All posts by Matthias Jouan

About Matthias Jouan

project manager and software developer

#NoOthers interactions

The classical interaction between people supposed to work together on a product (marketing, product management, software development management, developers, designers, etc.) is driven by requirements. The usual (implicit) process is then

  1. I identify a problem I need to solve for doing my job (better)
  2. I identify things I would need to solve this problem
  3. I identify people around me who could provide me the things I need
  4. I require them – namely the others –  to give me those things. Depending on my hierarchical position this part could be more or less easy…
  5. I collect others’interpretation of what I required
  6. I try to solve my problem with those things, and blame the others for not giving me what I required

Typical things I might require here are precise specifications, prioritized user stories, overall goal, estimates, cost, deadline, etc.

The main concern with this approach is inherent in the concept of others :

  • although I might think I know what I need, my understanding is limited to the things I know, to my own domain, and thus I might not be aware of what others know.
  • others are not very likely to understand what exactly I need, leading to a very incomplete solution.

My suggestion is to turn this interaction process upside-down :

  1. I identify a problem I need to solve for doing my job (better)
  2. I publicly expose my problem to the team : no others here
  3. Some of my teammates propose me things they can give me that would be relevant to solve my problem, according to their own knowledge and their own domain
  4. I collect what my teammates gave me
  5. I try to use those things to solve my problem, and improve collectively to a solution.

Some benefits of using this approach :

  • My teammates understand my job better
  • Non-obvious solutions might emerge
  • Nobody feels like they are working for nothing, or losing their time

A very naive example now, to make things clearer : My job consists in hammering nails. For each kind of claw there is a kind of hammer that I get from my blacksmith. One day I am facing big difficulties with a new kind of claw.

  • Classical interaction : I go to my blacksmith’s and ask him to make a bigger hammer.
  • No-others interaction : I go to my blacksmith’s and show him the new kind of claw. He suggests me to use a screwdriver!

Of course this is all very theoretical, so any comments would be appreciated.

#NoOthers and #NoEstimates

Yesterday I promised to give some concrete examples related to what I call #NoOthers. The first one will be #NoEstimates.

What #NoEstimates should/could be

Example #1

Product Manager : “We have plenty of things to do on the product. There are many new features to add and there are also a couple of really embarrassing defects that we should address too. I need to know how long each of those things is going to take so that I can balance defects with new features in the schedule.”
Dev#1 : “Well…It ain’t easy to estimate bug fixing time before we get into it. As far as I can tell right now no bug solving ever took more than 3 days, but we can do some stats if you really need to make accurate forecasting.”
Dev#2 : “The thing is that we are not confident at all with the estimates we give you. For the smaller things we can have some interesting enough statistics based on what we already did in the past…but for user stories like foo or bar the scope is way too big.”
Product Manager : “I understand that you can’t give me accurate estimates…but I really need to know  when we are going to start working on baz. At least sales people need to know.”
Dev#2 : “We can try to split foo and bar into smaller user stories so that they can fit into the stats we have, but maybe we could just consider working on baz right now if it’s that important?”

Example #2

Customer : “I need to know how much it will cost me to have this product, and when it will be done.”
Project Manager : “Of course. But allow me to suggest that maybe your real need is not the one you think.”
Customer : “What do you mean?”
Project Manager : “Well, as far as I understand the product you want to build, you definitely need to get to the market as soon as possible.”
Customer :  “Who needs not?”
Project Manager : “Yes. So let’s first try to focus on a core set of features that will allow you to get to the market quickly. We really want to extract the features that compose the very minimum product here. Then we could improve the product by adding the other features as described in the specs…or other features if needed. Does it make sense to you? ”
Customer : “It totally makes sense…but I still don’t see how much it will cost us in the end.”
Project Manager : “It will cost you the amount of money you want to put into it! Of course for the minimum product we will provide you some kind of cost estimate after breaking the selected features into small pieces of work, but for the rest you will be able to stop when you want to.”

