The software development industry seems to be completely in love with excuses! (Sadly enough, it seems that many industries are infected with this poor behavior. Pun intended.)
In software development, when a problem is identified it doesn't take but an instance to pass before someone has an explanation. Maybe drawing rapid conclusions is part of the software development ecosystem. Developing software requires quick decision making. Maybe "quick thinking" has become our primary method of problem solving.
I have seen many of the different problems encountered from software development. Buggy software or quality problems, performance issues, missing features, extra features, months of overtime, changing requirements and moving targets, threats used to squeeze out a little more work, heroics, power plays, re-organizations, firings, and more.
If you work for a company who's products are web based have you ever experienced something that brought down "the site"? At least that is what it is referred to in the Utah area, that is "bringing down the site". Has this happened where you work?
I have seen it happen a few times. The most drastic reactions from bringing down the site have resulting in the CEO calling the developer for an explanation AND the CTO coming down to "see" what the problem really is. It was termed the "blame game". Someone has to be blamed. Maybe the Executives where not looking for someone to blame but instead were offering suggestions from a higher view hoping their perspective could help. Regardless of their unknown intentions the interpretation was that someone had to be blamed.
The blaming resulted in excuses. Excuses such as, "My change brought the site down because of the ridiculous policy that I can't have access to the live databases. I did not know that the tables on live did not have the exact same schema as those on our staging machines", or, "My change brought down live because the design of the system is so complex that there is no way I can manually test all of the possible states the system may enter", or, "The system that you forced us to build upon is very complex and the company has never trained us on its proper use."
So, back to the title of this post.
"Poor Requirements, Poor Coding, Poor Design, Poor Policies, Poor Management, Poor Leadership"
Upon release of a product if it doesn't do what is wanted then the excuse is "poor requirements". It may be true that the requirements were poorly defined. But waiting to the release of the product to discover this is ridiculous. It is ridiculous on the part of management, on part of the customer, and on part of the developer. Historically the suggested solution to this problem has been creating a more formal and controlled requirements process. A more formal process is something management can dictate but apart from large amounts of ceremony have failed to deliver.
I really don't care how long it takes a company to define the requirements for a software product. There are many that love to play in the undefined space of "Big Upfront Requirements". Well, they can play there all they want. It is a situational trap.
I do care that the company was foolish enough to wait until the product is finished to start finding fault with it and to start looking for those to blame. Those responsible for the delivery of a software product should be using that product continuously during it's development. There is no excuse for not doing so. If those concerned say, "The software is too new, too buggy, and won't run long enough to really evaluate it. So we will wait until they make their alpha candidate." Hog wash. First there are formal management techniques of functional decomposition which allows for meaningful incremental development and release of working features. If management wants to put something formal in place, then put in incremental development.
If you think that incremental development is ad hoc, or some type of cowboy approach then you do not understand it. Incremental developer imposes a level of work that waterfall development does it. It requires features to be organized, group by dependency and priority, estimated, and the scheduled by placing them into release queues. What I just described is a lot of work. A lot of work before the first line of code is developed. Notice I did not say the feature was designed at the code level. That is something different that I will talk about at a future date.
Do you see how these complaints of poor this and poor that are just excuses?
I have lightly covered poor requirements. I will touch on poor management. I know that many believe that a manager of developers doesn't have to be a developer. I will agree with this if the manager has the ability to know where the development line is drawn.
I had a manager that had did some programming. Delphi type stuff, some HTML, a few databases designed with a nice GUI DB designer. Those kinds of things. As sophisticated as that is compared to the masses, it is light weight stuff compared to systems level development using multiple processes communicated using shared memory techniques or wiring up a model view controller in such a way as to avoid race conditions. However this manager (director level) assumed that he really understood programming and he would come down and stick his big honking management nose in the developers code. He required developers of 20+ years experience to explain all of their code changes and designs to him for approval. When we faced technical issues he would make design level decisions that were so idiotic that we couldn't believe it. There was a problem with some web servers that were not responding to sent messages. He said to the team, "If the server fails to respond, send the message again. Double pump the message. Triple pump the message. We must be sure the message gets to the server." How utterly ignorant of server side development! Sending more and more messages to a server that is not responding is not the first solution to the problem. Before I go completely insane from remembering these experiences I better get back on topic. We had poor management.
Poor management was our excuse for our problems. Because we had poor management we felt that we couldn't fix the real problems. Those were excuses and we did not allow excuses to stop us from working to the best of our ability. We did not follow his advice of double pumping the messages and we did not tell him how we fixed the problems. We chose to ignore him and do our job. It is hard to ignore a director when your pay raise goes through his office. But we did anyway. I left the team as did others. Soon there was a new director.
Ultimately I realize that I will be plagued with excuses and will be guilty of giving excuses. If you do not have the ability to make a change then you will probably make an excuse.
Surely there are many poor aspects of any software development. They will stay poor until someone realizes how to stop complaining and to start thinking and then doing something about. Just like the example I give of missed requirements. It is not reasonable to have such problems with the knowledge of incremental feature development.
As for the problem with the poor manager/director, the solution is one of communication and trust. That is a large topic. But to make it short either the manager could have learned to communicate his concern for quality at the same time showing that he trusted the developers to deliver, OR, the VP could have communicated with the developers and could have realized that the manager should be replaced, OR some other solution.
If your development process is suffering from something that is poor, then drop a line to us on this blog or on the users group, "http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/digerati-illuminatus/" and we will be glad to offer suggestions. For FREE! But be prepared to give open and honest details about the entire problem and the organization in which the problem lives.