There is a bit of back story require in order for the rest of this to make any kind of sense.....
Our infrastructure and staff have gotten much better over the course of the last year. When I first started on this team, it was as a solo developer attempting to transform a questionable architecture into something resembling sanely designed system. I had some backup and support from the team's lead, Tim Galeckas <@timgaleckas>, and some direction in the most general sense from the companies CTO, but not much more than that. It was one of those projects where the general gist is "Fix it" where "Fix it" is about all the direction you can expect. As one can imagine, the project was a huge time sink with minimal return.
A few months after that project was terminated, the new effort to rebuild the system in RoR got into full swing. We still had issues of course, nothing phoenixing from a process that severely broken can be without defects. As these issues became apparent, changes came to my little world.
The view in the team is now so divergent from the original it is hard to see how one originated from the other. We have a project manager, a user interface designer, four developers, two quality assurance members, and a true to life development manager. There is even a process in place to score, scope, and select stories <tickets, cards, issues> for development in any iteration. All that being said, there are still problems.
Our primary issues, in my opinion, is not the lack of staff, the backlog of stories, the intra-team interaction, or quality assurance backlogs. It is the quality of requirements that the development team receives. I have been converted from the waterfall style development environment that I first worked in to an agile approach, so complaining about story requirements might seem a bit odd. I do not enjoy a feature request that leaves nothing interesting for me to do. When presented with a story that tells me how to technically solve the issue, visually present the results, and what should be tested I sigh. These stories are what turns us into code monkeys and not professionals. This is a fine line to tread, I want enough information so when I deliver a piece of functionality it is complete, does what is supposed to, looks good, and is performant. What I see as our RPM Hell in my development space is stories that look complete, but have hidden requirements or functionality that is only available if you tap the brain of the primary stakeholder.
My current example is with a story about displaying information from a third party system and how it weaves into the current system. The conversation and stories development went something like this.
End consumers of InvestorBridge what to be able to view fund level information.
Great, no problem. What does that mean?
Well the system that we pull information from has a huge data set of fund level information.
Okay, we can already interface with that system so what information do you want?
It is on the story.
That is something I love to hear. To me that means that I can load up the story, read it, and understand what they want. This is almost what happened. Almost. The story told of things like fund level returns and AUMs (Assets Under Management) and the display of these was to follow current displays of account level information of the same type. Outstanding, easy to do, easy to validate, easy to import.
Where everything fell apart was that there happened to be a document attached to the story that contained additional requirements. That is right, the story had an attachment that modified the context of development. In our process attachments are most often images of expected display or test data. I have never before seen attachments as additional requirements. Requirements should be in plain text on the story. This is the standard and what the developers expect. Where this devolved from a process to a cyclic definition followed by more questions is when the list of additional fields broke the current display model. This brought in our UI guy as well as the project manager. Scope creep was inevitable at this point. New views, click paths, and imports were all required after this document was rediscovered.
This brought to light two things
- We, as a team, failed to understand the story and the feature requested
- We, as both a unit and individuals, failed to ask questions that would have mad this apparent
So, how do you know what questions to ask when you don't know that you don't what you don't know? Where to start? Where is my yum for feature requests?
