I'm discussing some engagements with some so-called "Agile" clients. I ask them what they mean by
agile, and they say they work in timeboxes (most of the time), and that they have a ranked list of requirements. And, then they say that when the developers are done, they hand off to the testers at the end of the iteration. They don't understand why the testers can't keep up.
Development isn't the only activity that needs to happen in the timebox. Testing, writing, anything else that you need to get to releaseable product is what has to happen in the timebox. That's why
agile requires cross-functional teams for the entire duration of the timebox. (I would argue for the entire project.)
Here's an example. Say you're working on a medical device. You have development to do, testing, a little documentation, and the requirements traceability matrix to fill in so you have an audit trail. You would need some developers, at least one tester, a writer, and either that team needs to know how to do the paperwork, or you need someone from the process group to work with the team. At the end of the iteration, you have finished features: tested, documented for the user, and documented for an auditor.
You can't do this without a cross-functional team. But too many managers are concerned about wasting people's time. "But the writer isn't busy the entire time. I want people working at 100% capacity!" Here are some arguments against that kind of thinking:
- Do you care more about keeping people busy or releasing the product? If you care more about releasing, it won't matter if people are only partially "utilized." They can either help out or think about how to make the rest of the project work easier for the rest of the project team. When people have a little slack time, they can think about how they work.
- You don't actually know how much time the writer needs to make the documentation correct, or how much time the tester needs to test. People who are not developers are so accustomed to doing the bare minimum (or less), they don't always know what it takes to do a great job.
- People who are not fully "utilized" can provide early feedback to the others in the team, whether that feedback is about the project or the project's process. The team can catch problems early rather than too late.
The cross-functional team optimizes for the project and therefore the product, not the individual. If you are already working in timeboxes, great. If you have a single-function team, add one more function the next iteration. Keep those people there the entire iteration. See what happens. I bet you decide to add any other missing functions for the next iteration.
Don't think you can do
agile with a single-function team. Yes, you can work in timeboxes, which is almost always a great idea. But you aren't getting the advantages of agile with a single-function team. You're still pushing the feedback downstream instead of receiving the feedback right away. Try an integrated, cross-functional team. You may be surprised by how fast you can go--or at least, by knowing earlier that you are not going to be able to meet a release date.