What #NoEstimates sometimes is / How it is perceived

Product Manager : “We have plenty of things to do on the product. There are many new features to add and there are also a couple of really embarrassing defects that we should address too. I need to know how long each of those things is going to take so that I can balance defects with new features in the schedule.”
Dev#1 : (thinking) He wants estimates, let’s give him estimates! Maybe he wants some random numbers to fill in a lottery ticket after all “No more than two days for each of these bugs IMO. foo is pretty big : I think of 7 or 8 days of work. bar looks easier so I think it won’t take long.”
Dev#2 : “Not sure about bar : nobody has touched this part of the product  for a while. I don’t think we can estimate that upfront… Hmm… What is the real purpose of this story again?”
Product Manager(thinking) Here we go again! NoEstimate bullshit! She doesn’t want to commit herself with an estimate and will argue about the purpose of every single piece of user story “Come on! You guys are incredible…”

No Others

I must admit those (almost) fictional pieces of dialog are a bit cliché, but they outline a key difference between what #NoEstimates is and how it is often perceived :

  • #NoEstimates is a hashtag that gathers people who want to try and find an alternative to using estimates as a tool. It really is a #NoOthers concept in the sense that we need to understand everybody’s needs to find the best suited tool / way of working together (and we think that estimates might not be that tool).
  • #NoEstimates is perceived as a rebellious community of developers – others – who do not want, or who simply can’t, understand what business people – us – need.
  • #NoEstimates can be used as a banner to wave in front of product/project/whatever managers – others – who do not, or simply can’t,  understand what dev people – us - need.


More will come on this subject…

No Others

L’enfer, c’est les autres (Hell is other people)
Huis clos, Jean-Paul Sartre

Silos. Much have been written about them for years, DevOps has made its way, and I’m sure you are familiar with the whole break-down-the-silos thing as we have been hearing about during the last decade.

Yet silos still exist. Why?

Because there are others.

Others. They don’t know us. They don’t know our job. They don’t know what we need to do our job well. They don’t quite seem to even bother trying to understand us. They are selfish and self-centered. They sometimes want to force us do our job in a certain way that is unnatural to us. They don’t want to help us. They basically don’t understand us at all…I’m sure you are thinking of some particular others right now.

The very notion of others implies a conflict of some sort between them and us. But ask yourself : Are others the cause of the conflict or does the concept of others arise as a consequence of this conflict ?

My opinion is that there should be no others.

Others only exist because we choose to solve problems by accusing each other instead of working together…but this attitude does not solve any problem in the end of the day, and only breaks the team into silos :

  • You are a developer and feel frustrated because you don’t really understand the problems your code is supposed to solve : don’t blame the product owner for not understanding your job. Instead try to work together as a team a figure out a better way to communicate
  • You are a product owner and feel frustrated because you have to deal with new features that have been sold to clients but do not fit well into the product : don’t blame the sales people for not understanding the product. Instead try to work together as a team a figure out a better way to work together
  • You are an IT security engineer and feel frustrated because…
  • You are a project manager and feel frustrated because…

The message I am trying to convey here is basically we are others’ others. When I complain about others not letting me do my job well, or not understanding me, do I even try to understand them? Do I even bother asking what they need to do their job well? Now think about the people you designated as others a couple of paragraphs above…

This little rant is only a beginning. More will come with more concrete examples in the next couple of posts on the subject, but as always feel free to leave a comment below or share your opinions on this subject on twitter.

Losing product vision

Developers, and I am no exception, usually complain that product management people lose product vision. They are often tempted to fill the product with a bunch of “useless” features which dilute the real purpose of the product, the main job of it. And since one of the most unpleasant thing of a developer is not understanding the reason why a feature should be added, this often causes endless arguments and create a real barrier between us and them.

Now let me tell you a story that happened yesterday.

A teammate and I were were talking about making coffee. As both him and I own a single serving coffee maker at home, we always experience huge difficulties when we have to make coffee with the regular coffeemaker that we share at work. When I first had to use the machine three weeks ago, I had not touched a regular coffeemaker in the past four years. I didn’t know the proportions of coffee and water to put in the machine and the result was…spectacular.

During our conversation we came to think about a product. We had a clear problem to solve : measuring the volume of coffee to put in the coffeemaker. Instead of using a traditional measuring spoon, which would only partially solve our problem (we would still have to know how many spoonfuls to use), we quickly designed a kind of 10-cups measuring bowl :

10-cups measuring bowl

We had a product vision, a problem to solve, a job-to-be-done, or whatever you call it…and then the conversation continued. Within about 2 minutes our simple, easy-to-use, problem-solving, user-focused product was looking like this :


The new product was much more complete and full of really cool features : voice command interface, measures both water and coffee, can deal with more of less strong coffee, can make coffee for any number of cups, changes used coffee filters, washes the coffee pot, etc. But what was the problem we were trying to solve yet? Clearly we had lost our product vision.

