins,” right? One’s intuition might be (and mine was in the beginning, I’ll be honest) that this would lead to a metastable process that could not be sustainable without fundamental fatal flaws overtaking it.

Well, as I learned after trying to learn more and kicking the tires with our dev team here, there are several core disciplines that are agile’s saving graces.


We ops guys are used to testing being a neglected afterthought in the development process, often tossed over the wall to a QA team that isn’t well integrated into the product. Therefore we have a hard time trusting code that’s being handed over to us given our experience – we get it handed to us and it doesn’t work!

Well, agile pretty much understands that without pervasive testing, this kind of fast cycle process is doomed. At its extreme, some practitioners use Test Driven, aka Test First, development where failing tests must be written first and then code filled in behind it till the test passes. This creates a large inherent test framework.

Even agile groups that don’t do this almost always have metrics on unit test coverage and a required bar devs must hit.  Here, our desktop software group that’s newly using Scrum has the mandate that “there must be XX% unit test code coverage or you’re not ready to ship.”

Similarly, acceptance testing (automated continuous testing of user stories vs the code) is a common part of agile. Continuous ongoing testing ensures quality through the dev cycle and reduces the need for time-intensive, and mysteriously always insufficient, big-cycle regression testing.

This is a great culture. And there’s all kinds of different tests – unit test, integration/functional/regression testing, performance testing, fault testing… Starting to get interesting to you?  How about monitoring? In reality application monitoring is a special case of testing – it’s a “lightweight integration regression test.” Our initial approach to DevOps includes making test coverage goals for things like monitors and performance testing, because that plugs into the existing agile mindset well.

Bonus new terminology thing – the quick acceptance test you do upon release, which we always called “critical path testing,” is now being called “smoke testing” by the hip. Update your dictionaries!

A side note on formal QA groups. Just as we are working on DevOps, there has been previous work on how QA teams interact with agile dev teams, and there are a variety of different doctrines on how to split the work – often, it’s devs that are responsible for a lot of the testing. It’s a hard balance – you want the devs to be responsible for some of the testing because the best testing is “close to the code,” but just like with Ops, a real QA team has expertise beyond what a developer can just bolt in with 10% of their attention. Here, we have a dev team and also a remote QA team; devs test their own code on the daily build and then there’s a weekly push to a more stable environment where the QA team does acceptance testing and is moving into performance testing and the like.

Anyway, this endemic focus on testing and automation of testing and testing metrics is the pin that makes this agile flywheel actually turn without just flying off. (You are correct, some agile teams don’t do this – we call those “the unsuccessful ones.”)

And this is for you to do as well! There’s a whole post or series of posts in the topic “What does a unit test mean for something infrastructurey” – it is incumbent on you to figure it out and also have high test coverage with your work.


In general, agile dev is the epitome of horizon planning. You know you can’t get all the requirements ahead of time (or if you do get them all ahead of time, what you come out with won’t serve any real human’s need) and similarly preplanned architecture and design often doesn’t survive contact with the scrum. So it’s not “don’t plan or design,” but it’s “plan and design in an ongoing manner.”

This is one of the scariest parts for an ops person – we assume that we get one “bite at the apple”, and once we’ve set up the systems and let in the developers, we’ll never be allowed to change anything without a fight.  But developers have this problem internally all the time – one dev is working on a core library or API that other developers are using, and they don’t wait for core guy to get done before they start. Instead, they have adopted a concept they call refactoring. Refactoring just means that each sprint, you are open to redoing fundamental stuff that needs to change (or that you realize you did kinda ghetto in the first place).

Because this is an accepted part of the iterative approach, you get to leverage this as well.First iteration they get the basic Tomcat and mySQL install out of the repo, and they can get started – and then in the second iteration you front it with Apache, or tune the DB for security, or whatnot and they have to make some changes to fit. I’m not promising no one will ever cry about this, but it’s a part of what makes the culture successful so it’s there for you to leverage.

And for you to adhere to! Be open to refactoring your infrastructure based on the emerging project needs.

Source Control

A developer might not even mention this, and most books on agile don’t, because to them it’s so fundamental a discipline that it’s like breathing air. Sadly the same can not be said of Ops folks, so I’m mentioning it. When code is changed, it is in a shared source control repository – which gives other people on the group visibility into it (a collaboration touchpoint), is a common place to source it from (a deployment touchpoint), and can be used to easily manage multiple versions, even experimental ones, and merge or roll back changes.

This is the most fundamental empowering technology of modern software development (not just agile) and you must uptake it immediately or you have lost.  Fair warning. It is the stepping stone that will allow subsequent Cool DevOps Automation to happen.


These three disciplines convert agile/Scrum from dangerous free-for-all to a new technique that gets your product done both more quickly and with higher quality than a waterfall method. I’ll talk further next time about how Ops slots into all this, and how you can fit your systems admin work into a Scrum mindset.

Also note, there’s some other agile disciplines surrounding agile design and encapsulation and patterns and whatnot, which I don’t understand well enough yet to speak authoritatively on. Feel free and chime in with other core disciplines if you are!

Leave a comment

Filed under DevOps

Quora vs StackExchange

As a Web ops guy, I’ve used the Stack Exchange sites, especially Server Fault, a lot.  They’re the best place to go do technical Q&A without having to go immerse yourself in a specific piece of open source software and determine what bizarre way you’re supposed to get support on it (often a crufty forum, mailing list with bizarre culture, or an IRC channel).

However, they have started to, in my opinion, come apart at the seams. They started with the “holy trinity” of Stack Overflow (coders), Server Fault (admins), and Super User (users).  But lately they have expanded their scope to sites for non-techie areas, but have also started to fragment the technical areas.  So now if I have a question, I am confronted with separate communities for Server Fault, Linux & UNIX, Ubuntu, and more. Or even worse, Stack Exchange vs. “Programmers” vs language specific lists. This basically heavily segments the population and leads to the same problems that the weird little insular mailing lists have. It makes me use the SEs a lot less. I don’t want to have to somehow engage with 10 different communities to answer my everyday questions (and I sure as hell am not going to follow 10 to answer questions), so in my opinion they are cannibalizing their success and it will implode of its own weight and become no better than any Internet forum site.

Recently I started seeing tweets about Quora from @scobleizer, and it said stuff like “is it the future of blogging?” and was being pitched as some twitter-blog hybrid which of course caused me to ignore it.  But then it started getting a lot more activity and I thought I’d go check it out.  But if you go to the Quora page, you can’t see anything without logging in.  And of course if you log in with Twitter or Facebook it wants “everything from you and your friends, ever.”  So I wandered off again.

Finally I gave in and went over and logged in, and it’s actually pretty neat – it’s Q&A, like Stack Exchange, but instead of segmentation into different sub-communities, it uses the typical tag/follow/etc. Web 2.0 paradigm. So “Stack Exchange plus Twitter” is probably the best analogy. Now on the one hand that more unmanaged approach runs the risk of becoming like “Yahoo! Answers” – utter crap, full of unanswered questions and spammers and psychos – but on the other hand, I like my topics not being pushed down into little boxes where you can’t get an answer without mastering the arcane rules of that community (like the hateful Cygwin mailing list, where the majority of new posters are chased off with bizarre acronyms telling them they are using email wrong).  The simple addition of up/down voting is 80% of the value of what SE gives over forums, so will that carry the day?

Now maybe it’s because they’re having capacity problems, but the biggest problem with Quora IMO is that you don’t get to see any of it when you go there until you log in and give them access to all your networks and whatnot, which I find obnoxious. But if they fix that, then I think given the harmful direction SE is going, it may be the next big answer for Q&A.


Filed under General