Slashdot Mirror
Good Agile — Development Without Deadlines
BigTom writes, "In a recent blog entry Steve Yegge, a developer at Google, writes a fascinating account of life at possibly the coolest development organization in the world. Steve lays out
some of the software development practices that make Google work. Go on, say you are not even a little bit jealous. ;-)" From the article:
- Developers can switch teams and/or projects any time they want, no questions asked; just say the word and the movers will show up the next day to put you in your new office with your new team.
- There aren't very many meetings. I'd say an average developer attends perhaps 3 meetings a week.
- Google has a philosophy of not ever telling developers what to work on, and they take it pretty seriously.
- Google tends not to pre-announce. They really do understand that you can't rush good cooking, you can't rush babies out, and you can't rush software development.
3!? What do they need 3 meetings for?
Where I work, we have an average of about 1. and sonme of us think that that's too many
One thing that helps Google in this regard is that they are insanely profitable, and their software engineers as described in TFA are really more like product development entrepreneurs, so it's easier to set up an incentive-based program like this that puts a huge, juicy carrot in front of the developers to keep them headed in the right direction. I suspect that 99% of the rest of the IT world doesn't have this luxury.
That said, it's a very interesting example to consider. Within the coming months I'll be forming a new application development group, and the mechanisms of determining what we'll be working on and how it will be prioritized are TBD. Good food for thought, here...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
"Developers can switch teams and/or projects any time they want, no questions asked; just say the word and the movers will show up the next day to put you in your new office with your new team."
I work for Google and I can tell you right now that is total horse shit. Google are not so different than my previous employers, Oracle and Microsoft.
If anything, working in Google is worse than Oracle/Microsoft due to the people I work with (brainwashed losers.) They are the type of people who want to join a cult.
Google can do this, and pretty much any company that can set its own time-table can use "Google Agile" methods. But you're limited to just those products where a delay of a few weeks or months isn't a major issue. It's simply not true for every type of software developer out there.
Maybe "Agile" methods aren't the absolute best out there, but there are cases where it's simply not possible to use "Google Agile" methods.
Sure, that sounds wonderful, as long as:
- you're working with intelligent, competent, creative people
- you have an effectively unlimited budget(relative to most other companies)
- you're working for a software-only company which is only successful because of its innovation, not because it has to deliver specific functionality to specific clients
How many of us can say that? Hmm?
It sounds like a dream job, but let's face it: it relies on individual heroics, from everyone, all the time. Now that's fine if everyone working there is far above average, and "individual heroics" means "enough intelligence and maturity to keep a view of the big picture without being whipped with a rolled-up Gantt chart", but it's a recipe for disaster in most other places.
Is this the emerging ivory tower of Google developers? While I'm happy for the guy, most of the blog sounds like "look at me, I'm developing under near-ideal conditions, why isn't everyone else?"
ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
No doubt some consultant will turn the Google model into a salable series of talks and books. Your management will crow about how they are going to adopt the Googleway, where all employees are happy and productive. What could go wrong?
But the PHBs will cherry-pick those aspects of Google's business that suits their preconceived comforts. Remember when we were all supposed to be like the Japanese? Show up for work, sing the company song, use just in time, statistical process control and all the other stuff? Yea, we were just like the Japanese, except for that pesky lifetime employment understanding. We'll just leave that one out - it really isn't important.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
- Google is a company whose success is almost entirely based on innovation
- Innovation comes from intelligent, well-motivated people
- The best way to motivate intelligent people to innovate is to give them total freedom (rewards are just to give them a direction, NOT to motivate them - they are motivated because they love what they do. Try offering rewards for something they don't want to do, and see what happens...)
- Most companies (even software companies) make the majority of their money through churning out the goods, not innovating - Most companies do not have the funds or the original culture to even contemplate the above working practices
- It would be lovely to work for Google.
Personally I'm really glad this article got posted - it's not telling everyone how everyone should work, but it does offer insight into how Google works, and that's valuable insight indeed as long as it's not taken out of context.
Meta will eat itself
Google is not a software development firm, but an ad sales firm (check their 10-K if you have any doubts). It uses software to attract viewers in the same way television networks use programming and magazines use articles. Under this model, it makes sense to give developers a large amount of freedom to develop whatever they want. The final type/quality/status of the software doesn't matter nearly as much as the fact that there are new features appearing on the site from time to time to attract new viewers..er, users... and keep old users. Most of the applications probably won't amount to much, but just like with any media company, you only need one or two big hits a season to keep people coming back.
Google develops a large amount of its content in house in much the same way old movie studios developed all their films in house. For Google, the talent is not actors and directors but developers. Movie studios learned that you treat the talent well to keep them around and Google has taken that lesson to heart. Developers tend to want complete freedom to work on what they want with no deadlines and giving them this is the easiest way to keep them happy. Call it 'good agile development' or whatever else you want, it's really just keeping the talent happy in the hopes that they'll keep developing content to attract users.