Quickly designing a product is easy. Making it evolve in a consistent and coherent way is much harder, and it’s everyone’s job in the team to try and stay focused on the main problems the product is meant to solve. Because losing this focus is also very easy, we must work together on the product, not against each other like we often do.

Indian Planning Poker

When I first heard of estimating work items – let’s call them stories – with Story Points I was like “WOW!! That’s amazing!! No more question about how long it will take! Just estimating the relative effort, it really is a good idea!

Then I discovered Planning Poker, and again was amazed by how it can solve Asshole Driven Development issues (me being the asshole most of the time). I immediately decided to apply it with the team I was in charge of. We did ONE session, and everybody agreed that we were wasting our time. Yet we learnt a couple of things then:

  • We could easily treat small stories, the ones worth 1 or 2 points
  • We could not easily decide about big stories, and almost always decided to break them into smaller stories

All around the Web you’ll see that people recommend not to use the bigger cards of your planning poker deck, and to only keep the 1/2, 1, 2, 3 ones or so.

So we decided to give a try to T-shirt-size estimates, which was basically like keeping only 3 cards in our deck : S, M and L. We did ONE session, and everybody agreed that we were wasting out time. Yet we learnt a couple of things then:

  • We could easily treat small stories, the S-sized ones
  • We could not easily decide about big stories, and almost always decided to break them into smaller stories

Now here is the thing : we had a product to build and we wanted to now how long it would take to build some of the pieces of it (we are not discussing why here). We realized that we could not give any (accurate) estimate to answer that very question unless the pieces were small enough.

So we decided to always work on small-enough pieces of work. Obvious.

Now if for some reason you believe that you need estimates, what you can try with your team, during your next Sprint Planning Meeting, is a session of Indian Planning Poker. You actually only need one card in your Planning Poker hand: the thumbs-up card. Stick the thumbs-up card on your forehead if the story is small enough, or as small as usual, and not if not…and tell me about the results.

Post-Agile : Software Development As A Service

Maybe a new way of working for post-agile organisations

I wrote most of this article long ago but decided to keep it as a draft until recently. I actually thought that was more of an utopia than of a real, possible thing…but this changed after I watched Neil Killick’s talk on #NoEstimates.

I’ve been practicing software development in a Kanban team for several years now, around a single product. A first observation I want to make here is that current “Agile” way works fine with long-term projects, at least if :

  • you build a stable team
  • you slice the work into small SMALL pieces of work
  • you try to keep the work items of the same size, asking simple questions like “Is this work item as small as usual?”
  • you limit work in progress at every level of your process
  • you get rid of “expert” effort estimates and use historical data, statistics and probabilities instead (possible because you built a stable system thanks to the first 4 points)

When I speak to people working in web agencies or other kinds of software development shops, they often tell me it’s not going to work with small projects, when teams must work on several projects at a time, for several customers. They also tell me about contracting problems : how to be Agile – and what are the benefits of it – when dealing with fixed-scope kind of contracts?

That’s why I’d like to describe my hopes for a post-agile world, hopefully solving the issues above, by describing the kind of practice I’d like to see emerge in the years to come. I call it Software Development As A Service. It goes like this:

  • The team implements some kind of Agile/Lean principles so as to get a stable process, like what I succinctly described above.
  • We consider the team as a whole, a system converting customer money into customer business value at a (statistically) predictable rate.
  • The customer and the shop agree on some sort of Service Level Agreement based on lead time distribution for the given team. Transparency is compulsory here.
  • The contract becomes a fixed-cost contract

So I guess that post-agile really is about customers becoming agile too, and embracing the fact that software development is partly made of uncertainty.

If you have any thought on that, feel free to leave a message here or on twitter.

How good are your estimates?

An Agile iteration often goes like this, whatever the framework you are familiar with:

  • the product owner prioritizes the backlog of work items (features, epic, user stories…)
  • the team gives estimates for the top of the backlog, using story points, ideal time, actual time…
  • the team and the product owner agree on what will be done
  • the team actually does the magic
  • the team shows what has been done, and we compare with what was expected

Among any other thing, we often compare the estimated velocity, the number of story points the team thought they would tackle during the current iteration, with the actual velocity, the number of story points the team actually managed to sweep away.

By doing so we try to learn two things:

  • how fast the team goes
  • how accurate its estimates are

Pretty logical indeed : we compare expectations with what actually happened… but… WAIT A SECOND! What are the facts I am talking about? ESTIMATES? I am trying to calculate the speed of the team relying on the very estimates which I am trying to know the accuracy, and this accuracy cannot be computed otherwise than by comparing with the actual speed of the team!

