The daily stand-up mostly went along as usual. I wasnâ€™t entirely sure why there was a stand-up as it wasnâ€™t so much a team as a bunch of people working on the same codebase but with more-or-less individual goals. Applying the microservices analogy to the team you could say we were a bunch of micro-teams â€“ each person largely acting with autonomy rather than striving to work together to achieve a common goal .
But I digress, only slightly. What happened at the stand-up was a brief discussion around the delivery of a feature with the suggestion that it should be hidden behind a feature toggle. The implementer explained that they werenâ€™t going to add a feature toggle because â€œit was a waste of their timeâ€.
This surprised me. Knowing what I do now about how the team operates it isnâ€™t that surprising but at the time I was used to working in teams where every member works towards common goals. One of those common goals is to try and ensure the delivery of features is a continuous flow and is not disrupted by a bad change which then has to be backed out because rolling back has the potential to create all sorts of disruption, not least the delay of those unaffected changes.
You should note that Iâ€™m not disagreeing with their choice of whether or not to use a feature toggle â€“ I did not know anywhere near enough about the change or the system at that time to contribute to that decision. No, what disturbed me was the reason why they chose not to take that approach â€“ that their time is more valuable than that of anyone else in the team, or the business for that matter.
In isolation that paints an unpleasant picture of the individual in question and that simply is not the case. However their choice of words, even if done without real consideration, does appear to reinforce the culture that surrounds them. In essence, with a feeling that the focus is on them and their performance, they are naturally going to behave in a way that favours optimising delivering their own features over that of the team at large.
Another example of favouring a local optimisation over the longer term goal of sustained delivery occurred when I was assigned my first piece of work. This was not so much a story as a couple of epics funded as an entire project (over 4 months solid work in the end). My instinct, after being shown roughly where in the code I needed to dig, was to ask where the existing tests were so that I knew where to add mine. The tech leadâ€™s immediate response was â€œyou wonâ€™t have time to write testsâ€.
My usual response to this statement is a jovially phrased â€œhow will I know if it works then?â€ which often has the effect of opening a line of dialogue around the testing strategy and where itâ€™s heading. Unfortunately this time around it only succeeded in the tech lead launching into a diatribe about how important delivery was, how much the business trusted us to deliver on time, blah, blah, blah, in fact almost everything that a good test suite enables!
Of course I still went ahead and implemented the entire project TDD-style and easily delivered it on time because I knew the approach was sound and the investment was more than worth it. The subsequent enhancements and repaying of some technical debt also became trivial at that point and meant that anyone, not just me, could safely and quickly make changes to that area of code. It also showed how easy it was to add new tests to cover changes to the older parts of the component when required later.
In the end over 10% of unit tests of the entire system had been written by me during that project for a codebase of probably over 1/2 million lines of code. I also added a command line test harness and a regression testing â€œframeworkâ€  in that time too all in an effort to reduce the amount of hoops you needed to go through to diagnose and safely fix any edge cases that showed up later. None of this was rocket science or in the least bit onerous.
I would consider a lack of supporting documentation one further local optimisation too. When only a select few have the knowledge to help support a system you have to continually rely on their help to nurse it through the bad times. This is especially true when the system has enough quirks that the cost of taking the wrong action is quite high (in terms of additional noise). If you need to remember a complex set of conditions and actions youâ€™re going to get it wrong eventually without some form of checklist to work from. Relying on tribal knowledge is a great form of optimisation until core members of the team leave and you unearth the gaping holes in the teamâ€™s knowledge.
Better yet, design away the problems entirely, but thatâ€™s a different can of wormsâ€¦
Project Before Product
I believe this was another example of how â€œprojectsâ€ are detrimental to the development of a complex system. With the team funded by various projects and those projects being used as a very clear division on the task board through swim lanes  it killed the desire to swarm on anything but a production incident because you felt beholden to your specific stakeholders.
For example there were a number of conversations about fixing issues with the system that were slowing down delivery through unreliability that ended with â€œbut whoâ€™s going to pay for that?â€ Although improvements were made they had to be so small as to not really affect the delivery of the project work. Hence the only real choice was to find easier ways to treat the symptoms rather than cure the disease.
Victims of Circumstance
Whenever I bump into this kind of culture my gut instinct is not to assume they are â€œincompetentâ€ people, on the contrary, theyâ€™re clearly intelligent so Iâ€™ll assume they are shaped by their environment. Of course we all have our differences, thatâ€™s what makes diversity so useful, but we have to remember to stop once in a while and reflect on what weâ€™re doing and question whether itâ€™s still the right approach to take. What works for building Fizz Buzz does not work for a real-time, distributed calculation engine. And even if that approach did work once upon a time the world keeps moving on and so now we might be able to do even better.
 Pairing was only something you did when youâ€™d already been stuck for some time, and when the mistake was found you went your separate ways again.
 I say â€œframeworkâ€ because it was really just leveraging a classic technique: a command line tool reading CSV format data which fired requests into a server, the results of which are then diffâ€™d against a known set of results (Golden Master Testing).
 The stand-up was originally run in project order, lead by the PM. Unsurprisingly those not involved in the other projects were rarely engaged in the meeting unless it was their turn to speak.