Unfortunately, software companies that rely on software or service sales for revenue cannot take this extreme approach to agile development. They need to deliver software on occasion or someone else will replace them in the marketplace. Agile development is still the best way to go, but unbounded development only works if software isn't your primary source of revenue.
-Chris
Er, except for one difference...
Google's making money. Actual real profits. You must be thinking of YouTube or something.
During the 90's, the companies that were being touted as being run by genius management were pretty much not doing anything but helping the manufacturers of $800 office chairs get rich.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Something I want to add about Google's profitability. A lot of people have tried to compare Google to GM, and basically say, "Yeah, you're doing fine, because you're profitable now, wait until you have retirees to take care of like GM did." The difference though, is that, having learned from the 50's, Google isn't making those mistakes. Google will never have massive pension obligations for the very basic reason that Google does not enter into these obligations. When an employee leaves, Google's "debts" with them are already settled in full. If half their current workforce suddenly retired, they'd have to find replacements, but they wouldn't have to scratch their heads about any pension fund.
That's one sign they have a clue what they're doing.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Back in the peak of the Bubble, I worked as a systems engineer for a software development shop. Of course, being a software startup during that period meant having $1000 Aeron chairs for everyone and pool tournaments ever so often, to say nothing of free Friday catered lunches. Then, when the money started to run dry and a few airliners crashed into a couple of buildings, the perks went away and so did my job.
What is interesting, however, is the way similar "perks" are perceived as rewards at Google. If you feel that perks are rightfully yours and must not be sacrificed even in the face of company financial difficulties (feeling "entitled"), then it's hard to make your brain justify working hard for your keep (or harder during particularly difficult times). Whereas if you are working on something for which you have genuine motivations AND have rewards to aim for, then the management has two aces in their deck: An employee's internal motivation (which can be invaluable), and external positive reinforcements. These two characteristics contribute directly to the health of the company both in its balance sheets and in its corporate culture, and that is A Good Thing.
Looking back, it wasn't the exuberance of the Bubble that destroyed it, because the way Google works can seem to be quite exuberant to some code monkey at Chrysler. It was the way that management could not decide (a) how to set business goals, and (b) how to manage its employees. When management forgets how to manage and employees forget how to work, you have a problem on your hands (see the sad saga that was Daikatana).
That's nothing. At my company, we never have any meetings at all, nor any plans. And staff can take holidays whenever they want and work on whatever they want!
We're not making any money yet, but it's only a matter of time! (Fingers crossed!)
I know you're just flamming, but what does 'beta' actually mean? It's just a label on a given version of a piece of software. Would it make you feel better if tomorrow google changed their gmail from 'beta' and put 'production' on the page? That is what most other software companies do. Especially if the product has been up and running successfully as long as gmail has.
In reality most software is either continously developed or it dies. I've worked on numerous software projects and few if any have ever reached a point where no more work was required. Even if you found and fixed every bug (haha), feature requests will continue to come in as people use the software. As soon as bugs/feature request quit coming in most software is essientially dead b/c that means people have quit using it.
Such a model can't succeed without the right type of people: intelligent workers who take pride in the quality of their work and who are self-motivated. And I don't care what company we're talking about -- you're never going to bat anywhere near 1.000 when it comes to hiring people with all three traits. I contend (with no supporting evidence whatsoever, but Yegge doesn't offer much other than anecdotal evidence either) that Yegge is wearing rose-colored glasses and there's either a good segment of the workforce at Google that still needs to be micro-managed or Google is quietly firing 10% of their staff every quarter to keep trimming out the slackers.
Is there any Google app that is truly profitable other than Google Search and Adds?
As you mentioned, with their huge amount of capital, they can afford highly in-efficient project management. I pity the fool who tries to introduce this management style into a smaller organization with budgetary concerns and uncontrollable deadlines. Not that I wouldn't mind working in their environment one bit. Either as a coder, or as a PM.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Considering they don't get paid, probably.
Often I have, and no doubt you have also, heard the phrase "managing programmers/software engineers is like herding cats".
My observation has been, if you are trying to herd cats you are using the wrong management technique.
You herd cattle, not cats.
With cats you put them in the general area of mice and let them do what they are good at. Cattle you herd to the slaughter house.
Most software projects fail due to poor management, then managers don't understand it is not an industrial activity. Most are still managing from that perspective. Software is more like R&D and in reading the description of Google it sounds like they have built a good R&D environment.
I havent't tried XP, but if it gets us away from the rigid factory model of development, more power to it.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Indeed. I think it's so funny that people focus on the "omigosh beta" aspect of Google's software. It's only beta because they don't want you to bother them about it if you can't get it to work for some reason. Is it enough to make you want to keep a backup of your GMail account because you're afraid they might just decide to discontinue the service some day (even though they won't)? Good! You should be doing that anyway, beta or not, Google or not.
Game... blouses.
The terms "rush" and "do quickly" are different.
... if it takes 3 minutes, it takes 3 minutes, not 30 seconds.
Yous till can't rush a stirfry
Its not rushed if its done in the right amount of time, even if that amount of time is short relative to other foods.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)