A few years back I got to spend a couple of weeks consulting at a small company involved in the production of smart cards. My team had been brought in by the companyâ€™s management to cast our critical eye over their software development process and provide a report on what we found along with any recommendations on how it could be improved.
The company only had a few developers and while the hardware side of the business seemed to be running pretty smoothly the software side was seriously lacking. To give you some indication of how bad things used to be, they werenâ€™t even using version control for their source code. Effectively when a new customer came on board they would find the most recent and relevant existing customerâ€™s version (stored in a .zip file), copy their version of the system, and then start hacking out a new one just for the new customer.
As you can imagine in a set-up like this, if a bug is found it would need to be fixed in every version and therefore it only gets fixed if a customer noticed and reported it. This led to more divergence. Also as the software usually went in a kiosk the hardware and OS out in the wild was often ancient (Windows 2000 in some cases) .
When I say â€œhow bad things used to beâ€ this was some months before we started our investigation. The company had already brought in a previous consultant to do an â€œAgile Transformationâ€ and they had recognised these issues and made a number of very sensible recommendations, like introducing version control, automated builds, unit testing, more collaboration with the business, etc.
However, we didnâ€™t think they looked too hard at the way the team were actually working and only addressed the low hanging fruit by using whatever they found in their copy of The Agile Transformation Playbookâ„¢, e.g. Scrum. Naturally we werenâ€™t there at the time but through the course of our conversations with the team it became apparent that a cookie-cutter approach had been prescribed despite it being (in our opinion) far too heavyweight for the handful of people in the team.
As the title of this post suggests, and the one choice I found particularly amusing, was the introduction of VSTS (Visual Studio Team Services; rebranded Azure DevOps) and a GitFlow style workflow for the development team. While I applaud the introduction of version control and isolated, repeatable builds to the company, this feels like another heavyweight choice. The fact that they were already using Visual Studio and writing their web service in C# probably means itâ€™s not that surprising if you wanted to pick a Big Iron product.
The real kicker though was the choice of a GitFlow style workflow for the new product team where there were only two developers â€“ one for the front-end and another for the back-end. They were using feature branches and pull requests despite the fact that they were the only people working in their codebase. While the company might have hired another developer at some point in the future they had no immediate plans to to grow the team to any significant size  so there would never be any merge conflicts to resolve in the short to medium term! Their project was a greenfield one to create a configurable product instead of the many one-offs to date, so they had no regressions to worry about at this point either â€“ it was all about learning and building a prototype.
Itâ€™s entirely possible the previous consultant was working on different information to us but there was nothing in our conversations with the team or management that suggested they previously had different goals to what they were asking from us now. Sadly this is all too common an occurrence â€“ a company hires an agile coach or consultant who may know how to handle the transformation from the business end  but they donâ€™t really know the technical side. Adopting an agile mindset requires the XP technical practices too to be successful and so, unless the transformation team really knows its development onions, the practices are going to be rolled out and applied with a cargo cult mentality instead of being taught in a way that the team understands which practices are most pertinent to their situation and why.
In contrast, the plan we put forward was to strip out much of the fat and focus on making it easy to develop something which could be easily demoâ€™d to the stakeholders for rapid feedback. We also proposed putting someone who was â€œmore developer than scrum masterâ€ into the team for a short period so they could really grok the XP practices and see why they matter. (This was something I personally pushed quite hard for because Iâ€™ve seen how this has played out before when youâ€™re not hands-on, see â€œThe Importance of Leading by Exampleâ€.)
 Luckily these kiosks werenâ€™t connected to a network; upgrades were a site visit with a USB stick.
 Sadly there were cultural reasons for this â€“ a topic for another day.
 This is debatable but Iâ€™m trying to be generous here as my expertise is mostly on the technical side of the fence.