BAM!!! Your head just blew up! You are a uroboros!

Now the good part, because I know that some of you still have their head rather intact. I hear you say “We don’t need to know how accurate the estimates are, we just need to know that they are always the same, based on the same scale“…and you are absolutely right. If the team always estimates work items the same way, we can easily monitor its velocity.

Now say that our team velocity is 20 story points per sprint. The backlog is full of user stories estimated at 1 or 2 story points, but one of the stories is worth 19 points. What are we going to do with it? We are going to break it into smaller stories : there is too much uncertainty, too much risk with such a big story, even if the team could theoretically handle it. Ideally we would break it into 1-point or 2-point stories, because that’s the kind of story the team is used to working with.

If we go a little further, we will realize that what we really need in order to calculate the team velocity is that every story is almost always of the same size, whatever the size, even if our intuition tells us that the smaller the stories are, the better our calculations will be.

So we stop estimating user stories with story points – or whatever – and ask the team a simple question : is this story small enough? or better is this a standard story?

A the end of each iteration we just count the number of stories done and do our math…welcome to the #NoEstimates world!

Stuffed with tasks

This blog is almost exactly the answer I made to a question from pm.sepent0x on (Best way to divide & assign development work on projects?)

Pent0x is a developer who is being assigned many tasks from various projects at the same time. He does not know how to complete his assigned work in time, particularly when he also has to deal with issues that arise in addition of his regular work. He really believe that there must be a better way to assign tasks than what he experiences – endures.

There is no Holy Grail answer to this question, but let me give you some food for thought:

Issues happen

This is not a real eye-opener, is it? Bugs, issues, defects or whatever you call them should not jeopardize the schedule, at least to a certain extend. Although rework is a loss of time, it happens in every (software) project and should be considered since the beginning. If every people – who are called “resources” in such a case – is stuffed with tasks at 100% capacity, any issue will make it 120%.

My advise here is to identify classes of service based on urgency and criticity, and allow some slack in the system so that the team can expedite important bugs when they happen without killing the schedule.

“[I]ssues [...] you can’t always predict a time frame for”

So what? You cannot crystal-ball predict how long it will take to solve a particular issue : is this really going to change the fact that the issue must be solved? If so then maybe this issue was not that important after all, and some other tasks could have had higher priority.

When running too many projects at the same time, none of them will meet the schedule.

Running too many projects at the same time produces at least two effects:

  • People have to switch between projects. Switching from one task to another is hard. Switching between projects is harder by an order of magnitude. When switching, people lose focus, experience difficulties reminding about the context and basically lose time.
  • People have to deal with too many things at once. The human brain is not multitask. When someone has to work on several work items at the same time, the quality of his work will drop significantly. Not a surprise that making phone calls when driving (at least in France) or chatting with your neighbor in a classroom are forbidden.

My advise here is to limit the amount of work in progress at every level of granularity.

Pushing work

[...]and so most of my tasks that keep getting assigned to me start stacking on top of each other

Giving – pushing – work to someone is easy. When we tell someone to work on a specific task, we can then come back later and blame her for not having finished the assigned work, which is pretty comfortable, isn’t it? But by doing so we blind ourselves : we ignore systemic problems and transform them into personal problems. The PM won’t think “We have a problem with our process : we start too many things without finishing them…” but “This guy is really slow : look at how late he is“.

So my last advise will be : implement a pull system and visualize work. A pull system will make sure that the team “stops starting and starts finishing” (a Kanban adage, I can’t remember who said it first) while visualizing work might trigger some improvements in the way work is processed (“Don’t tell me that we currently have 26 work items at the same time for only 4 people?!”).


I’ve been talking about this before so there will be no surprise : I don’t like dogma-driven thinking in software development (people who know me personally know that it’s also true in politics or any other area).

Tonight I stumbled upon an initiative of Alistair Cockburn : The Oath of Non-Allegiance…and of course I’m in:

I promise not to exclude from consideration any idea based on its source, but to consider ideas across schools and heritages in order to find the ones that best suit the current situation.

I signed the oath of non-allegiance

Now that I have taken oath, I must make a confession : I sometimes exclude from consideration ideas based on their source when the source appears to me as dogmatic. This is a mistake. Extremism is a plague for learning and anti-extremism is definitely an extremism. So let me add this appendix to my oath:

I will not exclude from consideration any idea coming from schools, dogmas and heritages based on the single fact that they come from a heritage, a dogma or a school.